XPost: comp.theory, comp.software-eng   
   From: user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid   
      
   On 1/25/26 10:50 PM, dart200 wrote:   
   > On 1/25/26 2:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >> On 1/25/26 4:04 PM, dart200 wrote:   
   >>> On 1/25/26 10:23 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>> On 1/24/26 9:05 PM, dart200 wrote:   
   >>>>> On 1/24/26 4:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 1/24/26 6:06 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 1/6/2026 1:47 AM, dart200 wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> the CT-thesis is a thesis, not a proof.   
   >>>>>>> *I think that I fixed that*   
   >>>>>>> It seems to me that if something cannot be computed   
   >>>>>>> by applying finite string transformation rules to   
   >>>>>>> input finite strings then it cannot be computed.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> As soon as this is shown to be categorically impossible   
   >>>>>>> then the thesis turns into a proof.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> In other words, you just don't know what you are talking about.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> The fact that it is impossible to build a computation that, given   
   >>>>>> a representation of another computation and its input, determine   
   >>>>>> for all cases if the computation will halt does nothing to further   
   >>>>>> the question of are Turing Machines the most powerful form of   
   >>>>>> computation.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> contexts-aware machines compute functions:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> (context,input) -> output   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> And what problems of interest to computation theory are of that form?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Computation Theory was to answer questions of logic and mathematics.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> What logic or math is dependent on "context"   
   >>>   
   >>> *mechanically computing* the answer *generally* is dependent on context,   
   >>   
   >> Really?   
   >>   
   >> Most problems don't care about the context of the person asking it,   
   >> just the context of the thing being looked at.   
   >   
   > well, yes, most problems don't involve pathologically querying a decider   
   > specifically for the purpose of then contradicting the decision... 🙄   
      
   or put more generally:   
      
   well, yes, most problems don't involve pathologically querying the truth   
   specifically for the purpose of then contradicting the truth... 🫩🫩🫩   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> and ignoring that is the underlying cause of the halting problem   
   >>   
   >> Nope.   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> clearly novel techniques will be required to resolve long standing   
   >>> problems, eh richard???   
   >>   
   >> Or just lying as you try.   
   >>   
   >> I guess you think the speed of light is just a suggestion. (Yes, there   
   >> are some thoughts about how to break it, but they require things   
   >> totally outside our current physics).   
   >>   
   >> Yes, there may be a new definition of "Computations" that is actually   
   >> useful, and generates answers to some things we currently think as   
   >> uncomputable, but until you can actually figure out what that is,   
   >> assuming it is just science fiction.   
   >   
   > or u'd just call it lying over and over again with no serious   
   > consideration to what's really being said ...   
   >   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> fuck   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   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)