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 4:50 PM, dart200 wrote:   
   >> On 1/18/26 12:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 1/18/26 1:15 PM, dart200 wrote:   
   >>>> On 1/18/26 4:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>> On 1/18/26 1:05 AM, dart200 wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 1/17/26 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 1/17/26 10:14 PM, dart200 wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Good luck starving to death when your money runs out.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> one can only hope for so much sometimes 🙏   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> I guess you don't understand the rules of logic.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> also not an argument   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Again, YOUR PROBLEM.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> it's pretty crazy i can produce a machine (even if u haven't   
   >>>>>>>>>> understood it yet) that produces a consistent deterministic   
   >>>>>>>>>> result that is "not a computation".   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Because you get that result only by equivocating on your   
   >>>>>>>>> definitions.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> If the context is part of the inpt to make the output   
   >>>>>>>>> determistic from the input, then they fail to be usable as sub-   
   >>>>>>>>> computations as we can't control that context part of the input.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> When we look at just the controllable input for a sub-   
   >>>>>>>>> computation, the output is NOT a deterministic function of that   
   >>>>>>>>> inut.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> not sure what the fuck it's doing if it's not a computation   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Its using hidden inputs that the caller can't control.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> which we do all the time in normal programming, something which   
   >>>>>>>> apparently u think the tHeOrY oF CoMpUtInG fails to encapsulate   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Right, but that isn't about computations.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> pretty crazy we do a bunch "non-computating" in the normal act   
   >>>>>>>> of programming computers   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Why?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> As I have said, "Computatations" is NOT about how modern   
   >>>>>>> computers work.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> I guess you are just showing that you fundamentally don't   
   >>>>>>> understand the problem field you are betting your life on.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> one would presume the fundamental theory of computing would be   
   >>>>>> general enough to encapsulate everything computed by real world   
   >>>>>> computers, no???   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Why?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Remember, the fundamental theory of Computing PREDATES the computer   
   >>>>> as you know it.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> so ur saying it's outdated and needs updating in regards to new   
   >>>> things we do with computers that apparently turing machines as a   
   >>>> model don't have variations of ...   
   >>>   
   >>> No, it still handles that which it was developed for.   
   >>   
   >> well it was developed to be a general theory of computing, and   
   >> apparently modern computing has transcended that theory ...   
   >   
   > Not really.   
   >   
   > THe way modern processors work, "sub-routines" can fail to be   
   > computations, but whole programs will tend to be. Sub-routines CAN be   
   > built with care to fall under its guidance.   
      
   lol, what are they even if not "computations"???   
      
   >   
   > THere ARE advantages to doing so, as that DOES add a lot of correctness   
   > provability to the code.   
   >   
   > The biggest part of code not being analyzable/provable is when it   
   > deviates from the requirements of being a computation.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> or what ... someone writes down a fundamental theory and then it   
   >>>> just sticks around like an unchanging law when u haven't even proven   
   >>>> the ct- thesis correct???   
   >>>   
   >>> Why does it need to change?   
   >>   
   >> why does the fundamental theory of computing need to encapsulate all   
   >> that is possible within computing??   
   >   
   > That is like asking about shouldn't number theory talk about everything   
   > mathematics.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> idk, what's what i thot a fundamental theory is supposed to do, but i   
   >> guess you don't agree???   
   >   
   > Nope, it handles ONE ASPECT of the general field.   
   >   
   > We not only have Computation Theory, but we also get things like   
   > Complexity Theory,   
      
   complexity theory is built on top of the fundamentals of computing ...   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >> like, if the fundamental theory doesn't encapsulate everything done   
   >> within computing ... then idk why u think the halting problem should   
   >> apply to modern computing???   
   >   
   > Because it DOES present a limitation of what modern computers can do.   
   >   
   > After all, every non-computation can be converted into a computation by   
   > forcing all the "hidden inputs" to be considered as inputs.   
      
   lol schrodinger's computation   
      
   >   
   > This just shows the limitation in controlability of the interface.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> If a new problem comes up, a new theory might be needed to handle it.   
   >>   
   >> or maybe new techniques could rectify old problems ...   
   >>   
   >> talk about a lack of curiosity. you confusing regurgitation of route   
   >> learning with actual intelligence, but i suppose that's all u need   
   >> working for a military contractor...   
   >>   
   >> military intelligence is an oxymoron, remember?   
   >   
   > You might be surprised about that statement.   
   >   
   > You don't want a "smart bomb" locked onto you.   
      
   they also don't want that if they know what's best for them   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> All you are doing is showing your ignorance of what you are talking   
   >>>>> about.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> Showing that you really don't understand what you are talking   
   >>>>>>>>> about.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems you just assume you are allowed to change the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> definition, perhaps because you never bothered to learn it.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is sort of like the problem with a RASP machine   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> architecture, sub- machines on such a platform are not   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessarily computations, if they use the machines   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capability to pass information not allowed by the rules   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a computation. Your RTM similarly break that property.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, Computations are NOT just what some model of   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing produce, but specifically is defined based   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on producing a specific mapping of input to output, so   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (even as a sub- machine) a specific input might   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce different output, your architecture is NOT   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing a computation.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And without that property, using what the machine could   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do, becomes a pretty worthless criteria, as you can't   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually talk much about it.   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)