Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > comp.theory > #139390
| Subject | Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng |
| References | (24 earlier) <10kkd7v$r0n$1@dont-email.me> <_oEbR.400756$rbZb.321304@fx17.iad> <10kn6oj$uupj$5@dont-email.me> <w_KbR.933037$H7H.622696@fx13.iad> <10kpbma$1o0br$1@dont-email.me> |
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
| Message-ID | <dV4dR.641021$CZPd.555399@fx18.iad> (permalink) |
| Organization | Forte - www.forteinc.com |
| Date | 2026-01-24 09:44 -0500 |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
On 1/20/26 8:55 PM, dart200 wrote: > On 1/20/26 4:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 1/20/26 1:18 AM, dart200 wrote: >>> On 1/19/26 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 1/18/26 11:51 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>> On 1/18/26 4:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 1/18/26 4:50 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>> On 1/18/26 12:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 1/18/26 1:15 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 1/18/26 4:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/26 1:05 AM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/17/26 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/17/26 10:14 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Good luck starving to death when your money runs out. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> one can only hope for so much sometimes 🙏 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess you don't understand the rules of logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> also not an argument >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Again, YOUR PROBLEM. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's pretty crazy i can produce a machine (even if u >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> haven't understood it yet) that produces a consistent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deterministic result that is "not a computation". >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because you get that result only by equivocating on your >>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the context is part of the inpt to make the output >>>>>>>>>>>>>> determistic from the input, then they fail to be usable as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sub- computations as we can't control that context part of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the input. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we look at just the controllable input for a sub- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation, the output is NOT a deterministic function of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that inut. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not sure what the fuck it's doing if it's not a computation >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Its using hidden inputs that the caller can't control. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> which we do all the time in normal programming, something >>>>>>>>>>>>> which apparently u think the tHeOrY oF CoMpUtInG fails to >>>>>>>>>>>>> encapsulate >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Right, but that isn't about computations. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> pretty crazy we do a bunch "non-computating" in the normal >>>>>>>>>>>>> act of programming computers >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Why? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> As I have said, "Computatations" is NOT about how modern >>>>>>>>>>>> computers work. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I guess you are just showing that you fundamentally don't >>>>>>>>>>>> understand the problem field you are betting your life on. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> one would presume the fundamental theory of computing would >>>>>>>>>>> be general enough to encapsulate everything computed by real >>>>>>>>>>> world computers, no??? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Why? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Remember, the fundamental theory of Computing PREDATES the >>>>>>>>>> computer as you know it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> so ur saying it's outdated and needs updating in regards to new >>>>>>>>> things we do with computers that apparently turing machines as >>>>>>>>> a model don't have variations of ... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, it still handles that which it was developed for. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> well it was developed to be a general theory of computing, and >>>>>>> apparently modern computing has transcended that theory ... >>>>>> >>>>>> Not really. >>>>>> >>>>>> THe way modern processors work, "sub-routines" can fail to be >>>>>> computations, but whole programs will tend to be. Sub-routines CAN >>>>>> be built with care to fall under its guidance. >>>>> >>>>> lol, what are they even if not "computations"??? >>>> >>>> not-computations >>> >>> great, a set of deterministic steps that produces a result but is >>> somehow not a compution! >> >> Because it isn't deterministically based on the INPUT, > > no it's just a series of steps to produce some output. Nope, not in the formulation of the theory. > > it may or may not have an input, and in fact the entirety of turing > machine computing can be expressed by enumerating only the turing > machines that do NOT take input. In which case the input can be thought of as the empty set and the output is a constant. > >> but include other "unknown" factors. > > lol, so when u print a stack trace, u consider those factors "unknown"? Thus making your definistic fallacy of confusing an instance of a computation with the definition and use of the computation itself. If I am trying to document an API, but the results depend on something not provided through that API, as far as that documentation is conserned those details are "unknown". > >> >> The key point is that a computation always gives the same answer for a >> given input, if it doesn't, it can't be a computation. >> >> If you can't control the whole input, it isn't as useful, if it has >> any usefullness at all. >> >>> >>> fucking dick is just pulling shit out of his ass, 🤮🤮🤮 >> >> It seems you are stuffing yours with shit. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> THere ARE advantages to doing so, as that DOES add a lot of >>>>>> correctness provability to the code. >>>>>> >>>>>> The biggest part of code not being analyzable/provable is when it >>>>>> deviates from the requirements of being a computation. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> or what ... someone writes down a fundamental theory and then >>>>>>>>> it just sticks around like an unchanging law when u haven't >>>>>>>>> even proven the ct- thesis correct??? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why does it need to change? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> why does the fundamental theory of computing need to encapsulate >>>>>>> all that is possible within computing?? >>>>>> >>>>>> That is like asking about shouldn't number theory talk about >>>>>> everything mathematics. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> idk, what's what i thot a fundamental theory is supposed to do, >>>>>>> but i guess you don't agree??? >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope, it handles ONE ASPECT of the general field. >>>>>> >>>>>> We not only have Computation Theory, but we also get things like >>>>>> Complexity Theory, >>>>> >>>>> complexity theory is built on top of the fundamentals of computing ... >>>> >>>> Yes, just like computability/comptation theory. >>>> >>>> The field of "Computer Science" has a bunch of subfields/theories >>>> within it. >>>> >>>> You seem to confuse Computation THeory with fundamental of computing. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> like, if the fundamental theory doesn't encapsulate everything >>>>>>> done within computing ... then idk why u think the halting >>>>>>> problem should apply to modern computing??? >>>>>> >>>>>> Because it DOES present a limitation of what modern computers can do. >>>>>> >>>>>> After all, every non-computation can be converted into a >>>>>> computation by forcing all the "hidden inputs" to be considered as >>>>>> inputs. >>>>> >>>>> lol schrodinger's computation >>>> >>>> Model conversion. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This just shows the limitation in controlability of the interface. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If a new problem comes up, a new theory might be needed to >>>>>>>> handle it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> or maybe new techniques could rectify old problems ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> talk about a lack of curiosity. you confusing regurgitation of >>>>>>> route learning with actual intelligence, but i suppose that's all >>>>>>> u need working for a military contractor... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> military intelligence is an oxymoron, remember? >>>>>> >>>>>> You might be surprised about that statement. >>>>>> >>>>>> You don't want a "smart bomb" locked onto you. >>>>> >>>>> they also don't want that if they know what's best for them >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> All you are doing is showing your ignorance of what you are >>>>>>>>>> talking about. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Showing that you really don't understand what you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems you just assume you are allowed to change the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition, perhaps because you never bothered to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> learn it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is sort of like the problem with a RASP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine architecture, sub- machines on such a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> platform are not necessarily computations, if they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use the machines capability to pass information >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not allowed by the rules of a computation. Your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RTM similarly break that property. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, Computations are NOT just what some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> model of processing produce, but specifically is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined based on producing a specific mapping of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to output, so if (even as a sub- machine) a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific input might produce different output, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your architecture is NOT doing a computation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And without that property, using what the machine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could do, becomes a pretty worthless criteria, as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can't actually talk much about it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the output is still well-defined and deterministic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at runtime, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not from the "input" to the piece of algorithm, as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it includes "hidden" state from outside that input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stored elsewhere in the machine. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context-dependent computations are still >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computations. the fact TMs don't capture them is an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indication that the ct- thesis may be false >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. Not unless the "context" is made part of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "input", and if you do that, you find that since you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are trying to make it so the caller can't just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> define that context, your system is less than turing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your system break to property of building a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation by the concatination of sub-computations. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...including a context-dependent sub-computation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes ur overall computation context-dependent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too ... if u dont want a context- dependent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation don't include context- dependent sub- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which makes it not a computation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PERIOD. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fallacy of equivocation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i'm not shifting meaning dude. i'm directly claiming >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's a distinct type of computation that has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignored by the theory of computing thus far >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nice try tho >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But you don't actually do that, as you then claim to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the same field to solve a problem specified in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I said, if you want to try to define a new field >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on a new definition of what a computation is, go >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ahead. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's not a new field, it's a mild extension of turing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines, with one new operation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it is, as you are changing essential core defintions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is like saying that spherical geometery is the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>> field as plane geometry, we just added a small extension. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> what the did the nut say when it was all grown up??? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You need to work out your formal definition. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Show how the system actually works out. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Show what it can show. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And show why anyone would want to use it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but in order to be complete and coherent, certain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computations *must* have context-awareness and are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> therefore context- dependent. these computations >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't generally computable by TMs because TMs lack >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the necessary mechanisms to grant context- awareness. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you require some computations to not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be actual computations. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless u can produce some actual proof of some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation that actually breaks in context- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependence, rather than just listing things u assume >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are true, i won't believe u know what ur talking about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The definition. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A computation produces the well defined result based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the INPUT. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context-dependent computation simply expands it's input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to include the entire computing context, not just the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal parameters. it's still well defined and it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grants us access to meta computation that is not as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressible in TM computing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ct-thesis is cooked dude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, because you are just putting yourself outside the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field it is written about. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can't change the definition of a computation, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still talk about things as if you were in the same system. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That just shows you are smoking some bad weed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your context, being not part of the input, can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change the well- defined result. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should 1 + 2 become 4 on Thursdays? of it asked of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gingerbread man? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ur overgeneralizing. just become some computation is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context- dependent doesn't mean all computation is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context- dependent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another fallacy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right, but nothing that actually is a computation can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context- dependent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ur just arguing in circles with this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you are just lying to yourself to try to disagree with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the definition. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All you are doing is saying you disagree with the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Go ahead, try to define an alternate version of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Computation Theory where the result can depend on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things that aren't part of the actual input to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine, and see what you can show that is useful. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem becomes that you can't really say anything >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about what you will get, since you don't know what the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "hidden" factors are. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ??? i was very clear multiple times over what the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "hidden" input was. there's nothing random about it, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context- dependent computation is just as well-defend >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and deterministic as context- independent computation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that when you look at the computation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself (that might be imbedded into a larger >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation) you don't know which of the infinite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contexts it might be within. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> depth is not infinite for any given step, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't say infinite depth, I said from infinite contexts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AND THAT'S WHERE REFLECT COMES IN: IT DUMPS THE FULL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MACHINE DESCRIPTION OF THE RUNNING MACHINE, THE CURRENT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STATE NUMBER, AND A FULL COPY OF THE TAPE ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And WHICH machine description does it dump? The problem is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the machine description isn't unique. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all the info required to compute all configurations >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between the beginning and the current step of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation, which can allow it to compute anything that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is "knowable" about where it is in the computation at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time of the REFLECT operation... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And where did it store that information? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, the starting tape was unbounded in length (but >>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite). >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The machine itself is bounded in size, plus the unbounded >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tape. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem is ur literally not reading what i'm writing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to an appreciable degree of comprehension, being too >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> focused on isolated responses that lack overall >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *contextual* awareness of the conversation... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you are ignoring the requirements to implement what >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you desire. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, what you can say about that "computation" is very >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> limited. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem to understand that a key point of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory is about being able to build complicate things >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from simpler pieces. