XPost: comp.theory, comp.software-eng   
   From: user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid   
      
   On 1/20/26 4:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 1/20/26 1:18 AM, dart200 wrote:   
   >> 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!   
   >   
   > Because it isn't deterministically based on the INPUT,   
      
   no it's just a series of steps to produce some output.   
      
   it may or may not have an input, and in fact the entirety of turing   
   machine computing can be expressed by enumerating only the turing   
   machines that do NOT take input.   
      
   > but include other "unknown" factors.   
      
   lol, so when u print a stack trace, u consider those factors "unknown"?   
      
   >   
   > The key point is that a computation always gives the same answer for a   
   > given input, if it doesn't, it can't be a computation.   
   >   
   > If you can't control the whole input, it isn't as useful, if it has any   
   > usefullness at all.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> fucking dick is just pulling shit out of his ass, 🤮🤮🤮   
   >   
   > It seems you are stuffing yours with shit.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> 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 ...   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)