Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > comp.software-eng > #3877
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng |
| Subject | Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? |
| Date | 2026-01-24 14:36 -0800 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <10l3hht$11a9m$9@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (24 earlier) <_oEbR.400756$rbZb.321304@fx17.iad> <10kn6oj$uupj$5@dont-email.me> <w_KbR.933037$H7H.622696@fx13.iad> <10kpbma$1o0br$1@dont-email.me> <dV4dR.641021$CZPd.555399@fx18.iad> |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
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 > >> >> it may or may not have an input, and in fact the entirety of turing >> machine computing can be expressed by enumerating only the turing >> machines that do NOT take input. > > In which case the input can be thought of as the empty set and the > output is a constant. > >> >>> but include other "unknown" factors. >> >> lol, so when u print a stack trace, u consider those factors "unknown"? > > Thus making your definistic fallacy of confusing an instance of a > computation with the definition and use of the computation itself. > > If I am trying to document an API, but the results depend on something > not provided through that API, as far as that documentation is conserned > those details are "unknown". in react we deal with contexts all the time with to encapsulate state with the functionality that renders/modifies it. it doesn't make it "unknown", just not passed thru form and yes it does need to be documented because you'll need to setup that state at the root the tree so it can be used by components lower in the react tree. > >> >>> >>> The key point is that a computation always gives the same answer for >>> a given input, if it doesn't, it can't be a computation. >>> >>> If you can't control the whole input, it isn't as useful, if it has >>> any usefullness at all. >>> >>>> >>>> fucking dick is just pulling shit out of his ass, 🤮🤮🤮 >>> >>> It seems you are stuffing yours with shit. >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> THere ARE advantages to doing so, as that DOES add a lot of >>>>>>> correctness provability to the code. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The biggest part of code not being analyzable/provable is when it >>>>>>> deviates from the requirements of being a computation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> or what ... someone writes down a fundamental theory and then >>>>>>>>>> it just sticks around like an unchanging law when u haven't >>>>>>>>>> even proven the ct- thesis correct??? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why does it need to change? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> why does the fundamental theory of computing need to encapsulate >>>>>>>> all that is possible within computing?? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That is like asking about shouldn't number theory talk about >>>>>>> everything mathematics. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> idk, what's what i thot a fundamental theory is supposed to do, >>>>>>>> but i guess you don't agree??? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nope, it handles ONE ASPECT of the general field. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We not only have Computation Theory, but we also get things like >>>>>>> Complexity Theory, >>>>>> >>>>>> complexity theory is built on top of the fundamentals of >>>>>> computing ... >>>>> >>>>> Yes, just like computability/comptation theory. >>>>> >>>>> The field of "Computer Science" has a bunch of subfields/theories >>>>> within it. >>>>> >>>>> You seem to confuse Computation THeory with fundamental of computing. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> like, if the fundamental theory doesn't encapsulate everything >>>>>>>> done within computing ... then idk why u think the halting >>>>>>>> problem should apply to modern computing??? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Because it DOES present a limitation of what modern computers can >>>>>>> do. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> After all, every non-computation can be converted into a >>>>>>> computation by forcing all the "hidden inputs" to be considered >>>>>>> as inputs. >>>>>> >>>>>> lol schrodinger's computation >>>>> >>>>> Model conversion. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This just shows the limitation in controlability of the interface. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If a new problem comes up, a new theory might be needed to >>>>>>>>> handle it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> or maybe new techniques could rectify old problems ... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> talk about a lack of curiosity. you confusing regurgitation of >>>>>>>> route learning with actual intelligence, but i suppose that's >>>>>>>> all u need working for a military contractor... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> military intelligence is an oxymoron, remember? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You might be surprised about that statement. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You don't want a "smart bomb" locked onto you. >>>>>> >>>>>> they also don't want that if they know what's best for them >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> All you are doing is showing your ignorance of what you are >>>>>>>>>>> talking about. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Showing that you really don't understand what you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems you just assume you are allowed to change >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the definition, perhaps because you never bothered to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> learn it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is sort of like the problem with a RASP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine architecture, sub- machines on such a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> platform are not necessarily computations, if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they use the machines capability to pass >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information not allowed by the rules of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation. Your RTM similarly break that property. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, Computations are NOT just what some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> model of processing produce, but specifically is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined based on producing a specific mapping of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to output, so if (even as a sub- machine) a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific input might produce different output, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your architecture is NOT doing a computation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And without that property, using what the machine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could do, becomes a pretty worthless criteria, as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can't actually talk much about it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the output is still well-defined and deterministic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at runtime, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not from the "input" to the piece of algorithm, as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it includes "hidden" state from outside that input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stored elsewhere in the machine. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context-dependent computations are still >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computations. the fact TMs don't capture them is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an indication that the ct- thesis may be false >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. Not unless the "context" is made part of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "input", and if you do that, you find that since >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are trying to make it so the caller can't just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> define that context, your system is less than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> turing complete. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your system break to property of building a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation by the concatination of sub-computations. