XPost: comp.theory, comp.software-eng   
   From: user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid   
      
   On 1/26/26 2:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 1/26/26 2:45 PM, dart200 wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > No, becuase the machine in questions halting behavior is fully defined,   
   > since the SPECIFIC machine it was built on had to be defined.   
   >   
   > Thus, the "paradox", like all real paradoxes is only apparent, as in   
   > only when we think of the "generalized" template, not the actual machine   
   > that is the input.   
   >   
   > You have your problem because you think of the machine as being built to   
   > an API, but it isn't, it is built to a SPECIFIC decider, or it isn't   
   > actually a computation. As a part of being a computation is having an   
   > explicit and complete listing of the algorithm used, which can't just   
   > reference an "API", but needs the implementation of it.   
   >   
   > The "Template" is built to the API, but the input isn't the template,   
   > but the actual machine, which means the specific decider, and thus there   
   > is no real paradox, only an incorrect machine, as all the other ones   
   > have a chance of being correct (if they are correct partial deciders)   
      
   this actually just supports my point that paradoxes only happens when a   
   decider is called within a pathological context   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >> TMs don't have an ability to discern between contexts, which is why   
   >> current theory accepts that it does...   
   >   
   > And neither do computations as defined.   
      
   idk where ur getting this definition u keep bringing up or who defined it   
      
   > Even in your model, you try to   
   > call the context part of the input becuase you know it has to be.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > And the problem is that the problem space doesn't see past that limit.   
   >   
   > If you want to talk about context dependent computations, you need to   
   > work out how you are going to actually define that, then figure out what   
   > you can possibly say about them.   
      
   i already did, multiple times, u just refuse acknowledge what i wrote   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >> 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...   
   >   
   > So, tackle the part that you can, and not the part that even your   
   > context dependent part doesn't help with,   
   >   
   > After all, the "Halting Problem" ask a question that is NOT dependent on   
      
   *mechanically computing* the answer *generally* however is. the ability   
   itself to compute the answer is context-dependent.   
      
   > the context it is being asked in, as that machines behavior was defined   
   > not to so depend on it. Thus a "Context Dependent Compuation" can't use   
   > context to help answer it, at best it might help a partial decider be   
   > able to answer a biger slice of the pie.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)