On 10/29/25 4:46 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 1:42 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/29/2025 12:42 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 12:42 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/28/2025 9:48 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
HOW THE FUCK DOES IT WRITE A SYMBOL OR MOVE THE TAPE AROUND? IDK >>>>>>>> FUCKING JUST HAPPENS...
Because that *IS* what it is defined to do.
wow you gishgallop special pleading dumbass motherfucker just
fucking wow...
rofl.
so the turing machine can just work because *its* defined to be
so, no need to explain how,
but i need explain "how" RTMs beyond a definition because why????
Because you wanted more attention than the "moronic" Olcott?
actually kill yourself
You first? Deal. Lair paradox?
literally buy a gun, load it, cock the hammer, switch off the safety,
point it at ur head, and pull the trigger u literal piece of
existential trash
All you are doing is just admitting that you know you logic is broken,
so you need to move to nonsense.
On 10/29/25 5:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 2:09 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/29/2025 3:46 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 1:42 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/29/2025 12:42 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 12:42 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/28/2025 9:48 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
HOW THE FUCK DOES IT WRITE A SYMBOL OR MOVE THE TAPE AROUND? >>>>>>>>>> IDK FUCKING JUST HAPPENS...
Because that *IS* what it is defined to do.
wow you gishgallop special pleading dumbass motherfucker just >>>>>>>> fucking wow...
rofl.
so the turing machine can just work because *its* defined to be >>>>>>>> so, no need to explain how,
but i need explain "how" RTMs beyond a definition because why???? >>>>>>>>
Because you wanted more attention than the "moronic" Olcott?
actually kill yourself
You first? Deal. Lair paradox?
literally buy a gun, load it, cock the hammer, switch off the
safety, point it at ur head, and pull the trigger u literal piece of
existential trash
I set message filters in Thunderbird that
erases all of his messages and does not
allow any of them through in the future.
The technical name for this is *plonk*
maybe i'll do that,
but i try really hard not to block people,
because i don't want to develop a habit of it,
as i'm trying to push myself to be as less wrong as possible ...
So, you admit that you are wrong. The way to become less wrong is to
listen to the problems people point out and work on fixing it, rather
than trying to belittle them for pointing out your errors.
All you are doing by your actions is proving that you are worse than
Olcott.
On 10/29/25 6:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/29/25 4:46 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 1:42 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/29/2025 12:42 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 12:42 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/28/2025 9:48 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
HOW THE FUCK DOES IT WRITE A SYMBOL OR MOVE THE TAPE AROUND? >>>>>>>>> IDK FUCKING JUST HAPPENS...
Because that *IS* what it is defined to do.
wow you gishgallop special pleading dumbass motherfucker just
fucking wow...
rofl.
so the turing machine can just work because *its* defined to be >>>>>>> so, no need to explain how,
but i need explain "how" RTMs beyond a definition because why???? >>>>>>>
Because you wanted more attention than the "moronic" Olcott?
actually kill yourself
You first? Deal. Lair paradox?
literally buy a gun, load it, cock the hammer, switch off the safety,
point it at ur head, and pull the trigger u literal piece of
existential trash
All you are doing is just admitting that you know you logic is broken,
so you need to move to nonsense.
bro fuck u for encouraging an absolute troll like chris.
fucking boomers never learned to communicate properly so ofc u fucking
all failed to use the internet to converge on anything meaningful.
On 10/29/25 6:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/29/25 5:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 2:09 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/29/2025 3:46 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 1:42 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/29/2025 12:42 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 12:42 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/28/2025 9:48 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
HOW THE FUCK DOES IT WRITE A SYMBOL OR MOVE THE TAPE AROUND? >>>>>>>>>>> IDK FUCKING JUST HAPPENS...
Because that *IS* what it is defined to do.
wow you gishgallop special pleading dumbass motherfucker just >>>>>>>>> fucking wow...
rofl.
so the turing machine can just work because *its* defined to be >>>>>>>>> so, no need to explain how,
but i need explain "how" RTMs beyond a definition because why???? >>>>>>>>>
Because you wanted more attention than the "moronic" Olcott?
actually kill yourself
You first? Deal. Lair paradox?
literally buy a gun, load it, cock the hammer, switch off the
safety, point it at ur head, and pull the trigger u literal piece
of existential trash
I set message filters in Thunderbird that
erases all of his messages and does not
allow any of them through in the future.
The technical name for this is *plonk*
maybe i'll do that,
but i try really hard not to block people,
because i don't want to develop a habit of it,
as i'm trying to push myself to be as less wrong as possible ...
So, you admit that you are wrong. The way to become less wrong is to
ur such a fucking idiot u don't even know how big a fucking idiot you are
listen to the problems people point out and work on fixing it, rather
than trying to belittle them for pointing out your errors.
u've pointed out nothing but bare claims after bare claim mixed in with
a bunch of insults
u'd be the dumbass shitting all over turing's paper if he was the one
trying to propose anything right now
All you are doing by your actions is proving that you are worse than
Olcott.
fucking useless fucking boomer tryign to assess truthiness by tone
policing. you only wish there was a logical connection there, that would make it soooo easy for you
On 10/29/25 12:24 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 4:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/28/25 11:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/28/25 9:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:34 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/28/2025 5:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
[...]
not my argument u fucking useless boomer
Well, how do you solve the halting problem?
with reflection, something u lack as a useless fucking boomer
Which you can't say how to do, because your only answer is to
define that you can.
we haven't even gotten the point of working out the ramifications of
what i've defined,
Because you haven't actually defined what you are doing.
blatant lie
Really, show where you have ACTUALLY fully defined your computation
machine to a level you can actually analyize one.
On 10/29/25 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/29/25 12:24 PM, dart200 wrote:TMs with a modification, specifically adding full mechanical reflection
On 10/29/25 4:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/28/25 11:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/28/25 9:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:34 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/28/2025 5:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
[...]
not my argument u fucking useless boomer
Well, how do you solve the halting problem?
with reflection, something u lack as a useless fucking boomer
Which you can't say how to do, because your only answer is to
define that you can.
we haven't even gotten the point of working out the ramifications
of what i've defined,
Because you haven't actually defined what you are doing.
blatant lie
Really, show where you have ACTUALLY fully defined your computation
machine to a level you can actually analyize one.
to TMs in order to produce Reflective TMs (RTMs)
adding full mechanical reflection just means it gets a single
instruction that dumps *all* this information to the tape, at the head,
when that instruction is called:
1) machine description
2) initial tape state
3) current instruction
4) current tape state
call it REFLECT, if u will... this information allows a computation to
know exactly where it is in the overall runtime of computation, and with that it can subvert semantic paradoxes like the halting problem.
you have to understand this is a *mechanical* modification to turing machines, not a computational one. much like how RTMs can move a head left/right, or write 0/1 to the tape ... they mechanically just do this operation when the instruction is called.
*these mechanics are (relatively) simple and self-evidentially possible
and therefore mathematically feasible.*
BUT, let me try a step deeper, and quote turing at you from his original paper on computable numbers:
/We may compare a man in the process of computing a real number to a
machine which is only capable of a finite number of conditions/ [Tur36]
THE ENTIRE JUSTIFICATION FOR TURING MACHINES RESTS SQUARELY ON THE
NOTION OF "CAN A MAN MECHANICALLY UNDERTAKE THESE STATE TRANSITIONS"
1) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then obviously
he has access the full machine description, or how else the fuck is he
doing any of these state transitions??? therefore he obviously can dump
the machine description, in whatever format he has it in, to the tape
when REFLECT is encountered.
2) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then obviously
he can to the side save the initial tape in a "buffer" that than cannot
be overwritten. with that he can can obviously dump the initial tape
state to the tape whenever REFLECT is encountered.
3) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then obviously
he has access input of a particular transition, and therefore can dump
that input to the tape when REFLECT is encountered, in whatever format
he encounters it in.
4) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation ... he can
obviously duplicate the tape when REFLECT is called. or more precisely
he can save it into a buffer, and dump from the buffer after putting 1-3
on the tape.
THAT IS THE SAME LEVEL OF FORMAT JUSTIFICATION TURING ULTIMATELY GIVES
FOR ANY COMPUTING MACHINE. SERIOUSLY READ HIS FUCKING ESSAY YOU DORK
please tell me where u are confused, not how u think i'm wrong
This is for Olcott and dart. Olcott asked what should HHH(DD) return?
Well, check this shit out, lol:
______________________________
1 HOME
5 PRINT "HHH"
6 P0 = 0
7 P1 = 0
10 INPUT "Shall DD halt or not? " ; A$
20 IF A$ = "YES" GOTO 666
30 P1 = P1 + 1
40 IF P0 > 0 AND P1 > 0 GOTO 1000
50 GOTO 10
666 PRINT "OK!"
667 P0 = P0 + 1
700 PRINT "NON_HALT P0 = "; P0
710 PRINT "HALT P1 = "; P1
720 IF P0 > 0 AND P1 > 0 GOTO 1000
730 PRINT "ALL PATHS FAILED TO BE HIT!"
740 GOTO 10
1000
1010 PRINT "FIN... All paths hit."
1020 PRINT "NON_HALT P0 = "; P0
1030 PRINT "HALT P1 = "; P1
______________________________
You can run it here:
https://www.calormen.com/jsbasic
On 10/29/25 10:39 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:[snip]
This is for Olcott and dart. Olcott asked what should HHH(DD) return?
Well, check this shit out, lol:
______________________________
______________________________
You can run it here:
https://www.calormen.com/jsbasic
ur a fucking psychopath
On 10/29/2025 10:51 PM, dart200 wrote:[...]
On 10/29/25 10:39 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:[snip]
This is for Olcott and dart. Olcott asked what should HHH(DD) return?
Well, check this shit out, lol:
______________________________
______________________________
You can run it here:
https://www.calormen.com/jsbasic
ur a fucking psychopath
You can run the following code here:
https://i.ibb.co/RTyX5XdS/image.png
https://www.calormen.com/jsbasic/
Pretty simple? The A$ can be fuzzed to remove the human aspect... ;^)
1 HOME
5 PRINT "HHH"
6 P0 = 0
7 P1 = 0
10 INPUT "Shall DD halt or not? " ; A$
20 IF A$ = "YES" GOTO 666
30 P0 = P0 + 1
40 IF P0 > 0 AND P1 > 0 GOTO 1000
50 GOTO 10
666 PRINT "OK!"
667 P1 = P1 + 1
700 PRINT "NON_HALT P0 = "; P0
710 PRINT "HALT P1 = "; P1
720 IF P0 > 0 AND P1 > 0 GOTO 1000
730 PRINT "ALL PATHS FAILED TO BE HIT!"
740 GOTO 10
1000
1010 PRINT "FIN... All paths hit."
1020 PRINT "NON_HALT P0 = "; P0
1030 PRINT "HALT P1 = "; P1
On 10/29/25 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/29/25 12:24 PM, dart200 wrote:TMs with a modification, specifically adding full mechanical reflection
On 10/29/25 4:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/28/25 11:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/28/25 9:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:34 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/28/2025 5:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
[...]
not my argument u fucking useless boomer
Well, how do you solve the halting problem?
with reflection, something u lack as a useless fucking boomer
Which you can't say how to do, because your only answer is to
define that you can.
we haven't even gotten the point of working out the ramifications
of what i've defined,
Because you haven't actually defined what you are doing.
blatant lie
Really, show where you have ACTUALLY fully defined your computation
machine to a level you can actually analyize one.
to TMs in order to produce Reflective TMs (RTMs)
adding full mechanical reflection just means it gets a single
instruction that dumps *all* this information to the tape, at the head,
when that instruction is called:
1) machine description
2) initial tape state
3) current instruction
4) current tape state
call it REFLECT, if u will... this information allows a computation to
know exactly where it is in the overall runtime of computation, and with that it can subvert semantic paradoxes like the halting problem.
you have to understand this is a *mechanical* modification to turing machines, not a computational one. much like how RTMs can move a head left/right, or write 0/1 to the tape ... they mechanically just do this operation when the instruction is called.
*these mechanics are (relatively) simple and self-evidentially possible
and therefore mathematically feasible.*
BUT, let me try a step deeper, and quote turing at you from his original paper on computable numbers:
/We may compare a man in the process of computing a real number to a
machine which is only capable of a finite number of conditions/ [Tur36]
THE ENTIRE JUSTIFICATION FOR TURING MACHINES RESTS SQUARELY ON THE
NOTION OF "CAN A MAN MECHANICALLY UNDERTAKE THESE STATE TRANSITIONS"
1) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then obviously
he has access the full machine description, or how else the fuck is he
doing any of these state transitions??? therefore he obviously can dump
the machine description, in whatever format he has it in, to the tape
when REFLECT is encountered.
2) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then obviously
he can to the side save the initial tape in a "buffer" that than cannot
be overwritten. with that he can can obviously dump the initial tape
state to the tape whenever REFLECT is encountered.
3) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then obviously
he has access input of a particular transition, and therefore can dump
that input to the tape when REFLECT is encountered, in whatever format
he encounters it in.
4) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation ... he can
obviously duplicate the tape when REFLECT is called. or more precisely
he can save it into a buffer, and dump from the buffer after putting 1-3
on the tape.
THAT IS THE SAME LEVEL OF FORMAT JUSTIFICATION TURING ULTIMATELY GIVES
FOR ANY COMPUTING MACHINE. SERIOUSLY READ HIS FUCKING ESSAY YOU DORK
please tell me where u are confused, not how u think i'm wrong
On 10/29/25 6:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/29/25 5:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 2:09 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/29/2025 3:46 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 1:42 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/29/2025 12:42 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 12:42 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/28/2025 9:48 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
HOW THE FUCK DOES IT WRITE A SYMBOL OR MOVE THE TAPE AROUND? >>>>>>>>>>> IDK FUCKING JUST HAPPENS...
Because that *IS* what it is defined to do.
wow you gishgallop special pleading dumbass motherfucker just >>>>>>>>> fucking wow...
rofl.
so the turing machine can just work because *its* defined to be >>>>>>>>> so, no need to explain how,
but i need explain "how" RTMs beyond a definition because why???? >>>>>>>>>
Because you wanted more attention than the "moronic" Olcott?
actually kill yourself
You first? Deal. Lair paradox?
literally buy a gun, load it, cock the hammer, switch off the
safety, point it at ur head, and pull the trigger u literal piece
of existential trash
I set message filters in Thunderbird that
erases all of his messages and does not
allow any of them through in the future.
The technical name for this is *plonk*
maybe i'll do that,
but i try really hard not to block people,
because i don't want to develop a habit of it,
as i'm trying to push myself to be as less wrong as possible ...
So, you admit that you are wrong. The way to become less wrong is to
ur such a fucking idiot u don't even know how big a fucking idiot you are
listen to the problems people point out and work on fixing it, rather
than trying to belittle them for pointing out your errors.
u've pointed out nothing but bare claims after bare claim mixed in with
a bunch of insults
u'd be the dumbass shitting all over turing's paper if he was the one
trying to propose anything right now
All you are doing by your actions is proving that you are worse than
Olcott.
fucking useless fucking boomer tryign to assess truthiness by tone
policing. you only wish there was a logical connection there, that would make it soooo easy for you
On 10/29/25 7:53 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 6:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/29/25 5:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 2:09 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/29/2025 3:46 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 1:42 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/29/2025 12:42 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 12:42 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/28/2025 9:48 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
HOW THE FUCK DOES IT WRITE A SYMBOL OR MOVE THE TAPE AROUND? >>>>>>>>>>>> IDK FUCKING JUST HAPPENS...
Because that *IS* what it is defined to do.
wow you gishgallop special pleading dumbass motherfucker just >>>>>>>>>> fucking wow...
rofl.
so the turing machine can just work because *its* defined to >>>>>>>>>> be so, no need to explain how,
but i need explain "how" RTMs beyond a definition because why???? >>>>>>>>>>
Because you wanted more attention than the "moronic" Olcott?
actually kill yourself
You first? Deal. Lair paradox?
literally buy a gun, load it, cock the hammer, switch off the
safety, point it at ur head, and pull the trigger u literal piece >>>>>> of existential trash
I set message filters in Thunderbird that
erases all of his messages and does not
allow any of them through in the future.
The technical name for this is *plonk*
maybe i'll do that,
but i try really hard not to block people,
because i don't want to develop a habit of it,
as i'm trying to push myself to be as less wrong as possible ...
So, you admit that you are wrong. The way to become less wrong is to
ur such a fucking idiot u don't even know how big a fucking idiot you are
listen to the problems people point out and work on fixing it, rather
than trying to belittle them for pointing out your errors.
u've pointed out nothing but bare claims after bare claim mixed in
with a bunch of insults
u'd be the dumbass shitting all over turing's paper if he was the one
trying to propose anything right now
All you are doing by your actions is proving that you are worse than
Olcott.
fucking useless fucking boomer tryign to assess truthiness by tone
policing. you only wish there was a logical connection there, that
would make it soooo easy for you
like ur such a total fuckwit that u don't even acknowledge the potential
for massive holes in ur understanding
On 10/29/25 6:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/29/25 4:46 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 1:42 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/29/2025 12:42 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 12:42 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/28/2025 9:48 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
HOW THE FUCK DOES IT WRITE A SYMBOL OR MOVE THE TAPE AROUND? >>>>>>>>> IDK FUCKING JUST HAPPENS...
Because that *IS* what it is defined to do.
wow you gishgallop special pleading dumbass motherfucker just
fucking wow...
rofl.
so the turing machine can just work because *its* defined to be >>>>>>> so, no need to explain how,
but i need explain "how" RTMs beyond a definition because why???? >>>>>>>
Because you wanted more attention than the "moronic" Olcott?
actually kill yourself
You first? Deal. Lair paradox?
literally buy a gun, load it, cock the hammer, switch off the safety,
point it at ur head, and pull the trigger u literal piece of
existential trash
All you are doing is just admitting that you know you logic is broken,
so you need to move to nonsense.
bro fuck u for encouraging an absolute troll like chris.
fucking boomers never learned to communicate properly so ofc u fucking
all failed to use the internet to converge on anything meaningful.
On 10/29/2025 9:49 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 6:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/29/25 4:46 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 1:42 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/29/2025 12:42 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 12:42 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/28/2025 9:48 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
HOW THE FUCK DOES IT WRITE A SYMBOL OR MOVE THE TAPE AROUND?
IDK FUCKING JUST HAPPENS...
Because that *IS* what it is defined to do.
wow you gishgallop special pleading dumbass motherfucker just fucking wow...
rofl.
so the turing machine can just work because *its* defined to be
so, no need to explain how,
but i need explain "how" RTMs beyond a definition because why????
Because you wanted more attention than the "moronic" Olcott?
actually kill yourself
You first? Deal. Lair paradox?
literally buy a gun, load it, cock the hammer, switch off the safety, point it at ur head, and pull the trigger u literal piece of existential trash
All you are doing is just admitting that you know you logic is broken, so you need to move to nonsense.
bro fuck u for encouraging an absolute troll like chris.
fucking boomers never learned to communicate properly so ofc u fucking
all failed to use the internet to converge on anything meaningful.
*There are at least three complete Trolls here --- best ignored*At the beginning, R.D. (and others) tireless explained the HP and the bugs of POOH. But you kept 'in rebuttal mode' to fabricate false report in response. All is left to quit responding to you or ... like R.D. did. I like what he did for me, so I don't have to. You are a true IDIOT and LIAR.
Chris M. Thomasson // 99% pure nonsense
dbush and // 99% pure dogma with zero comprehension
Richard Damon // 100% stuck in rebuttal mode and mean
*These are good reviewers*--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
Alan Mackenzie
André G. Isaak
Mikko
Ben Bacarisse
Mike Terry
Kaz might give you a fair review too
he is reasonable at least 1/3 of the time.
On Wed, 2025-10-29 at 22:01 -0500, olcott wrote:
On 10/29/2025 9:49 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 6:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/29/25 4:46 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 1:42 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/29/2025 12:42 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 12:42 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/28/2025 9:48 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
HOW THE FUCK DOES IT WRITE A SYMBOL OR MOVE THE TAPE AROUND?
IDK FUCKING JUST HAPPENS...
Because that *IS* what it is defined to do.
wow you gishgallop special pleading dumbass motherfucker just
fucking wow...
rofl.
so the turing machine can just work because *its* defined to be
so, no need to explain how,
but i need explain "how" RTMs beyond a definition because why????
Because you wanted more attention than the "moronic" Olcott?
actually kill yourself
You first? Deal. Lair paradox?
literally buy a gun, load it, cock the hammer, switch off the safety,
point it at ur head, and pull the trigger u literal piece of existential trash
All you are doing is just admitting that you know you logic is broken, so you need to move to nonsense.
bro fuck u for encouraging an absolute troll like chris.
fucking boomers never learned to communicate properly so ofc u fucking all failed to use the internet to converge on anything meaningful.
*There are at least three complete Trolls here --- best ignored*
Chris M. Thomasson // 99% pure nonsense
dbush and // 99% pure dogma with zero comprehension Richard Damon // 100% stuck in rebuttal mode and mean
At the beginning, R.D. (and others) tireless explained the HP and the bugs of POOH. But you kept 'in rebuttal mode' to fabricate false report in response. All is left to quit responding to you or ... like R.D. did. I like what he did
for me, so I don't have to. You are a true IDIOT and LIAR.
Note: This is not defamation, your reputation IS so, what is FACT.
Chris made a simple BASIC example:*These are good reviewers*
Alan Mackenzie
André G. Isaak
Mikko
Ben Bacarisse
Mike Terry
Kaz might give you a fair review too
he is reasonable at least 1/3 of the time.
On Wed, 2025-10-29 at 22:01 -0500, olcott wrote:
On 10/29/2025 9:49 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 6:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/29/25 4:46 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 1:42 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/29/2025 12:42 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 12:42 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/28/2025 9:48 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
HOW THE FUCK DOES IT WRITE A SYMBOL OR MOVE THE TAPE AROUND? >>>>>>>>>>> IDK FUCKING JUST HAPPENS...
Because that *IS* what it is defined to do.
wow you gishgallop special pleading dumbass motherfucker just >>>>>>>>> fucking wow...
rofl.
so the turing machine can just work because *its* defined to be >>>>>>>>> so, no need to explain how,
but i need explain "how" RTMs beyond a definition because why???? >>>>>>>>>
Because you wanted more attention than the "moronic" Olcott?
actually kill yourself
You first? Deal. Lair paradox?
literally buy a gun, load it, cock the hammer, switch off the safety, >>>>> point it at ur head, and pull the trigger u literal piece of
existential trash
All you are doing is just admitting that you know you logic is broken, >>>> so you need to move to nonsense.
bro fuck u for encouraging an absolute troll like chris.
fucking boomers never learned to communicate properly so ofc u fucking
all failed to use the internet to converge on anything meaningful.
*There are at least three complete Trolls here --- best ignored*
Chris M. Thomasson // 99% pure nonsense
dbush and // 99% pure dogma with zero comprehension
Richard Damon // 100% stuck in rebuttal mode and mean
At the beginning, R.D. (and others) tireless explained the HP and the bugs of POOH. But you kept 'in rebuttal mode' to fabricate false report in response. All is left to quit responding to you or ... like R.D. did. I like what he did
for me, so I don't have to. You are a true IDIOT and LIAR.
Note: This is not defamation, your reputation IS so, what is FACT.
*These are good reviewers*
Alan Mackenzie
André G. Isaak
Mikko
Ben Bacarisse
Mike Terry
Kaz might give you a fair review too
he is reasonable at least 1/3 of the time.
On 10/29/25 11:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/29/25 12:24 PM, dart200 wrote:TMs with a modification, specifically adding full mechanical
On 10/29/25 4:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/28/25 11:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/28/25 9:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:34 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/28/2025 5:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
[...]
not my argument u fucking useless boomer
Well, how do you solve the halting problem?
with reflection, something u lack as a useless fucking boomer
Which you can't say how to do, because your only answer is to
define that you can.
we haven't even gotten the point of working out the ramifications >>>>>> of what i've defined,
Because you haven't actually defined what you are doing.
blatant lie
Really, show where you have ACTUALLY fully defined your computation
machine to a level you can actually analyize one.
reflection to TMs in order to produce Reflective TMs (RTMs)
But they arn't TMs, and you can't add the feature and maintain them as having the basic property of TMS.
You don't seem to understand that this "simple modification" to a TM do
add this is akin to adding to arithmatic the rule that 1 can be equal to 2.
adding full mechanical reflection just means it gets a single
instruction that dumps *all* this information to the tape, at the
head, when that instruction is called:
But TMs don't HAVE that sort of instructions.
Their FULL array of operations is the mapping of the current state and
Tape Symbol to the new state and tape symbol, plus a step of the tape in
one direction of the other.
There is not place in that format of "instruction" to add such a feature.
That is why I keep telling you that you haven't actually DEFINED how you system works, as it is based on just assuming that "somehow" you can do
what you want
1) machine description
2) initial tape state
3) current instruction
4) current tape state
And where does it get that information from to do so?
That is like saying there can be a "Get the right answer" instruction to
a deterministic computation devide.
Remember, Turing Machines have no memory other than the current state
and the current contents of the tape, which is defined to be the input
to that current state.
call it REFLECT, if u will... this information allows a computation to
know exactly where it is in the overall runtime of computation, and
with that it can subvert semantic paradoxes like the halting problem.
Call WHAT "REFLECT".
Your problem is you don't understand that Turing Machines don't have the ability to have arbitrary instructions due to how they are define.
Just like they don't have instrucitons like Add or Call or Multiply.
you have to understand this is a *mechanical* modification to turing
machines, not a computational one. much like how RTMs can move a head
left/right, or write 0/1 to the tape ... they mechanically just do
this operation when the instruction is called.
How?
Note, Turing Machine are pure Mathematical constructs, in a system with defined rules.
There is no operation defined to do what you want.
All you are doing is showing you are as ignorant of what you are talking about as Olcot.
*these mechanics are (relatively) simple and self-evidentially
possible and therefore mathematically feasible.*
There are no "mechanics" to a Turing Machine but state transition,
changing the contents of the tape, and moving it a step.
BUT, let me try a step deeper, and quote turing at you from his
original paper on computable numbers:
/We may compare a man in the process of computing a real number to a
machine which is only capable of a finite number of conditions/ [Tur36]
Right, so, how does that man do that operation?
THE ENTIRE JUSTIFICATION FOR TURING MACHINES RESTS SQUARELY ON THE
NOTION OF "CAN A MAN MECHANICALLY UNDERTAKE THESE STATE TRANSITIONS"
Right, so how do you "mechanically" create information from no where.
The man has no "memory", except for what is on the papers.
1) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then obviously
he has access the full machine description, or how else the fuck is he
doing any of these state transitions??? therefore he obviously can
dump the machine description, in whatever format he has it in, to the
tape when REFLECT is encountered.
No, he has the book of instructions. he doesn't necessarily know how to convert those instructions into the notes he is allowed to write on the pieces of paper.
He also doesn't remember what values the pile of papers had on it when
he started,
2) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then obviously
he can to the side save the initial tape in a "buffer" that than
cannot be overwritten. with that he can can obviously dump the initial
tape state to the tape whenever REFLECT is encountered.
Right, so even if you gave him a side bucket to put the information in,
when he starts this sub-operation, it begins by telling him to copy
3) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then obviously
he has access input of a particular transition, and therefore can dump
that input to the tape when REFLECT is encountered, in whatever format
he encounters it in.
4) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation ... he can
obviously duplicate the tape when REFLECT is called. or more precisely
he can save it into a buffer, and dump from the buffer after putting
1-3 on the tape.
But to where? Remember, the pile of papers, as a total, is DEFINED to be
the input to the compuation.
Thus, if the outer part of the operation made a note of state of the
machine and put it into the pile of paper, it becomes part of the input
to the sub-operation.
But the sub-operation wasn't defined to have that as its input.
It can't be a "hidden" pile that only comes out with a reflect
instruction as there is defined that there isn't such a pile
THAT IS THE SAME LEVEL OF FORMAT JUSTIFICATION TURING ULTIMATELY GIVES
FOR ANY COMPUTING MACHINE. SERIOUSLY READ HIS FUCKING ESSAY YOU DORK
Nope, because your description changes the input given, and thus is
about lying.
Again, HOW does the "machine" do what you want with what Turing gave it.
IF it passes that information down from the outer routine to the inner,
then by DEFINITION that inner routine has a diffent input then before,
and thus the program P isn't the required one. The "call" to the decider that P makes, must have the exact same input as when we directly call it
for the answer.
If not, then your system just fails to have proper reuse of algorithms, which makes it less than Turing Complete.
please tell me where u are confused, not how u think i'm wrong
I am not confused, which is part of your issue, you refuse to look at
the errors ppinted out.
You aren't allowed to change the fundamental definitions without kicking yourself out of the field you claim to be in.
Turing Machines have no private memory other than their current state.
The question is ONLY a function of the description of the program to
run, and thus the decider CAN'T depend on anything other than that description, or the decider is by definition incorrect.
Thus, even if you could define such a thing as a RTM, and program that actually tries to use that capability to affect its answer, couldn't be
a correct halt decider.
Any attempt to try to define it as such will fundamentally turn your
logic system into an incoherent worthless mess.
On 10/29/2025 10:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/29/25 12:24 PM, dart200 wrote:TMs with a modification, specifically adding full mechanical
On 10/29/25 4:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/28/25 11:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/28/25 9:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:34 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/28/2025 5:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
[...]
not my argument u fucking useless boomer
Well, how do you solve the halting problem?
with reflection, something u lack as a useless fucking boomer
Which you can't say how to do, because your only answer is to
define that you can.
we haven't even gotten the point of working out the ramifications >>>>>> of what i've defined,
Because you haven't actually defined what you are doing.
blatant lie
Really, show where you have ACTUALLY fully defined your computation
machine to a level you can actually analyize one.
reflection to TMs in order to produce Reflective TMs (RTMs)
adding full mechanical reflection just means it gets a single
instruction that dumps *all* this information to the tape, at the
head, when that instruction is called:
1) machine description
2) initial tape state
3) current instruction
4) current tape state
call it REFLECT, if u will... this information allows a computation to
know exactly where it is in the overall runtime of computation, and
with that it can subvert semantic paradoxes like the halting problem.
you have to understand this is a *mechanical* modification to turing
machines, not a computational one. much like how RTMs can move a head
left/right, or write 0/1 to the tape ... they mechanically just do
this operation when the instruction is called.
*these mechanics are (relatively) simple and self-evidentially
possible and therefore mathematically feasible.*
BUT, let me try a step deeper, and quote turing at you from his
original paper on computable numbers:
/We may compare a man in the process of computing a real number to a
machine which is only capable of a finite number of conditions/ [Tur36]
THE ENTIRE JUSTIFICATION FOR TURING MACHINES RESTS SQUARELY ON THE
NOTION OF "CAN A MAN MECHANICALLY UNDERTAKE THESE STATE TRANSITIONS"
1) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then obviously
he has access the full machine description, or how else the fuck is he
doing any of these state transitions??? therefore he obviously can
dump the machine description, in whatever format he has it in, to the
tape when REFLECT is encountered.
2) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then obviously
he can to the side save the initial tape in a "buffer" that than
cannot be overwritten. with that he can can obviously dump the initial
tape state to the tape whenever REFLECT is encountered.
3) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then obviously
he has access input of a particular transition, and therefore can dump
that input to the tape when REFLECT is encountered, in whatever format
he encounters it in.
4) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation ... he can
obviously duplicate the tape when REFLECT is called. or more precisely
he can save it into a buffer, and dump from the buffer after putting
1-3 on the tape.
THAT IS THE SAME LEVEL OF FORMAT JUSTIFICATION TURING ULTIMATELY GIVES
FOR ANY COMPUTING MACHINE. SERIOUSLY READ HIS FUCKING ESSAY YOU DORK
please tell me where u are confused, not how u think i'm wrong
I can finally see the gist of what you are saying
and it seems to be very similar to my idea.
On 10/29/25 8:42 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/29/2025 10:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/29/25 12:24 PM, dart200 wrote:TMs with a modification, specifically adding full mechanical
On 10/29/25 4:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/28/25 11:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/28/25 9:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:34 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/28/2025 5:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
[...]
not my argument u fucking useless boomer
Well, how do you solve the halting problem?
with reflection, something u lack as a useless fucking boomer >>>>>>>>>
Which you can't say how to do, because your only answer is to >>>>>>>> define that you can.
we haven't even gotten the point of working out the ramifications >>>>>>> of what i've defined,
Because you haven't actually defined what you are doing.
blatant lie
Really, show where you have ACTUALLY fully defined your computation
machine to a level you can actually analyize one.
reflection to TMs in order to produce Reflective TMs (RTMs)
adding full mechanical reflection just means it gets a single
instruction that dumps *all* this information to the tape, at the
head, when that instruction is called:
1) machine description
2) initial tape state
3) current instruction
4) current tape state
call it REFLECT, if u will... this information allows a computation
to know exactly where it is in the overall runtime of computation,
and with that it can subvert semantic paradoxes like the halting
problem.
you have to understand this is a *mechanical* modification to turing
machines, not a computational one. much like how RTMs can move a head
left/right, or write 0/1 to the tape ... they mechanically just do
this operation when the instruction is called.
*these mechanics are (relatively) simple and self-evidentially
possible and therefore mathematically feasible.*
BUT, let me try a step deeper, and quote turing at you from his
original paper on computable numbers:
/We may compare a man in the process of computing a real number to a
machine which is only capable of a finite number of conditions/ [Tur36]
THE ENTIRE JUSTIFICATION FOR TURING MACHINES RESTS SQUARELY ON THE
NOTION OF "CAN A MAN MECHANICALLY UNDERTAKE THESE STATE TRANSITIONS"
1) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then
obviously he has access the full machine description, or how else the
fuck is he doing any of these state transitions??? therefore he
obviously can dump the machine description, in whatever format he has
it in, to the tape when REFLECT is encountered.
2) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then
obviously he can to the side save the initial tape in a "buffer" that
than cannot be overwritten. with that he can can obviously dump the
initial tape state to the tape whenever REFLECT is encountered.
3) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then
obviously he has access input of a particular transition, and
therefore can dump that input to the tape when REFLECT is
encountered, in whatever format he encounters it in.
4) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation ... he can
obviously duplicate the tape when REFLECT is called. or more
precisely he can save it into a buffer, and dump from the buffer
after putting 1-3 on the tape.
THAT IS THE SAME LEVEL OF FORMAT JUSTIFICATION TURING ULTIMATELY
GIVES FOR ANY COMPUTING MACHINE. SERIOUSLY READ HIS FUCKING ESSAY YOU
DORK
please tell me where u are confused, not how u think i'm wrong
I can finally see the gist of what you are saying
and it seems to be very similar to my idea.
like i've said polcott, i consider you having a half-way solution. u
have something that's executable for sure, and that is a definite improvement over total undecidability.
but it's not totally epistemically useful, it still doesn't /effectively compute/ the halting function in a *general* manner.
i'm proposing something that's both executable *and* epistemically
useful for that purpose.
the RTM i'm proposing here is just the underlying theoretical mechanisms that can be used to produce a theoretically coherent context-dependent decider,
which can then be used to /effectively compute/ the halting function irrespective of semantic paradoxes ...
something that is in total a step beyond the mere executability that you
are proposing.
are you seriously trying to tell me that you don't think it's possible
to design a computer chip that can do simple things like:
1) dump the program it's running on demand?
2) save the initial memory to an internal buffer to dump on demand?
3) dump the current instruction address on demand?
4) duplicate memory on demand????
cause right now ur saying u can't imagine a computer chip doing that
On 2025-10-30, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
are you seriously trying to tell me that you don't think it's possible
to design a computer chip that can do simple things like:
1) dump the program it's running on demand?
2) save the initial memory to an internal buffer to dump on demand?
3) dump the current instruction address on demand?
4) duplicate memory on demand????
cause right now ur saying u can't imagine a computer chip doing that
All of what you say above is literally done by embedded devs around the planet, daily, with JTAG debuggers and similar.
It makes no sense as a product feature in the chip itself, beyond
providing support for the debugging interface.
But yes; someone could combine the JTAG debugger with the rest of
the board and have some sort of product that does reflection.
It's possible with the current tech.
It would need the help of the second processor; the host would give
it a command like "please stop me for a moment, and grab a snapshot
of such and such state". Then when that is done, the snapshot can be downloaded to the host from the helper chip (or already available
in memory).
On 2025-10-30, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
are you seriously trying to tell me that you don't think it's possible
to design a computer chip that can do simple things like:
1) dump the program it's running on demand?
2) save the initial memory to an internal buffer to dump on demand?
3) dump the current instruction address on demand?
4) duplicate memory on demand????
cause right now ur saying u can't imagine a computer chip doing that
All of what you say above is literally done by embedded devs around the planet, daily, with JTAG debuggers and similar.
It makes no sense as a product feature in the chip itself, beyond
providing support for the debugging interface.
But yes; someone could combine the JTAG debugger with the rest of
the board and have some sort of product that does reflection.
It's possible with the current tech.
It would need the help of the second processor; the host would give
it a command like "please stop me for a moment, and grab a snapshot
of such and such state". Then when that is done, the snapshot can be downloaded to the host from the helper chip (or already available
in memory).
It may make more sense for a UTM do do reflection even
on its own behavior. It could write each step that itself
takes on a portion of its own tape.
On 2025-10-30, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
It may make more sense for a UTM do do reflection even
on its own behavior. It could write each step that itself
takes on a portion of its own tape.
Wow, you really know your shit. I'm appointing you lead engineer on the project.
Let's outline a 22 year plan.
Status reports can be posted tri-daily to comp.theory.
On Thu, 2025-10-30 at 22:39 +0800, wij wrote:
On Wed, 2025-10-29 at 22:01 -0500, olcott wrote:
On 10/29/2025 9:49 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 6:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/29/25 4:46 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 1:42 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/29/2025 12:42 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 12:42 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/28/2025 9:48 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
HOW THE FUCK DOES IT WRITE A SYMBOL OR MOVE THE TAPE AROUND? >>>>>>>>>>>> IDK FUCKING JUST HAPPENS...
Because that *IS* what it is defined to do.
wow you gishgallop special pleading dumbass motherfucker just >>>>>>>>>> fucking wow...
rofl.
so the turing machine can just work because *its* defined to be >>>>>>>>>> so, no need to explain how,
but i need explain "how" RTMs beyond a definition because why???? >>>>>>>>>>
Because you wanted more attention than the "moronic" Olcott?
actually kill yourself
You first? Deal. Lair paradox?
literally buy a gun, load it, cock the hammer, switch off the safety, >>>>>> point it at ur head, and pull the trigger u literal piece of
existential trash
All you are doing is just admitting that you know you logic is broken, >>>>> so you need to move to nonsense.
bro fuck u for encouraging an absolute troll like chris.
fucking boomers never learned to communicate properly so ofc u fucking >>>> all failed to use the internet to converge on anything meaningful.
*There are at least three complete Trolls here --- best ignored*
Chris M. Thomasson // 99% pure nonsense
dbush and // 99% pure dogma with zero comprehension
Richard Damon // 100% stuck in rebuttal mode and mean
At the beginning, R.D. (and others) tireless explained the HP and the bugs of
POOH. But you kept 'in rebuttal mode' to fabricate false report in response. >> All is left to quit responding to you or ... like R.D. did. I like what he did
for me, so I don't have to. You are a true IDIOT and LIAR.
Note: This is not defamation, your reputation IS so, what is FACT.
*These are good reviewers*
Alan Mackenzie
André G. Isaak
Mikko
Ben Bacarisse
Mike Terry
Kaz might give you a fair review too
he is reasonable at least 1/3 of the time.
Chris made a simple BASIC example:
1 HOME
5 PRINT "The Olcott All-in-One Halt Decider!"
10 INPUT "Shall I halt or not? " ; A$
30 IF A$ = "YES" GOTO 666
40 GOTO 10
666 PRINT "OK!"
Go figure it out from BASIC.
Your 'profound logic' and POOH ares totally garbage.
On 10/30/2025 1:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 8:42 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/29/2025 10:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/29/25 12:24 PM, dart200 wrote:TMs with a modification, specifically adding full mechanical
On 10/29/25 4:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/28/25 11:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/28/25 9:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:34 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/28/2025 5:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
[...]
not my argument u fucking useless boomer
Well, how do you solve the halting problem?
with reflection, something u lack as a useless fucking boomer >>>>>>>>>>
Which you can't say how to do, because your only answer is to >>>>>>>>> define that you can.
we haven't even gotten the point of working out the ramifications >>>>>>>> of what i've defined,
Because you haven't actually defined what you are doing.
blatant lie
Really, show where you have ACTUALLY fully defined your computation >>>>> machine to a level you can actually analyize one.
reflection to TMs in order to produce Reflective TMs (RTMs)
adding full mechanical reflection just means it gets a single
instruction that dumps *all* this information to the tape, at the
head, when that instruction is called:
1) machine description
2) initial tape state
3) current instruction
4) current tape state
call it REFLECT, if u will... this information allows a computation
to know exactly where it is in the overall runtime of computation,
and with that it can subvert semantic paradoxes like the halting
problem.
you have to understand this is a *mechanical* modification to turing
machines, not a computational one. much like how RTMs can move a head >>>> left/right, or write 0/1 to the tape ... they mechanically just do
this operation when the instruction is called.
*these mechanics are (relatively) simple and self-evidentially
possible and therefore mathematically feasible.*
BUT, let me try a step deeper, and quote turing at you from his
original paper on computable numbers:
/We may compare a man in the process of computing a real number to a
machine which is only capable of a finite number of conditions/ [Tur36] >>>>
THE ENTIRE JUSTIFICATION FOR TURING MACHINES RESTS SQUARELY ON THE
NOTION OF "CAN A MAN MECHANICALLY UNDERTAKE THESE STATE TRANSITIONS"
1) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then
obviously he has access the full machine description, or how else the >>>> fuck is he doing any of these state transitions??? therefore he
obviously can dump the machine description, in whatever format he has >>>> it in, to the tape when REFLECT is encountered.
2) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then
obviously he can to the side save the initial tape in a "buffer" that >>>> than cannot be overwritten. with that he can can obviously dump the
initial tape state to the tape whenever REFLECT is encountered.
3) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then
obviously he has access input of a particular transition, and
therefore can dump that input to the tape when REFLECT is
encountered, in whatever format he encounters it in.
4) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation ... he can
obviously duplicate the tape when REFLECT is called. or more
precisely he can save it into a buffer, and dump from the buffer
after putting 1-3 on the tape.
THAT IS THE SAME LEVEL OF FORMAT JUSTIFICATION TURING ULTIMATELY
GIVES FOR ANY COMPUTING MACHINE. SERIOUSLY READ HIS FUCKING ESSAY YOU >>>> DORK
please tell me where u are confused, not how u think i'm wrong
I can finally see the gist of what you are saying
and it seems to be very similar to my idea.
like i've said polcott, i consider you having a half-way solution. u
have something that's executable for sure, and that is a definite
improvement over total undecidability.
but it's not totally epistemically useful, it still doesn't /effectively
compute/ the halting function in a *general* manner.
"effectively calculable" was the original term-of-the-art
Now it is computable function. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
You were not placed on the good or bad list.
On 10/30/2025 3:17 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-10-30, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
It may make more sense for a UTM do do reflection even
on its own behavior. It could write each step that itself
takes on a portion of its own tape.
Wow, you really know your shit. I'm appointing you lead engineer on the
project.
Let's outline a 22 year plan.
Status reports can be posted tri-daily to comp.theory.
I have a 50% chance that my cancer will
not come back in 5 years. The only way
that I will live 22 more years is if
Christ comes back and makes death no longer
possible.
For a .5 probability, my system should take 3 iterations for it to fin. Check this out... It's fuzzed and drives itself. Keep line 30 in mind.
You can explore a different probability... :^)
____________________________
1 HOME
5 PRINT "ct_dr_fuzz lol. ;^)"
6 P0 = 0
7 P1 = 0
10 REM Fuzzer... ;^)
20 A$ = "NOPE!"
30 IF RND(1) < .5 THEN A$ = "YES"
100 REM INPUT "Shall DD halt or not? " ; A$
110 PRINT "Shall DD halt or not? " ; A$
200 IF A$ = "YES" GOTO 666
300 P0 = P0 + 1
400 IF P0 > 0 AND P1 > 0 GOTO 1000
500 GOTO 10
666 PRINT "OK!"
667 P1 = P1 + 1
700 PRINT "NON_HALT P0 = "; P0
710 PRINT "HALT P1 = "; P1
720 IF P0 > 0 AND P1 > 0 GOTO 1000
730 PRINT "ALL PATHS FAILED TO BE HIT!"
740 GOTO 10
1000
1010 PRINT "FIN... All paths hit."
1020 PRINT "NON_HALT P0 = "; P0
1030 PRINT "HALT P1 = "; P1
____________________________
It's fun to me. :^)
ur fucking retard
On 2025-10-30, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/30/2025 3:17 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-10-30, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
It may make more sense for a UTM do do reflection even
on its own behavior. It could write each step that itself
takes on a portion of its own tape.
Wow, you really know your shit. I'm appointing you lead engineer on the
project.
Let's outline a 22 year plan.
Status reports can be posted tri-daily to comp.theory.
I have a 50% chance that my cancer will
not come back in 5 years. The only way
that I will live 22 more years is if
Christ comes back and makes death no longer
possible.
So you believe Christ can come back, but D is "totally killed"
when H stops simulating it, LOL.
Thou lying Judas! Mark it---before the cock crows, thou shalt
reply to three people you have *plonk*-ed.
On 10/30/2025 1:57 PM, dart200 wrote:
[...]
ur fucking retard
Remember to keep working on your solution to the halting problem using reflection... :^)
On 10/30/25 2:00 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/30/2025 1:57 PM, dart200 wrote:
[...]
ur fucking retard
Remember to keep working on your solution to the halting problem using
reflection... :^)
remember to keep shoving cocks down ur throat... :^)
On 10/30/2025 3:40 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/30/25 2:00 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/30/2025 1:57 PM, dart200 wrote:
[...]
ur fucking retard
Remember to keep working on your solution to the halting problem
using reflection... :^)
remember to keep shoving cocks down ur throat... :^)
Your fantasy about me is very strange... Wow. Anyway, just make sure to
code up your reflection solution to the halting problem. Show it to us!
On 10/30/25 5:01 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/30/2025 3:40 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/30/25 2:00 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/30/2025 1:57 PM, dart200 wrote:
[...]
ur fucking retard
Remember to keep working on your solution to the halting problem
using reflection... :^)
remember to keep shoving cocks down ur throat... :^)
Your fantasy about me is very strange... Wow. Anyway, just make sure
to code up your reflection solution to the halting problem. Show it to
us!
theory is proven not demonstrated,
unlike shoving a cock up ur ass, which is demonstrated rather than proven
On 10/30/2025 5:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/30/25 5:01 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/30/2025 3:40 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/30/25 2:00 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/30/2025 1:57 PM, dart200 wrote:
[...]
ur fucking retard
Remember to keep working on your solution to the halting problem
using reflection... :^)
remember to keep shoving cocks down ur throat... :^)
Your fantasy about me is very strange... Wow. Anyway, just make sure
to code up your reflection solution to the halting problem. Show it
to us!
theory is proven not demonstrated,
unlike shoving a cock up ur ass, which is demonstrated rather than proven
That should be your forward to a book somebody writes about you?
On 10/30/25 5:31 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/30/2025 5:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/30/25 5:01 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/30/2025 3:40 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/30/25 2:00 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/30/2025 1:57 PM, dart200 wrote:
[...]
ur fucking retard
Remember to keep working on your solution to the halting problem
using reflection... :^)
remember to keep shoving cocks down ur throat... :^)
Your fantasy about me is very strange... Wow. Anyway, just make sure
to code up your reflection solution to the halting problem. Show it
to us!
theory is proven not demonstrated,
unlike shoving a cock up ur ass, which is demonstrated rather than
proven
That should be your forward to a book somebody writes about you?
oh no i wrote some vulgar words on the internet in response to an incessantly retarded boomer troll,
i'm sure posterity will care after how much ur generation fucked us more than you personally ever took it up the ass
On 10/30/25 4:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/29/25 11:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/29/25 12:24 PM, dart200 wrote:TMs with a modification, specifically adding full mechanical
On 10/29/25 4:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/28/25 11:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/28/25 9:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:34 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/28/2025 5:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
[...]
not my argument u fucking useless boomer
Well, how do you solve the halting problem?
with reflection, something u lack as a useless fucking boomer >>>>>>>>>
Which you can't say how to do, because your only answer is to >>>>>>>> define that you can.
we haven't even gotten the point of working out the ramifications >>>>>>> of what i've defined,
Because you haven't actually defined what you are doing.
blatant lie
Really, show where you have ACTUALLY fully defined your computation
machine to a level you can actually analyize one.
reflection to TMs in order to produce Reflective TMs (RTMs)
But they arn't TMs, and you can't add the feature and maintain them as
having the basic property of TMS.
You don't seem to understand that this "simple modification" to a TM
do add this is akin to adding to arithmatic the rule that 1 can be
equal to 2.
adding full mechanical reflection just means it gets a single
instruction that dumps *all* this information to the tape, at the
head, when that instruction is called:
But TMs don't HAVE that sort of instructions.
Their FULL array of operations is the mapping of the current state and
Tape Symbol to the new state and tape symbol, plus a step of the tape
in one direction of the other.
There is not place in that format of "instruction" to add such a feature.
That is why I keep telling you that you haven't actually DEFINED how
you system works, as it is based on just assuming that "somehow" you
can do what you want
1) machine description
2) initial tape state
3) current instruction
4) current tape state
And where does it get that information from to do so?
That is like saying there can be a "Get the right answer" instruction
to a deterministic computation devide.
Remember, Turing Machines have no memory other than the current state
and the current contents of the tape, which is defined to be the input
to that current state.
call it REFLECT, if u will... this information allows a computation
to know exactly where it is in the overall runtime of computation,
and with that it can subvert semantic paradoxes like the halting
problem.
Call WHAT "REFLECT".
Your problem is you don't understand that Turing Machines don't have
the ability to have arbitrary instructions due to how they are define.
Just like they don't have instrucitons like Add or Call or Multiply.
you have to understand this is a *mechanical* modification to turing
machines, not a computational one. much like how RTMs can move a head
left/right, or write 0/1 to the tape ... they mechanically just do
this operation when the instruction is called.
How?
Note, Turing Machine are pure Mathematical constructs, in a system
with defined rules.
There is no operation defined to do what you want.
All you are doing is showing you are as ignorant of what you are
talking about as Olcot.
*these mechanics are (relatively) simple and self-evidentially
possible and therefore mathematically feasible.*
There are no "mechanics" to a Turing Machine but state transition,
changing the contents of the tape, and moving it a step.
BUT, let me try a step deeper, and quote turing at you from his
original paper on computable numbers:
/We may compare a man in the process of computing a real number to a
machine which is only capable of a finite number of conditions/ [Tur36]
Right, so, how does that man do that operation?
THE ENTIRE JUSTIFICATION FOR TURING MACHINES RESTS SQUARELY ON THE
NOTION OF "CAN A MAN MECHANICALLY UNDERTAKE THESE STATE TRANSITIONS"
Right, so how do you "mechanically" create information from no where.
The man has no "memory", except for what is on the papers.
1) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then
obviously he has access the full machine description, or how else the
fuck is he doing any of these state transitions??? therefore he
obviously can dump the machine description, in whatever format he has
it in, to the tape when REFLECT is encountered.
No, he has the book of instructions. he doesn't necessarily know how
to convert those instructions into the notes he is allowed to write on
the pieces of paper.
He also doesn't remember what values the pile of papers had on it when
he started,
2) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then
obviously he can to the side save the initial tape in a "buffer" that
than cannot be overwritten. with that he can can obviously dump the
initial tape state to the tape whenever REFLECT is encountered.
Right, so even if you gave him a side bucket to put the information
in, when he starts this sub-operation, it begins by telling him to copy
3) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then
obviously he has access input of a particular transition, and
therefore can dump that input to the tape when REFLECT is
encountered, in whatever format he encounters it in.
4) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation ... he can
obviously duplicate the tape when REFLECT is called. or more
precisely he can save it into a buffer, and dump from the buffer
after putting 1-3 on the tape.
But to where? Remember, the pile of papers, as a total, is DEFINED to
be the input to the compuation.
Thus, if the outer part of the operation made a note of state of the
machine and put it into the pile of paper, it becomes part of the
input to the sub-operation.
But the sub-operation wasn't defined to have that as its input.
It can't be a "hidden" pile that only comes out with a reflect
instruction as there is defined that there isn't such a pile
>
THAT IS THE SAME LEVEL OF FORMAT JUSTIFICATION TURING ULTIMATELY
GIVES FOR ANY COMPUTING MACHINE. SERIOUSLY READ HIS FUCKING ESSAY YOU
DORK
Nope, because your description changes the input given, and thus is
about lying.
Again, HOW does the "machine" do what you want with what Turing gave it.
IF it passes that information down from the outer routine to the
inner, then by DEFINITION that inner routine has a diffent input then
before, and thus the program P isn't the required one. The "call" to
the decider that P makes, must have the exact same input as when we
directly call it for the answer.
If not, then your system just fails to have proper reuse of
algorithms, which makes it less than Turing Complete.
please tell me where u are confused, not how u think i'm wrong
I am not confused, which is part of your issue, you refuse to look at
the errors ppinted out.
You aren't allowed to change the fundamental definitions without
kicking yourself out of the field you claim to be in.
Turing Machines have no private memory other than their current state.
The question is ONLY a function of the description of the program to
run, and thus the decider CAN'T depend on anything other than that
description, or the decider is by definition incorrect.
Thus, even if you could define such a thing as a RTM, and program that
actually tries to use that capability to affect its answer, couldn't
be a correct halt decider.
Any attempt to try to define it as such will fundamentally turn your
logic system into an incoherent worthless mess.
are you seriously trying to tell me that you don't think it's possible
to design a computer chip that can do simple things like:
1) dump the program it's running on demand?
2) save the initial memory to an internal buffer to dump on demand?
3) dump the current instruction address on demand?
4) duplicate memory on demand????
cause right now ur saying u can't imagine a computer chip doing that
but that not only can you not imagine a computer chip doing that, ur apparently also too fucking retarded as a person to follow instructions
like that.
idk richard, are you intelligent enough to write the machine description
to a tape upon seeing a REFLECT command? or is that beyond ur ability to follow instructions???
u must have like an 80 IQ if 1-4 are so beyond ur conception that you
need to write paragraphs on an apparently inability to do so LOL
On 10/30/25 2:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/30/25 4:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/29/25 11:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/29/25 12:24 PM, dart200 wrote:TMs with a modification, specifically adding full mechanical
On 10/29/25 4:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/28/25 11:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/28/25 9:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:34 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/28/2025 5:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
[...]
not my argument u fucking useless boomer
Well, how do you solve the halting problem?
with reflection, something u lack as a useless fucking boomer >>>>>>>>>>
Which you can't say how to do, because your only answer is to >>>>>>>>> define that you can.
we haven't even gotten the point of working out the
ramifications of what i've defined,
Because you haven't actually defined what you are doing.
blatant lie
Really, show where you have ACTUALLY fully defined your computation >>>>> machine to a level you can actually analyize one.
reflection to TMs in order to produce Reflective TMs (RTMs)
But they arn't TMs, and you can't add the feature and maintain them
as having the basic property of TMS.
You don't seem to understand that this "simple modification" to a TM
do add this is akin to adding to arithmatic the rule that 1 can be
equal to 2.
adding full mechanical reflection just means it gets a single
instruction that dumps *all* this information to the tape, at the
head, when that instruction is called:
But TMs don't HAVE that sort of instructions.
Their FULL array of operations is the mapping of the current state
and Tape Symbol to the new state and tape symbol, plus a step of the
tape in one direction of the other.
There is not place in that format of "instruction" to add such a
feature.
That is why I keep telling you that you haven't actually DEFINED how
you system works, as it is based on just assuming that "somehow" you
can do what you want
1) machine description
2) initial tape state
3) current instruction
4) current tape state
And where does it get that information from to do so?
That is like saying there can be a "Get the right answer" instruction
to a deterministic computation devide.
Remember, Turing Machines have no memory other than the current state
and the current contents of the tape, which is defined to be the
input to that current state.
call it REFLECT, if u will... this information allows a computation
to know exactly where it is in the overall runtime of computation,
and with that it can subvert semantic paradoxes like the halting
problem.
Call WHAT "REFLECT".
Your problem is you don't understand that Turing Machines don't have
the ability to have arbitrary instructions due to how they are define.
Just like they don't have instrucitons like Add or Call or Multiply.
you have to understand this is a *mechanical* modification to turing
machines, not a computational one. much like how RTMs can move a
head left/right, or write 0/1 to the tape ... they mechanically just
do this operation when the instruction is called.
How?
Note, Turing Machine are pure Mathematical constructs, in a system
with defined rules.
There is no operation defined to do what you want.
All you are doing is showing you are as ignorant of what you are
talking about as Olcot.
*these mechanics are (relatively) simple and self-evidentially
possible and therefore mathematically feasible.*
There are no "mechanics" to a Turing Machine but state transition,
changing the contents of the tape, and moving it a step.
Right, so, how does that man do that operation?
BUT, let me try a step deeper, and quote turing at you from his
original paper on computable numbers:
/We may compare a man in the process of computing a real number to a
machine which is only capable of a finite number of conditions/ [Tur36] >>>
THE ENTIRE JUSTIFICATION FOR TURING MACHINES RESTS SQUARELY ON THE
NOTION OF "CAN A MAN MECHANICALLY UNDERTAKE THESE STATE TRANSITIONS"
Right, so how do you "mechanically" create information from no where.
The man has no "memory", except for what is on the papers.
1) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then
obviously he has access the full machine description, or how else
the fuck is he doing any of these state transitions??? therefore he
obviously can dump the machine description, in whatever format he
has it in, to the tape when REFLECT is encountered.
No, he has the book of instructions. he doesn't necessarily know how
to convert those instructions into the notes he is allowed to write
on the pieces of paper.
He also doesn't remember what values the pile of papers had on it
when he started,
2) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then
obviously he can to the side save the initial tape in a "buffer"
that than cannot be overwritten. with that he can can obviously dump
the initial tape state to the tape whenever REFLECT is encountered.
Right, so even if you gave him a side bucket to put the information
in, when he starts this sub-operation, it begins by telling him to copy
3) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then
obviously he has access input of a particular transition, and
therefore can dump that input to the tape when REFLECT is
encountered, in whatever format he encounters it in.
4) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation ... he can
obviously duplicate the tape when REFLECT is called. or more
precisely he can save it into a buffer, and dump from the buffer
after putting 1-3 on the tape.
But to where? Remember, the pile of papers, as a total, is DEFINED to
be the input to the compuation.
Thus, if the outer part of the operation made a note of state of the
machine and put it into the pile of paper, it becomes part of the
input to the sub-operation.
But the sub-operation wasn't defined to have that as its input.
It can't be a "hidden" pile that only comes out with a reflect
instruction as there is defined that there isn't such a pile
>
THAT IS THE SAME LEVEL OF FORMAT JUSTIFICATION TURING ULTIMATELY
GIVES FOR ANY COMPUTING MACHINE. SERIOUSLY READ HIS FUCKING ESSAY
YOU DORK
Nope, because your description changes the input given, and thus is
about lying.
Again, HOW does the "machine" do what you want with what Turing gave it. >>>
IF it passes that information down from the outer routine to the
inner, then by DEFINITION that inner routine has a diffent input then
before, and thus the program P isn't the required one. The "call" to
the decider that P makes, must have the exact same input as when we
directly call it for the answer.
If not, then your system just fails to have proper reuse of
algorithms, which makes it less than Turing Complete.
please tell me where u are confused, not how u think i'm wrong
I am not confused, which is part of your issue, you refuse to look at
the errors ppinted out.
You aren't allowed to change the fundamental definitions without
kicking yourself out of the field you claim to be in.
Turing Machines have no private memory other than their current state.
The question is ONLY a function of the description of the program to
run, and thus the decider CAN'T depend on anything other than that
description, or the decider is by definition incorrect.
Thus, even if you could define such a thing as a RTM, and program
that actually tries to use that capability to affect its answer,
couldn't be a correct halt decider.
Any attempt to try to define it as such will fundamentally turn your
logic system into an incoherent worthless mess.
are you seriously trying to tell me that you don't think it's possible
to design a computer chip that can do simple things like:
Didn't say that, I said you couldn't make a Turing Machine do that.
I guess you just don't know what those words mean.
1) dump the program it's running on demand?
2) save the initial memory to an internal buffer to dump on demand?
3) dump the current instruction address on demand?
4) duplicate memory on demand????
cause right now ur saying u can't imagine a computer chip doing that
Nope, I said a Turing Machine, or a Computation couldn't do it.
but that not only can you not imagine a computer chip doing that, ur
apparently also too fucking retarded as a person to follow
instructions like that.
And if you think you have been talking about compuer chips, you are just showing your utter stupidity.
idk richard, are you intelligent enough to write the machine
description to a tape upon seeing a REFLECT command? or is that beyond
ur ability to follow instructions???
It is IMPOSSIBLE, as it requires information not in the machine as defined.
this
u must have like an 80 IQ if 1-4 are so beyond ur conception that you
need to write paragraphs on an apparently inability to do so LOL
Nope, I suspect mine is much higher than yours.
I will note that you have yet to explain how you think you could do
either.
All you seem to be able to do is just assume it can be done, but since
you seem to not actually understand what a Turing machine is, even
though you can quote some of the papers on them, as apparently you
actually have no idea what they were talking about.
On 10/30/2025 5:35 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/30/25 5:31 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/30/2025 5:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/30/25 5:01 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/30/2025 3:40 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/30/25 2:00 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/30/2025 1:57 PM, dart200 wrote:
[...]
ur fucking retard
Remember to keep working on your solution to the halting problem >>>>>>> using reflection... :^)
remember to keep shoving cocks down ur throat... :^)
Your fantasy about me is very strange... Wow. Anyway, just make
sure to code up your reflection solution to the halting problem.
Show it to us!
theory is proven not demonstrated,
unlike shoving a cock up ur ass, which is demonstrated rather than
proven
That should be your forward to a book somebody writes about you?
oh no i wrote some vulgar words on the internet in response to an
incessantly retarded boomer troll,
i'm sure posterity will care after how much ur generation fucked us
more than you personally ever took it up the ass
You are a nice person right? ;^o
On 10/30/25 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/30/25 2:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/30/25 4:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/29/25 11:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/29/25 12:24 PM, dart200 wrote:TMs with a modification, specifically adding full mechanical
On 10/29/25 4:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/28/25 11:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/28/25 9:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:34 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/28/2025 5:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
[...]
not my argument u fucking useless boomer
Well, how do you solve the halting problem?
with reflection, something u lack as a useless fucking boomer >>>>>>>>>>>
Which you can't say how to do, because your only answer is to >>>>>>>>>> define that you can.
we haven't even gotten the point of working out the
ramifications of what i've defined,
Because you haven't actually defined what you are doing.
blatant lie
Really, show where you have ACTUALLY fully defined your computation >>>>>> machine to a level you can actually analyize one.
reflection to TMs in order to produce Reflective TMs (RTMs)
But they arn't TMs, and you can't add the feature and maintain them
as having the basic property of TMS.
You don't seem to understand that this "simple modification" to a TM
do add this is akin to adding to arithmatic the rule that 1 can be
equal to 2.
adding full mechanical reflection just means it gets a single
instruction that dumps *all* this information to the tape, at the
head, when that instruction is called:
But TMs don't HAVE that sort of instructions.
Their FULL array of operations is the mapping of the current state
and Tape Symbol to the new state and tape symbol, plus a step of the
tape in one direction of the other.
There is not place in that format of "instruction" to add such a
feature.
That is why I keep telling you that you haven't actually DEFINED how
you system works, as it is based on just assuming that "somehow" you
can do what you want
1) machine description
2) initial tape state
3) current instruction
4) current tape state
And where does it get that information from to do so?
That is like saying there can be a "Get the right answer" instruction >>>> to a deterministic computation devide.
Remember, Turing Machines have no memory other than the current state >>>> and the current contents of the tape, which is defined to be the
input to that current state.
call it REFLECT, if u will... this information allows a computation >>>>> to know exactly where it is in the overall runtime of computation,
and with that it can subvert semantic paradoxes like the halting
problem.
Call WHAT "REFLECT".
Your problem is you don't understand that Turing Machines don't have
the ability to have arbitrary instructions due to how they are define. >>>>
Just like they don't have instrucitons like Add or Call or Multiply.
you have to understand this is a *mechanical* modification to turing >>>>> machines, not a computational one. much like how RTMs can move a
head left/right, or write 0/1 to the tape ... they mechanically just >>>>> do this operation when the instruction is called.
How?
Note, Turing Machine are pure Mathematical constructs, in a system
with defined rules.
There is no operation defined to do what you want.
All you are doing is showing you are as ignorant of what you are
talking about as Olcot.
*these mechanics are (relatively) simple and self-evidentially
possible and therefore mathematically feasible.*
There are no "mechanics" to a Turing Machine but state transition,
changing the contents of the tape, and moving it a step.
Right, so, how does that man do that operation?
BUT, let me try a step deeper, and quote turing at you from his
original paper on computable numbers:
/We may compare a man in the process of computing a real number to a >>>>> machine which is only capable of a finite number of conditions/ [Tur36] >>>>
THE ENTIRE JUSTIFICATION FOR TURING MACHINES RESTS SQUARELY ON THE
NOTION OF "CAN A MAN MECHANICALLY UNDERTAKE THESE STATE TRANSITIONS"
Right, so how do you "mechanically" create information from no where.
The man has no "memory", except for what is on the papers.
1) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then
obviously he has access the full machine description, or how else
the fuck is he doing any of these state transitions??? therefore he >>>>> obviously can dump the machine description, in whatever format he
has it in, to the tape when REFLECT is encountered.
No, he has the book of instructions. he doesn't necessarily know how
to convert those instructions into the notes he is allowed to write
on the pieces of paper.
He also doesn't remember what values the pile of papers had on it
when he started,
2) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then
obviously he can to the side save the initial tape in a "buffer"
that than cannot be overwritten. with that he can can obviously dump >>>>> the initial tape state to the tape whenever REFLECT is encountered.
Right, so even if you gave him a side bucket to put the information
in, when he starts this sub-operation, it begins by telling him to copy >>>>
3) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then
obviously he has access input of a particular transition, and
therefore can dump that input to the tape when REFLECT is
encountered, in whatever format he encounters it in.
4) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation ... he can
obviously duplicate the tape when REFLECT is called. or more
precisely he can save it into a buffer, and dump from the buffer
after putting 1-3 on the tape.
But to where? Remember, the pile of papers, as a total, is DEFINED to >>>> be the input to the compuation.
Thus, if the outer part of the operation made a note of state of the
machine and put it into the pile of paper, it becomes part of the
input to the sub-operation.
But the sub-operation wasn't defined to have that as its input.
It can't be a "hidden" pile that only comes out with a reflect
instruction as there is defined that there isn't such a pile
>
THAT IS THE SAME LEVEL OF FORMAT JUSTIFICATION TURING ULTIMATELY
GIVES FOR ANY COMPUTING MACHINE. SERIOUSLY READ HIS FUCKING ESSAY
YOU DORK
Nope, because your description changes the input given, and thus is
about lying.
Again, HOW does the "machine" do what you want with what Turing gave it. >>>>
IF it passes that information down from the outer routine to the
inner, then by DEFINITION that inner routine has a diffent input then >>>> before, and thus the program P isn't the required one. The "call" to
the decider that P makes, must have the exact same input as when we
directly call it for the answer.
If not, then your system just fails to have proper reuse of
algorithms, which makes it less than Turing Complete.
please tell me where u are confused, not how u think i'm wrong
I am not confused, which is part of your issue, you refuse to look at >>>> the errors ppinted out.
You aren't allowed to change the fundamental definitions without
kicking yourself out of the field you claim to be in.
Turing Machines have no private memory other than their current state. >>>>
The question is ONLY a function of the description of the program to
run, and thus the decider CAN'T depend on anything other than that
description, or the decider is by definition incorrect.
Thus, even if you could define such a thing as a RTM, and program
that actually tries to use that capability to affect its answer,
couldn't be a correct halt decider.
Any attempt to try to define it as such will fundamentally turn your
logic system into an incoherent worthless mess.
are you seriously trying to tell me that you don't think it's possible
to design a computer chip that can do simple things like:
Didn't say that, I said you couldn't make a Turing Machine do that.
I guess you just don't know what those words mean.
1) dump the program it's running on demand?
2) save the initial memory to an internal buffer to dump on demand?
3) dump the current instruction address on demand?
4) duplicate memory on demand????
cause right now ur saying u can't imagine a computer chip doing that
Nope, I said a Turing Machine, or a Computation couldn't do it.
u can't actually prove the church-turing thesis, so u can't refute RTM abilities because TMs can't directly compute RTM machine descriptions.
but that not only can you not imagine a computer chip doing that, ur
apparently also too fucking retarded as a person to follow
instructions like that.
And if you think you have been talking about compuer chips, you are just
showing your utter stupidity.
THE FACT WE CAN OBVIOUSLY DO THE REFLECTION (AS I'VE DEFINED SEVERAL
TIMES NOW) MECHANICALLY, IS WHAT JUSTIFIES RTMs THEORETICAL EXISTENCE
idk richard, are you intelligent enough to write the machine
description to a tape upon seeing a REFLECT command? or is that beyond
ur ability to follow instructions???
It is IMPOSSIBLE, as it requires information not in the machine as defined.
the RTMs are defined to have access to the machine description that's
being run at all times during the confirmation
not only is this mechanically possible with real hardware, it's possible
if a man with a paper and pencil if ur name is retarded richard
On 2025-10-31, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 10/30/25 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/30/25 2:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/30/25 4:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/29/25 11:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/29/25 12:24 PM, dart200 wrote:TMs with a modification, specifically adding full mechanical
On 10/29/25 4:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/28/25 11:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/28/25 9:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:34 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/28/2025 5:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
[...]
not my argument u fucking useless boomer
Well, how do you solve the halting problem?
with reflection, something u lack as a useless fucking boomer >>>>>>>>>>>>
Which you can't say how to do, because your only answer is to >>>>>>>>>>> define that you can.
we haven't even gotten the point of working out the
ramifications of what i've defined,
Because you haven't actually defined what you are doing.
blatant lie
Really, show where you have ACTUALLY fully defined your computation >>>>>>> machine to a level you can actually analyize one.
reflection to TMs in order to produce Reflective TMs (RTMs)
But they arn't TMs, and you can't add the feature and maintain them
as having the basic property of TMS.
You don't seem to understand that this "simple modification" to a TM >>>>> do add this is akin to adding to arithmatic the rule that 1 can be
equal to 2.
adding full mechanical reflection just means it gets a single
instruction that dumps *all* this information to the tape, at the
head, when that instruction is called:
But TMs don't HAVE that sort of instructions.
Their FULL array of operations is the mapping of the current state
and Tape Symbol to the new state and tape symbol, plus a step of the >>>>> tape in one direction of the other.
There is not place in that format of "instruction" to add such a
feature.