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...including a context-dependent sub-computation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes ur overall computation context-dependent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too ... if u dont want a context- dependent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation don't include context- dependent sub- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which makes it not a computation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PERIOD. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fallacy of equivocation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i'm not shifting meaning dude. i'm directly claiming >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's a distinct type of computation that has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignored by the theory of computing thus far >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nice try tho >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But you don't actually do that, as you then claim to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the same field to solve a problem specified in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said, if you want to try to define a new field >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on a new definition of what a computation is, go >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ahead. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's not a new field, it's a mild extension of turing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines, with one new operation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it is, as you are changing essential core defintions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is like saying that spherical geometery is the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field as plane geometry, we just added a small extension. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> what the did the nut say when it was all grown up??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You need to work out your formal definition. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Show how the system actually works out. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Show what it can show. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And show why anyone would want to use it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but in order to be complete and coherent, certain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computations *must* have context-awareness and are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> therefore context- dependent. these computations >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't generally computable by TMs because TMs lack >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the necessary mechanisms to grant context- awareness. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you require some computations to not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be actual computations. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless u can produce some actual proof of some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation that actually breaks in context- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependence, rather than just listing things u assume >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are true, i won't believe u know what ur talking about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The definition. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A computation produces the well defined result based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the INPUT. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context-dependent computation simply expands it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to include the entire computing context, not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just the formal parameters. it's still well defined >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it grants us access to meta computation that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not as expressible in TM computing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ct-thesis is cooked dude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, because you are just putting yourself outside the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field it is written about. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can't change the definition of a computation, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still talk about things as if you were in the same system. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That just shows you are smoking some bad weed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your context, being not part of the input, can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change the well- defined result. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should 1 + 2 become 4 on Thursdays? of it asked of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gingerbread man? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ur overgeneralizing. just become some computation is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context- dependent doesn't mean all computation is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context- dependent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another fallacy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, but nothing that actually is a computation can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be context- dependent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ur just arguing in circles with this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you are just lying to yourself to try to disagree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the definition. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All you are doing is saying you disagree with the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Go ahead, try to define an alternate version of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Computation Theory where the result can depend on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things that aren't part of the actual input to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine, and see what you can show that is useful. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem becomes that you can't really say >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything about what you will get, since you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know what the "hidden" factors are. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ??? i was very clear multiple times over what the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "hidden" input was. there's nothing random about it, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context- dependent computation is just as well-defend >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and deterministic as context- independent computation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that when you look at the computation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself (that might be imbedded into a larger >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation) you don't know which of the infinite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contexts it might be within. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> depth is not infinite for any given step, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't say infinite depth, I said from infinite contexts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AND THAT'S WHERE REFLECT COMES IN: IT DUMPS THE FULL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MACHINE DESCRIPTION OF THE RUNNING MACHINE, THE CURRENT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STATE NUMBER, AND A FULL COPY OF THE TAPE ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And WHICH machine description does it dump? The problem >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the machine description isn't unique. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all the info required to compute all configurations >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between the beginning and the current step of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation, which can allow it to compute anything that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is "knowable" about where it is in the computation at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time of the REFLECT operation... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And where did it store that information? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, the starting tape was unbounded in length (but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The machine itself is bounded in size, plus the unbounded >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tape. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem is ur literally not reading what i'm writing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to an appreciable degree of comprehension, being too >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> focused on isolated responses that lack overall >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *contextual* awareness of the conversation... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you are ignoring the requirements to implement what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you desire. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, what you can say about that "computation" is very >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> limited. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem to understand that a key point of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory is about being able to build complicate things >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from simpler pieces. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It comes out of how logic works, we build complicated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theories based on simpler theories and the axioms. If >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those simplere things were "context dependent" it makes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it much harder for them to specifiy what they actually >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do in all contexts, and to then use them in all contexts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i'm sorry context-dependent computation aren't as simple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is why you need to actually FULLY DEFINE them, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> admit it is a new field. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> well it'd be great if someone fucking helped me out there, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but all i get is a bunch adversarial dismissal cause i'm >>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuck on a god forsaking planet of a fucking half- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> braindead clowns >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Help has been offered, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> not constructively, ur barely even paying attention to what >>>>>>>>>>>> i write >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No, perhaps the problem is I assume you at least attempt to >>>>>>>>>>> learn what you are trying to talk about. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> u don't even know what constructive help is to be frank >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> i'm not ur student, ur not my teachers, this isn't a >>>>>>>>>> hierarchical relationship, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> and until u recognize that ur going to continue to be non- >>>>>>>>>> constructive >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> YOU were the one asking for help to develop your ideas, if only >>>>>>>>> by posting them and asking for comments. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have just pointed out the fundamental errors in your analysis >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You need to make a choice of directions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Either you work in the currently established theory, so you can >>>>>>>>> use things in it, and see if you can develop something new. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Or, you branch out and start a brand new theory, and start at >>>>>>>>> the ground floor, fully define what you mean by things, show >>>>>>>>> what you ideas can do, and why that would be useful. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> false dichotomy, add that to growing list of fallacies u shat >>>>>>>> out at me >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No real dichotomy. >>>>>> >>>>>> no, i don't have to totally rewrite the system to transcend a few >>>>>> classical limits. >>>>> >>>>> Sure you do. You need to figure out what might have changed. >>>> >>>> nothing about this change affect computation without REFLECT ... so >>>> everything we already could compute is still computable. >>> >>> But only if you DON'T use reflect. >> >> but so no power has been lost >> >>> >>>> >>>> that fact that's not obvious to you is just u being willfully >>>> ignorant at this point. >>> >>> The problem is, once your "machine" definition can do non- >>> computations, you can't assume it does a computation, and thus your >>> gaurenetees go away, so you can say less about what it does. >> >> i think ur just pulling a definist fallacy. until u make it produce a >> contradiction, i don't really care what u label it as. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Remove the first floor of your building and see what happens. >>>> >>>> false analogy! wow, another fallacy! >>> >>> Nope, that is EXACTLY what changing a foundational rule without >>> seeing what it supported does. >>> >>> I guess you don't understand cause and effect. >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Follow the rules and you can stay in the system. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Change anything and you are outside, and need to show what still >>>>>>> can apply. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To say you can change the foundation but keep the building is >>>>>>> just lying. >>>>>> >>>>>> you can in fact replace foundation without even lifting the house bro >>>>> >>>>> Not in logic. >>>>> >>>>> I guess you don't understand the use of figures of speach. >>>> >>>> or i just don't care for ur false analogy >>> >>> In other words, you don't understand what an analogy is. >>> >>> Too bad you are dooming yourself and your wife to starvation. >> >> pretty nuts u think u need to keep bringing that up, >> >> lol, u think ur on the right side here??? >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> i'm not invalidating most of computing, just gunning for a few >>>>>> classical limits that don't actually do anything interesting >>>>>> anyways. not really sure why people are to bent up about them >>>>> >>>>> And, if you don't understand what those changes do, you don't know >>>>> if your system is valid. >>>> >>>> ur just commenting on how little u've tried to understand it >>> >>> I'm trying to get you off the wrong track. >> >> and yet all u do is push me down the track further cause ain't accept >> ur fallacies bro >> >>> >>> What would you do if you saw someone cutting the branch they were >>> sitting on, being outside the cut they were making. >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It seems you want to change the foundation, but keep most of >>>>>>>>> the building on top, without even knowing how that building was >>>>>>>>> built and how it connects to the foundation. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That just doesn't work. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> but you just reject it as it doesn't match your ideas, >>>>>>>>>>>>> largely because you don't understand what you are trying to >>>>>>>>>>>>> get in. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> When your errors are explained, just just curse back. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I can't fix stupid. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You aren't stuck on a planet of clowns, you are the clown >>>>>>>>>>>>> that doesn't understand the world. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if the simplest theory was always correct we'd still be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using newtonian gravity for everything >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can't change a thing and it still be the same thing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess that truth is something you don't understand >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > -- arising us out of the computing dark ages, please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, ~ nick
