XPost: comp.theory, comp.software-eng   
   From: user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid   
      
   On 1/26/26 8:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 1/26/26 12:56 AM, dart200 wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)