Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > comp.software-eng > #3862
| Subject | Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng |
| References | (23 earlier) <10khj77$2nl2r$8@dont-email.me> <HrYaR.81293$68Za.60209@fx09.iad> <10kht75$33o1t$1@dont-email.me> <W%3bR.175768$rbZb.43441@fx17.iad> <10kj7v9$33o1s$2@dont-email.me> |
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
| Message-ID | <DNbbR.5237$px9c.175@fx37.iad> (permalink) |
| Organization | Forte - www.forteinc.com |
| Date | 2026-01-18 15:56 -0500 |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
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. > > 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? If a new problem comes up, a new theory might be needed to handle it. > >> >> 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. 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 >>>>> >>> >>> >> > >
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