XPost: comp.theory, comp.software-eng   
   From: user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid   
      
   On 1/25/26 2:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 1/25/26 4:05 PM, dart200 wrote:   
   >> 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   
   >   
   > In other words, you want me to prove there isn't a teapot in the   
   > asteroid belt.   
      
   lol, what. asking for a proof of contradiction is now akin to russel's   
   teapot???   
      
   are u even doing math here or this just a giant definist fallacy shitshow???   
      
   >   
   > YOU are the one assuming things can be done, but refuse to actually try   
   > to define an actual algorithm that does so.   
   >   
   > An actual algorithm being an actual sequence of finite atomic steps, and   
   > using bounded loops.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)