Back to comp.software-eng | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Re: Proof that the halting problem itself is a category error polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-10 17:03 -0600
Re: Proof that the halting problem itself is a category error wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-12-11 07:10 +0800
Re: Proof that the halting problem itself is a category error --- typo polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-10 17:53 -0600
Re: Proof that the halting problem itself is a category error Oleksiy Gapotchenko <alex.s.gap@gmail.com> - 2026-01-06 01:24 +0100
Re: Proof that the halting problem itself is a category error olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-05 18:39 -0600
is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-05 23:47 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-06 19:26 -0600
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-06 19:03 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-06 22:33 -0600
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-07 00:56 -0800
yes/no questions lacking a correct yes/no answer are incorrect questions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-07 05:50 -0600
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-12 07:12 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-12 07:06 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-12 14:09 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-12 22:16 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-12 20:21 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-13 07:09 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-13 12:33 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-14 22:43 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-15 04:23 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-15 22:28 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-16 01:08 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-16 11:46 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-16 14:21 -0800
The essence of all Computation generically defined olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-16 16:58 -0600
Re: The essence of all Computation generically defined Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-16 18:21 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-16 18:21 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-16 16:43 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-16 22:24 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-16 23:23 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-17 07:33 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-17 19:14 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-17 22:28 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-17 22:05 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-18 07:05 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-18 10:15 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-18 15:56 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-18 13:50 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-18 22:27 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-18 15:01 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-18 19:28 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-18 20:30 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-20 00:29 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-18 22:28 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-18 19:28 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-18 20:51 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-20 00:29 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-19 22:18 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-20 07:59 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-20 17:55 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-24 09:44 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 14:36 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-24 19:52 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 18:24 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-25 13:21 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-25 13:05 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-25 17:36 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-25 21:56 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-26 11:39 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-26 11:43 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-26 17:17 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-26 14:29 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Dude <punditster@gmail.com> - 2026-01-27 13:31 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-28 01:12 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Dude <punditster@gmail.com> - 2026-01-28 13:29 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-28 13:37 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-01-27 14:07 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2026-01-28 07:23 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-17 12:17 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-17 08:15 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-17 09:47 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-17 15:31 -0500
The essence of all Computation generically defined olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-16 18:35 -0600
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-01-07 14:05 +0200
Exactly what are deciders in the theory of computation? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-07 15:29 -0600
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-24 17:06 -0600
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-24 19:52 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 18:05 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-25 13:23 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-25 13:04 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-25 17:40 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-25 22:50 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-26 01:35 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-26 11:43 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-26 11:45 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-26 17:28 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-27 00:00 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-24 20:35 -0600
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 18:38 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-24 20:53 -0600
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 19:12 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-24 21:42 -0600
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 20:03 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-24 22:06 -0600
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 21:45 -0800
Re: Proof that the halting problem itself is a category error Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-01-06 15:23 +0200
Boiling Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness proof down to its barest essence olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-06 08:02 -0600
Re: Boiling Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness proof down to its barest essence Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-01-07 14:10 +0200
Re: Boiling Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness proof down to its barest essence olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-07 07:06 -0600
Re: Boiling Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness proof down to its barest essence Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-01-08 12:21 +0200
Re: Boiling Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness proof down to its barest essence olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-08 08:18 -0600
Re: Boiling Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness proof down to its barest essence Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-01-10 11:25 +0200
Re: Boiling Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness proof down to its barest essence olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-11 08:32 -0600
Re: Boiling Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness proof down to its barest essence Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-11 16:16 +0000
Re: Boiling Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness proof down to its barest essence olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2026-01-11 21:00 -0600
Re: Boiling Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness proof down to its barest essence Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-01-12 13:05 +0200
csiph-web