home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   comp.ai.philosophy      Perhaps we should ask SkyNet about this      59,235 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 59,119 of 59,235   
   dart200 to Richard Damon   
   Re: is the ct-thesis cooked?   
   18 Jan 26 20:30:46   
   
   XPost: comp.theory, comp.software-eng   
   From: user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid   
      
   On 1/18/26 4:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 1/18/26 6:01 PM, dart200 wrote:   
   >> On 1/18/26 2:27 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:   
   >>> On 18/01/2026 21:50, dart200 wrote:   
   >>>> well it was developed to be a general theory of computing, and   
   >>>> apparently modern computing has transcended that theory   
   >>>   
   >>> In what ways is that apparent to you?   
   >>   
   >> modern computing utilized context-dependent functions, whereas turing   
   >> machine computations cannot be context-dependent.   
   >>   
   >> like a simple total stack trace cannot be generally implemented for   
   >> turing machines cause the top level runtime cannot be deduced by the   
   >> computation. there's no mechanism to do that.   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> Note "computing (the field, today)" does not refer to exactly the same   
   >>> relata as "computation" or "computing (the activity, then)".   
   >>>   
   >>> computing to   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
   > Since Turing Machines don't HAVE a stack, that is just a red herring.   
      
   it's amazing how retared one can be even when technically correct   
      
   >   
   > And yes, there IS a mechanism, if the sub part needs to know that to do   
   > its computation, then you pass that as part of its input or state.   
   >   
   > It just means you need to be EXPLICIT about what you are doing.   
   >   
   > Explicit helps us know exactly what is happening.   
      
   that's a design choice, sure   
      
   >   
   > Most subroutines shouldn't care about their caller, and if they do, it   
   > should be explicit.   
      
   but if want to care generally, i can't do that because turing machines   
   don't have the mechanisms in place to ensure i have theoretically robust   
   access to whatever would be the stack trace equivalent   
      
   --   
   arising us out of the computing dark ages,   
   please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,   
   ~ nick   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca