XPost: comp.theory, comp.software-eng   
   From: user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid   
      
   On 1/19/26 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 1/18/26 11:51 PM, dart200 wrote:   
   >> 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"???   
   >   
   > not-computations   
      
   great, a set of deterministic steps that produces a result but is   
   somehow not a compution!   
      
   fucking dick is just pulling shit out of his ass, 🤮🤮🤮   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> 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 ...   
   >   
   > Yes, just like computability/comptation theory.   
   >   
   > The field of "Computer Science" has a bunch of subfields/theories within   
   > it.   
   >   
   > You seem to confuse Computation THeory with fundamental 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   
   >   
   > Model conversion.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)