Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > comp.software-eng > #3872
| Subject | Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng |
| References | (24 earlier) <10kj7v9$33o1s$2@dont-email.me> <DNbbR.5237$px9c.175@fx37.iad> <10kjkjo$33o1t$11@dont-email.me> <OUebR.122036$UIC2.99587@fx11.iad> <10kkd7v$r0n$1@dont-email.me> |
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
| Message-ID | <_oEbR.400756$rbZb.321304@fx17.iad> (permalink) |
| Organization | Forte - www.forteinc.com |
| Date | 2026-01-20 00:29 -0500 |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
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 > >> >> 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. Remove the first floor of your building and see what happens. > >> >> 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. > > 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. > >> >>> >>>> >>>> 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