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It comes out of how logic works, we build complicated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theories based on simpler theories and the axioms. If >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those simplere things were "context dependent" it makes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it much harder for them to specifiy what they actually >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do in all contexts, and to then use them in all contexts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i'm sorry context-dependent computation aren't as simple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is why you need to actually FULLY DEFINE them, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> admit it is a new field. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> well it'd be great if someone fucking helped me out there, >>>>>>>>>>>>> but all i get is a bunch adversarial dismissal cause i'm >>>>>>>>>>>>> stuck on a god forsaking planet of a fucking half-braindead >>>>>>>>>>>>> clowns >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Help has been offered, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> not constructively, ur barely even paying attention to what i >>>>>>>>>>> write >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No, perhaps the problem is I assume you at least attempt to >>>>>>>>>> learn what you are trying to talk about. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> u don't even know what constructive help is to be frank >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> i'm not ur student, ur not my teachers, this isn't a >>>>>>>>> hierarchical relationship, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and until u recognize that ur going to continue to be non- >>>>>>>>> constructive >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> YOU were the one asking for help to develop your ideas, if only >>>>>>>> by posting them and asking for comments. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have just pointed out the fundamental errors in your analysis >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You need to make a choice of directions. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Either you work in the currently established theory, so you can >>>>>>>> use things in it, and see if you can develop something new. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Or, you branch out and start a brand new theory, and start at >>>>>>>> the ground floor, fully define what you mean by things, show >>>>>>>> what you ideas can do, and why that would be useful. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> false dichotomy, add that to growing list of fallacies u shat out >>>>>>> at me >>>>>> >>>>>> No real dichotomy. >>>>> >>>>> no, i don't have to totally rewrite the system to transcend a few >>>>> classical limits. >>>> >>>> Sure you do. You need to figure out what might have changed. >>> >>> nothing about this change affect computation without REFLECT ... so >>> everything we already could compute is still computable. >> >> But only if you DON'T use reflect. > > but so no power has been lost > >> >>> >>> that fact that's not obvious to you is just u being willfully >>> ignorant at this point. >> >> The problem is, once your "machine" definition can do non- >> computations, you can't assume it does a computation, and thus your >> gaurenetees go away, so you can say less about what it does. > > i think ur just pulling a definist fallacy. until u make it produce a > contradiction, i don't really care what u label it as. > >> >>> >>>> >>>> Remove the first floor of your building and see what happens. >>> >>> false analogy! wow, another fallacy! >> >> Nope, that is EXACTLY what changing a foundational rule without seeing >> what it supported does. >> >> I guess you don't understand cause and effect. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Follow the rules and you can stay in the system. >>>>>> >>>>>> Change anything and you are outside, and need to show what still >>>>>> can apply. >>>>>> >>>>>> To say you can change the foundation but keep the building is just >>>>>> lying. >>>>> >>>>> you can in fact replace foundation without even lifting the house bro >>>> >>>> Not in logic. >>>> >>>> I guess you don't understand the use of figures of speach. >>> >>> or i just don't care for ur false analogy >> >> In other words, you don't understand what an analogy is. >> >> Too bad you are dooming yourself and your wife to starvation. > > pretty nuts u think u need to keep bringing that up, > > lol, u think ur on the right side here??? > >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> i'm not invalidating most of computing, just gunning for a few >>>>> classical limits that don't actually do anything interesting >>>>> anyways. not really sure why people are to bent up about them >>>> >>>> And, if you don't understand what those changes do, you don't know >>>> if your system is valid. >>> >>> ur just commenting on how little u've tried to understand it >> >> I'm trying to get you off the wrong track. > > and yet all u do is push me down the track further cause ain't accept ur > fallacies bro > >> >> What would you do if you saw someone cutting the branch they were >> sitting on, being outside the cut they were making. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It seems you want to change the foundation, but keep most of the >>>>>>>> building on top, without even knowing how that building was >>>>>>>> built and how it connects to the foundation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That just doesn't work. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> but you just reject it as it doesn't match your ideas, >>>>>>>>>>>> largely because you don't understand what you are trying to >>>>>>>>>>>> get in. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> When your errors are explained, just just curse back. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I can't fix stupid. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You aren't stuck on a planet of clowns, you are the clown >>>>>>>>>>>> that doesn't understand the world. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if the simplest theory was always correct we'd still be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using newtonian gravity for everything >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can't change a thing and it still be the same thing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess that truth is something you don't understand >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > >
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> - 2026-02-03 11:33 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-02-03 21:33 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-04 07:30 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-02-04 21:29 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-04 18:41 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-02-05 07:13 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-05 10:05 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-02-05 19:40 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-05 18:47 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-02-06 09:50 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-06 10:23 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-02-06 18:18 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-06 16:17 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-02-06 19:26 -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