XPost: comp.theory, comp.software-eng, alt.messianic   
   XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
   From: user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid   
      
   On 1/26/26 2:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 1/26/26 2:43 PM, dart200 wrote:   
   >> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)