Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > comp.theory > #139134
| Subject | Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng |
| References | (16 earlier) <10kcv63$18ne5$1@dont-email.me> <4YtaR.289653$ZkQ4.281544@fx47.iad> <10kedkg$21adq$1@dont-email.me> <GJzaR.18407$iu59.2111@fx08.iad> <10kelvg$21adq$5@dont-email.me> |
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
| Message-ID | <FhDaR.85970$KF5d.26695@fx43.iad> (permalink) |
| Organization | Forte - www.forteinc.com |
| Date | 2026-01-16 22:24 -0500 |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
On 1/16/26 7:43 PM, dart200 wrote: > On 1/16/26 3:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 1/16/26 5:21 PM, dart200 wrote: >>> On 1/16/26 8:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 1/16/26 4:08 AM, dart200 wrote: >>>>> On 1/15/26 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 1/15/26 7:23 AM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> bro stick a giant dildo up ur asshole u hypocritical fuckface... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> when i tried to suggest improvements to the computational model, >>>>>>> like RTMs, u then told me i *can't* do that because muh ct- >>>>>>> thesis, and here u are crying about how no superior method has >>>>>>> been found as if u'd ever even tried to look past the ct-thesis... >>>>>> >>>>>> No, you didn't suggest improvements to the model, you just showed >>>>>> you don't knoww what that means. >>>>>> >>>>>> You don't get to change what a "computation" is, that isn't part >>>>>> of the "model". >>>>> >>>>> you honestly could have just said that cause the rest of this is >>>>> just u repeating urself as if that makes it more correct >>>>> >>>> >>>> But I HAVE said it that simply, and you rejected it as you think you >>>> get to, >>> >>> but repeating urself doesn't make it more true >> >> And your ignoring it doesn't make it false. >> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The model would be the format of the machine, and while your RTM >>>>>> might be a type of machine that could be thought of, they don't do >>>>>> COMPUTATIONS, as it violates the basic rules of what a compuation IS. >>>>>> >>>>>> Computations are specific algorithms acting on just the input data. >>>>>> >>>>>> A fundamental property needed to reach at least Turing Complete >>>>>> ability, is the ability to cascade algorithms. >>>>>> >>>>>> Your RTM break that capability, and thus become less than Turing >>>>>> Complete. >>>>> >>>>> i'm sorry, RTMs are literally just TMs with one added instruction >>>>> that dumps static meta-data + copies tape ... how have they *lost* >>>>> power with that??? clearly they can express anything that TMs can ... >>>> >>>> Which means you don't understand how "TM"s work, as they don't have >>>> that sort of "instructions". >>> >>> fuck dude sorry "operation" is the term turing used, i added to the >>> list of possible operations with RTMs, my god dude... >> >> But the only "operations" that a turing machine does is write a >> specified value to the tape, move the tape, and change state. > > yes RTMs are an extension of TMs, please do pay attention Nope, because they don't have the actual form of a TM. Their operations isn't by the basic principles of a TM. I think your problem is you don't actually know how a TM works, and thus this is meaningless. Please try to show how you would actually DEFINE in a system similar to how you would define a regular TM one of your RTMS. Not just hand-waving arguement, and actually encoded RTM that looks like just an extension of some TM that has been encoded, and an explaination of how such a hardware platform could be constructed. > >> >>> >>> see how fucking unhelpful u are??? >> >> So, how is your "operation" of the same class as what they do? > > cause it's just as mechanically feasible. mechanical feasibility to > self-evident just like with the other rules of turing machines. No, it is trying to put a hyper-cube into a flat plane drawing of a square. It seems you are just showing that you don't understand what you are actually talking about, but are trying to baffle people with your bullshit hopeing they won't notice your ignorance. > >> >> Try to specify the tuple that your "operation" is. > > idk what you mean by this, REFLECT is just another operation like > HEAD_LEFT, HEAD_RIGHT, or WRITE_<symbol>, the. transition table has a > list of transition functions: So, it is a "tape motion". and how do you move the tape a "reflect"? > > cur_state, head_symbol -> action, nxt_state > > and REFLECT goes into the action slot specifying the action that should > be taking to transition the tape to the next step. That isn't an "action" slot, in classic representation it is a binary field for tape motion direction. > >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> And, any algorithm that actually USES their capability to detect >>>>>> if they have been nested will become incorrect as a decider, as a >>>>>> decider is a machine that computes a specific mapping of its input >>>>>> to its output, and if that result changes in the submachine, only >>>>>> one of the answers it gives (as a stand-alone, or as the sub- >>>>>> machine) can be right, so you just show that it gave a wrong answer. >>>>> >>>>> u have proof that doesn't work yet you keep asserting this is the >>>>> "one true way". seems like u just enjoy shooting urself in the >>>>> foot, with the only actual rational way being it's just the "one >>>>> true way" >>>> >>>> IT IS DEFINITION. Something you don't seem to understand. >>>> >>>> "Computation" is NOT defined by what some machine does, that is >>>> algorithms and results. "Computation" is the mapping generated by >>>> it, which MUST be a specific mapping of input to output. >>> >>> no one has defined "computation" well enough to prove that turing >>> machines can compute them all, >>> >>> that's why it's the ct-thesis dude, not ct-law, >>> >>> ur just affirming the consequent without proof. >> >> No, the DEFINITION of a computation defines what it can be >> irrespective of the actual machinery used to perform it. >> >> It is, by definition, the algorithm computing of a given mapping. >> >> Said maps, are BY DEFINITION mappings from the "input" to the "output". >> >> If the machine can produce two different output from the same input, >> the machine can not be a computation. > > a context-dependent computation is computing a mapping that isn't > directly specified by the formal input params. it's computing a mapping of: > > (context, input) -> output WHich means that you are calling context as part of your input. But you alse say that you can't set it, so you > > or more generally just > > context -> output > > since the formal input is just a specific part of the context. and the > reason we got stuck on the halting problem of a fucking century is > ignoring that context matters. And thus you system no longer has composition, as you have defined that the context wasn't changable by the "caller" of a sub-computation. This makes your system strictly LESS powerful than a Turing Machine. > >> >>> >>> add that to list of the growing fallacies i've pointed out in ur >>> recent arguments, which i'm sure ur not actually tracking, as that >>> would be far more honesty than u are capable of putting out. >> >> So, what is the fallacy? > > AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT Where did I do that. I stated the DEFINITION of the term, something it seems you are just aferming you don't understand. > >> >> 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. 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. > >> >> 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. 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.
Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
