XPost: comp.theory, comp.software-eng   
   From: user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid   
      
   On 1/25/26 10:21 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 1/24/26 9:24 PM, dart200 wrote:   
   >> 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,   
   >   
   > In other words, you are just saying you don't care about computation   
   > theory, and thus why are you complaining about what it says about   
   > computations.   
      
   no i'm saying i don't care about ur particular definition, richard   
      
   do better that trying to "define" me as wrong. meaning: put in the work   
   to demonstrate actual contradictions   
      
   >   
   >   
   >>   
   >> u and the entire field can be wrong about how u specified "Computation",   
   >   
   > No, you just don't understand the WHY of computation theory.   
      
   u don't give a why u stupid fucking retarded faggot, and u never will   
   because the ct-thesis isn't proven, and u've already gone down the   
   moronic hole of "maybe my favorite truth isn't even provable!!!??"   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >> and that potential is well codified by the fact the ct-thesis is still   
   >> a thesis and not a law.   
   >   
   > It might just be a thesis, because it IS an unprovable truth.   
      
   lookie u just accepting things as "muh unprovable truths". holy fucking   
   hypocritical fucking faggot   
      
   imagine if i pulled that argument out on you wildly unfair irrational   
   bastard??   
      
   u make a complete mockery of reason with the disgustingly idiot dogshit   
   u post over and over again...   
      
   holy fuck you dude eat a bag of dicks   
      
   >   
   >>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)