XPost: comp.theory, comp.software-eng   
   From: user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid   
      
   On 1/26/26 8:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 1/26/26 1:50 AM, 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... 🙄   
   >   
   > Which is a problem that doesn't actually depend on the context of the   
   > asker, so using the context just makes you wrong.   
      
   yes it does.   
      
   the self-referential set-classification paradox can *only* provably   
   happen when a decider is called from within a pathological context (the   
   paradoxical input machine), which is why i don't think it   
   over-generalizes to disproving our ability to compute the answer in   
   non-pathological contexts.   
      
   TMs don't have an ability to discern between contexts, which is why   
   current theory accepts that it does...   
      
   the point of my work on RTMs is to grant computation an ability to   
   discern between contexts so that we can transcend *that* particular limit.   
      
   this doesn't remove *all* unknowns, i'm not resolving problems of actual   
   complexity or unknowns due to lack of number theory. i'm resolving the   
   self-referential set-classification paradox that underlies much of   
   uncomputability, and to hopefully put a wrench in this rather odd,   
   paradoxical, and quite frankly fallacy drenched feelings of certainty   
   about unknowable unknowns.   
      
   WHICH IS FINE, i don't need total instant perfection to make significant   
   progress, my fucking god...   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> 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 ...   
   >   
   > Yep, that is a good description of what you are doing.   
   >   
   > You forget to consider the topic you are talking about.   
   >   
   > Either you accept the current definitions, or you actually supply your   
   > own new ones. Just assuming you can change them without actually doing   
   > so makes your argument baseless.   
      
   false dichotomy ...   
      
   cause why can't a "new" one just be in fact a rather minor adjustment???   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> 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)