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? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2026-01-14 02:41 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-13 19:38 -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? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-17 18:22 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-17 15:31 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-17 22:33 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-17 19:14 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-17 17:24 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-17 20:35 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-18 04:44 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-17 22:37 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-18 06:45 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-18 10:24 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-18 15:55 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-18 13:38 -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 21:11 -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 23:55 -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 18:30 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-23 20:36 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 00:03 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-24 07:17 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 08:45 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-24 12:26 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 10:33 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-24 14:52 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 12:56 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-24 17:25 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 14:31 -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 18:10 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-25 13:20 -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 16:14 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-25 13:28 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-26 15:50 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-26 21:48 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-01-27 13:59 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-27 18:31 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2026-01-28 07:34 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-28 10:33 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2026-02-01 07:33 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-02 10:11 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-02-02 18:44 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-02 23:53 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-02-03 07:20 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-26 01:59 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-26 11:17 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-01-24 13:42 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 14:20 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-01-25 13:04 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-25 13:09 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-01-25 13:10 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-25 13:11 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-01-28 12:43 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-28 13:16 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-01-28 13:26 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-28 13:44 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2026-02-01 07:33 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-18 06:37 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-17 16:42 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-17 20:17 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-17 18:40 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-17 22:29 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-17 22:12 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-18 07:03 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-18 15:08 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-18 12:55 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-18 10:44 -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 23:09 -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 22:46 -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 17:36 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-23 20:52 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 14:29 -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 19:30 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-25 13:20 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-25 13:08 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-25 17:24 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-25 20:01 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-26 11:21 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-26 11:43 -0800
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? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-21 20:07 +0000
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> - 2026-01-21 19:57 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-18 22:21 +0000
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? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-17 18:27 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-17 15:31 -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? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2026-01-17 01:28 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-17 10:52 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-17 22:45 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-17 17:20 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-17 20:30 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-17 18:23 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-17 22:47 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-18 00:28 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-18 07:28 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-18 10:10 -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 14:55 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-18 11:03 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-18 10:59 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2026-01-18 02:49 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-17 19:15 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-18 11:12 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2026-01-20 00:50 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-21 20:10 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2026-01-23 01:40 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-01-07 14:05 +0200
is the ct-thesis cooked, really? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-07 12:20 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked, really? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-01-08 12:11 +0200
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked, really? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-10 11:04 -0800
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> - 2026-01-10 10:19 -0600
Re: Boiling Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness proof down to its barest essence Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2026-01-10 18:19 -0500
Re: Boiling Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness proof down to its barest essence olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-10 18:16 -0600
Re: Boiling Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness proof down to its barest essence Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2026-01-10 19:35 -0500
Re: Boiling Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness proof down to its barest essence olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-10 19:59 -0600
Re: Boiling Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness proof down to its barest essence Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-11 07:28 -0500
Re: Boiling Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness proof down to its barest essence Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-01-11 12:34 +0200
csiph-web