XPost: comp.theory, comp.software-eng   
   From: user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid   
      
   On 1/24/26 4:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 1/24/26 5:36 PM, dart200 wrote:   
   >> 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   
   >   
   > But I can say that Computations as defined, are all that they can do.   
      
   i will never care about you complaining about the fact the computations   
   i'm talking about don't fit within the particular box you call a   
   "Computation", because i just doesn't mean anything,   
      
   u and the entire field can be wrong about how u specified "Computation",   
      
   and that potential is well codified by the fact the ct-thesis is still a   
   thesis and not a law.   
      
   i will not respond to more comments on this because it's a boring, lazy,   
   non-argument that is fucking waste of both our time.   
      
   --   
   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)