XPost: comp.theory, comp.software-eng   
   From: user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid   
      
   On 1/24/26 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 1/20/26 8:55 PM, dart200 wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > Nope, not in the formulation of the theory.   
      
   again: YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN THAT TURING MACHINES, OR ANY EQUIVALENT   
   THEORY, ENCOMPASS ALL POSSIBLE COMPUTATIONS   
      
   like holy fuck, how many times will i need to repeat that???   
      
   it's a ct-THESIS not a ct-LAW   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > In which case the input can be thought of as the empty set and the   
   > output is a constant.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>> but include other "unknown" factors.   
   >>   
   >> lol, so when u print a stack trace, u consider those factors "unknown"?   
   >   
   > Thus making your definistic fallacy of confusing an instance of a   
   > computation with the definition and use of the computation itself.   
   >   
   > If I am trying to document an API, but the results depend on something   
   > not provided through that API, as far as that documentation is conserned   
   > those details are "unknown".   
      
   in react we deal with contexts all the time with to encapsulate state   
   with the functionality that renders/modifies it.   
      
   it doesn't make it "unknown", just not passed thru form   
      
   and yes it does need to be documented because you'll need to setup that   
   state at the root the tree so it can be used by components lower in the   
   react tree.   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)