Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > comp.software-eng > #3895
| Subject | Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng |
| References | (24 earlier) <10l3hht$11a9m$9@dont-email.me> <iPddR.598536$VY9.500513@fx10.iad> <10l3utm$1a2so$3@dont-email.me> <3btdR.98060$4e1.84912@fx20.iad> <10l60ic$1s352$2@dont-email.me> |
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
| Message-ID | <lVwdR.98075$4e1.23861@fx20.iad> (permalink) |
| Organization | Forte - www.forteinc.com |
| Date | 2026-01-25 17:36 -0500 |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
On 1/25/26 4:05 PM, dart200 wrote: > On 1/25/26 10:21 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 1/24/26 9:24 PM, dart200 wrote: >>> On 1/24/26 4:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 1/24/26 5:36 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>> On 1/24/26 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 1/20/26 8:55 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>> On 1/20/26 4:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 1/20/26 1:18 AM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 1/19/26 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/26 11:51 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/26 4:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/26 4:50 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/26 12:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/26 1:15 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/26 4:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/26 1:05 AM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/17/26 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/17/26 10:14 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good luck starving to death when your money runs out. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one can only hope for so much sometimes đ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess you don't understand the rules of logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also not an argument >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, YOUR PROBLEM. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's pretty crazy i can produce a machine (even if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> u haven't understood it yet) that produces a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent deterministic result that is "not a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you get that result only by equivocating on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your definitions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the context is part of the inpt to make the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> output determistic from the input, then they fail to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be usable as sub- computations as we can't control >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that context part of the input. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we look at just the controllable input for a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sub- computation, the output is NOT a deterministic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function of that inut. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not sure what the fuck it's doing if it's not a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Its using hidden inputs that the caller can't control. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which we do all the time in normal programming, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something which apparently u think the tHeOrY oF >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CoMpUtInG fails to encapsulate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, but that isn't about computations. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pretty crazy we do a bunch "non-computating" in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normal act of programming computers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I have said, "Computatations" is NOT about how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modern computers work. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess you are just showing that you fundamentally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't understand the problem field you are betting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your life on. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one would presume the fundamental theory of computing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be general enough to encapsulate everything >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computed by real world computers, no??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, the fundamental theory of Computing PREDATES >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the computer as you know it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so ur saying it's outdated and needs updating in regards >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to new things we do with computers that apparently turing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines as a model don't have variations of ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it still handles that which it was developed for. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> well it was developed to be a general theory of computing, >>>>>>>>>>>>> and apparently modern computing has transcended that >>>>>>>>>>>>> theory ... >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Not really. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> THe way modern processors work, "sub-routines" can fail to >>>>>>>>>>>> be computations, but whole programs will tend to be. Sub- >>>>>>>>>>>> routines CAN be built with care to fall under its guidance. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> lol, what are they even if not "computations"??? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> not-computations >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> great, a set of deterministic steps that produces a result but >>>>>>>>> is somehow not a compution! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Because it isn't deterministically based on the INPUT, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> no it's just a series of steps to produce some output. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope, not in the formulation of the theory. >>>>> >>>>> again: YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN THAT TURING MACHINES, OR ANY EQUIVALENT >>>>> THEORY, ENCOMPASS ALL POSSIBLE COMPUTATIONS >>>>> >>>>> like holy fuck, how many times will i need to repeat that??? >>>>> >>>>> it's a ct-THESIS not a ct-LAW >>>> >>>> But I can say that Computations as defined, are all that they can do. >>> >>> i will never care about you complaining about the fact the >>> computations i'm talking about don't fit within the particular box >>> you call a "Computation", because i just doesn't mean anything, >> >> In other words, you are just saying you don't care about computation >> theory, and thus why are you complaining about what it says about >> computations. > > no i'm saying i don't care about ur particular definition, richard > > do better that trying to "define" me as wrong. meaning: put in the work > to demonstrate actual contradictions In other words, you want me to prove there isn't a teapot in the asteroid belt. YOU are the one assuming things can be done, but refuse to actually try to define an actual algorithm that does so. An actual algorithm being an actual sequence of finite atomic steps, and using bounded loops. > >> >> >>> >>> u and the entire field can be wrong about how u specified "Computation", >> >> No, you just don't understand the WHY of computation theory. > > u don't give a why u stupid fucking retarded faggot, and u never will > because the ct-thesis isn't proven, and u've already gone down the > moronic hole of "maybe my favorite truth isn't even provable!!!??" I have mentioned it, but have you bothered to look into it? Comptation Theory was developed to see if "Computations" of this sort could be used to generate proofs of the great problems of mathematics and logic. It was hoped that it would provide a solution to the then curretly seeming intractable problems that seemed to have an answer, but they just couldn't be found. Insteed, it showed that it was a provable fact that some problems would not have a solution. And thus we had to accept that we couldn't prove everything we might want. > >> >>> >>> and that potential is well codified by the fact the ct-thesis is >>> still a thesis and not a law. >> >> It might just be a thesis, because it IS an unprovable truth. > > lookie u just accepting things as "muh unprovable truths". holy fucking > hypocritical fucking faggot It isn't "just accepting", it is looking at the proofs and understanding the logic of them. > > imagine if i pulled that argument out on you wildly unfair irrational > bastard?? But all you can do is make baseless claims. My statements of unprovable truths is based on real proofs, that seem to be beyond you ability to understand. > > u make a complete mockery of reason with the disgustingly idiot dogshit > u post over and over again... How is looking at proofs and accepting their results. It is the rejection of proofs and thinking things must be different that is the mockery. > > holy fuck you dude eat a bag of dicks It seems you have eaten them all already, > >> >>> >>> i will not respond to more comments on this because it's a boring, >>> lazy, non-argument that is fucking waste of both our time. >>> >> > >
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