That is why I keep telling you that you haven't actually DEFINED how >>>>> you system works, as it is based on just assuming that "somehow" you >>>>> can do what you want
1) machine description
2) initial tape state
3) current instruction
4) current tape state
And where does it get that information from to do so?
That is like saying there can be a "Get the right answer" instruction >>>>> to a deterministic computation devide.
Remember, Turing Machines have no memory other than the current state >>>>> and the current contents of the tape, which is defined to be the
input to that current state.
call it REFLECT, if u will... this information allows a computation >>>>>> to know exactly where it is in the overall runtime of computation, >>>>>> and with that it can subvert semantic paradoxes like the halting
problem.
Call WHAT "REFLECT".
Your problem is you don't understand that Turing Machines don't have >>>>> the ability to have arbitrary instructions due to how they are define. >>>>>
Just like they don't have instrucitons like Add or Call or Multiply. >>>>>
you have to understand this is a *mechanical* modification to turing >>>>>> machines, not a computational one. much like how RTMs can move a
head left/right, or write 0/1 to the tape ... they mechanically just >>>>>> do this operation when the instruction is called.
How?
Note, Turing Machine are pure Mathematical constructs, in a system
with defined rules.
There is no operation defined to do what you want.
All you are doing is showing you are as ignorant of what you are
talking about as Olcot.
*these mechanics are (relatively) simple and self-evidentially
possible and therefore mathematically feasible.*
There are no "mechanics" to a Turing Machine but state transition,
changing the contents of the tape, and moving it a step.
Right, so, how does that man do that operation?
BUT, let me try a step deeper, and quote turing at you from his
original paper on computable numbers:
/We may compare a man in the process of computing a real number to a >>>>>> machine which is only capable of a finite number of conditions/ [Tur36] >>>>>
Right, so how do you "mechanically" create information from no where. >>>>>
THE ENTIRE JUSTIFICATION FOR TURING MACHINES RESTS SQUARELY ON THE >>>>>> NOTION OF "CAN A MAN MECHANICALLY UNDERTAKE THESE STATE TRANSITIONS" >>>>>
The man has no "memory", except for what is on the papers.
1) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then
obviously he has access the full machine description, or how else
the fuck is he doing any of these state transitions??? therefore he >>>>>> obviously can dump the machine description, in whatever format he
has it in, to the tape when REFLECT is encountered.
No, he has the book of instructions. he doesn't necessarily know how >>>>> to convert those instructions into the notes he is allowed to write
on the pieces of paper.
He also doesn't remember what values the pile of papers had on it
when he started,
Right, so even if you gave him a side bucket to put the information
2) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then
obviously he can to the side save the initial tape in a "buffer"
that than cannot be overwritten. with that he can can obviously dump >>>>>> the initial tape state to the tape whenever REFLECT is encountered. >>>>>
in, when he starts this sub-operation, it begins by telling him to copy >>>>>
3) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then
obviously he has access input of a particular transition, and
therefore can dump that input to the tape when REFLECT is
encountered, in whatever format he encounters it in.
4) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation ... he can
obviously duplicate the tape when REFLECT is called. or more
precisely he can save it into a buffer, and dump from the buffer
after putting 1-3 on the tape.
But to where? Remember, the pile of papers, as a total, is DEFINED to >>>>> be the input to the compuation.
Thus, if the outer part of the operation made a note of state of the >>>>> machine and put it into the pile of paper, it becomes part of the
input to the sub-operation.
But the sub-operation wasn't defined to have that as its input.
It can't be a "hidden" pile that only comes out with a reflect
instruction as there is defined that there isn't such a pile
>
THAT IS THE SAME LEVEL OF FORMAT JUSTIFICATION TURING ULTIMATELY
GIVES FOR ANY COMPUTING MACHINE. SERIOUSLY READ HIS FUCKING ESSAY
YOU DORK
Nope, because your description changes the input given, and thus is
about lying.
Again, HOW does the "machine" do what you want with what Turing gave it. >>>>>
IF it passes that information down from the outer routine to the
inner, then by DEFINITION that inner routine has a diffent input then >>>>> before, and thus the program P isn't the required one. The "call" to >>>>> the decider that P makes, must have the exact same input as when we
directly call it for the answer.
If not, then your system just fails to have proper reuse of
algorithms, which makes it less than Turing Complete.
please tell me where u are confused, not how u think i'm wrong
I am not confused, which is part of your issue, you refuse to look at >>>>> the errors ppinted out.
You aren't allowed to change the fundamental definitions without
kicking yourself out of the field you claim to be in.
Turing Machines have no private memory other than their current state. >>>>>
The question is ONLY a function of the description of the program to >>>>> run, and thus the decider CAN'T depend on anything other than that
description, or the decider is by definition incorrect.
Thus, even if you could define such a thing as a RTM, and program
that actually tries to use that capability to affect its answer,
couldn't be a correct halt decider.
Any attempt to try to define it as such will fundamentally turn your >>>>> logic system into an incoherent worthless mess.
are you seriously trying to tell me that you don't think it's possible >>>> to design a computer chip that can do simple things like:
Didn't say that, I said you couldn't make a Turing Machine do that.
I guess you just don't know what those words mean.
1) dump the program it's running on demand?
2) save the initial memory to an internal buffer to dump on demand?
3) dump the current instruction address on demand?
4) duplicate memory on demand????
cause right now ur saying u can't imagine a computer chip doing that
Nope, I said a Turing Machine, or a Computation couldn't do it.
u can't actually prove the church-turing thesis, so u can't refute RTM
abilities because TMs can't directly compute RTM machine descriptions.
but that not only can you not imagine a computer chip doing that, ur
apparently also too fucking retarded as a person to follow
instructions like that.
And if you think you have been talking about compuer chips, you are just >>> showing your utter stupidity.
THE FACT WE CAN OBVIOUSLY DO THE REFLECTION (AS I'VE DEFINED SEVERAL
TIMES NOW) MECHANICALLY, IS WHAT JUSTIFIES RTMs THEORETICAL EXISTENCE
the RTMs are defined to have access to the machine description that's
idk richard, are you intelligent enough to write the machine
description to a tape upon seeing a REFLECT command? or is that beyond >>>> ur ability to follow instructions???
It is IMPOSSIBLE, as it requires information not in the machine as defined. >>
being run at all times during the confirmation
The only problem is that nobody has been able to come up with a
computational system that hasn't been proven to be Turing equivalent.
It's extremely unlikely that you're the first to invent machines with
magic instructions for reflection and whatnot.
If it were that easy to escape from Turing computation, someone would
have done it.
not only is this mechanically possible with real hardware, it's possible
if a man with a paper and pencil if ur name is retarded richard
As soon as you have "mechanicaally possible with real hardware"
you probably have a Turing calculation, especially if the mechanics
is symbol manipulation according to rules.
As soon as your system is shown to be Turing, we know it succumbs
to the undecidability of Turing halting by Turing machines.
You think that if you have certain privilege levels or whatever
with restricted access ot the magic instructions that you can somehow
evade attempts at thwarting halting decisions.
One problem is that if you have a Turing computational substrate,
it can be used to program interpreters. Those interpreters can then
be used to write programs about which we ask, does it halt?
On 10/30/25 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/30/25 2:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/30/25 4:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/29/25 11:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/29/25 12:24 PM, dart200 wrote:TMs with a modification, specifically adding full mechanical
On 10/29/25 4:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/28/25 11:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/28/25 9:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:34 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/28/2025 5:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
[...]
not my argument u fucking useless boomer
Well, how do you solve the halting problem?
with reflection, something u lack as a useless fucking boomer >>>>>>>>>>>
Which you can't say how to do, because your only answer is to >>>>>>>>>> define that you can.
we haven't even gotten the point of working out the
ramifications of what i've defined,
Because you haven't actually defined what you are doing.
blatant lie
Really, show where you have ACTUALLY fully defined your
computation machine to a level you can actually analyize one.
reflection to TMs in order to produce Reflective TMs (RTMs)
But they arn't TMs, and you can't add the feature and maintain them
as having the basic property of TMS.
You don't seem to understand that this "simple modification" to a TM
do add this is akin to adding to arithmatic the rule that 1 can be
equal to 2.
adding full mechanical reflection just means it gets a single
instruction that dumps *all* this information to the tape, at the
head, when that instruction is called:
But TMs don't HAVE that sort of instructions.
Their FULL array of operations is the mapping of the current state
and Tape Symbol to the new state and tape symbol, plus a step of the
tape in one direction of the other.
There is not place in that format of "instruction" to add such a
feature.
That is why I keep telling you that you haven't actually DEFINED how
you system works, as it is based on just assuming that "somehow" you
can do what you want
1) machine description
2) initial tape state
3) current instruction
4) current tape state
And where does it get that information from to do so?
That is like saying there can be a "Get the right answer"
instruction to a deterministic computation devide.
Remember, Turing Machines have no memory other than the current
state and the current contents of the tape, which is defined to be
the input to that current state.
call it REFLECT, if u will... this information allows a computation >>>>> to know exactly where it is in the overall runtime of computation,
and with that it can subvert semantic paradoxes like the halting
problem.
Call WHAT "REFLECT".
Your problem is you don't understand that Turing Machines don't have
the ability to have arbitrary instructions due to how they are define. >>>>
Just like they don't have instrucitons like Add or Call or Multiply.
you have to understand this is a *mechanical* modification to
turing machines, not a computational one. much like how RTMs can
move a head left/right, or write 0/1 to the tape ... they
mechanically just do this operation when the instruction is called.
How?
Note, Turing Machine are pure Mathematical constructs, in a system
with defined rules.
There is no operation defined to do what you want.
All you are doing is showing you are as ignorant of what you are
talking about as Olcot.
*these mechanics are (relatively) simple and self-evidentially
possible and therefore mathematically feasible.*
There are no "mechanics" to a Turing Machine but state transition,
changing the contents of the tape, and moving it a step.
BUT, let me try a step deeper, and quote turing at you from his
original paper on computable numbers:
/We may compare a man in the process of computing a real number to a >>>>> machine which is only capable of a finite number of conditions/
[Tur36]
Right, so, how does that man do that operation?
THE ENTIRE JUSTIFICATION FOR TURING MACHINES RESTS SQUARELY ON THE
NOTION OF "CAN A MAN MECHANICALLY UNDERTAKE THESE STATE TRANSITIONS"
Right, so how do you "mechanically" create information from no where.
The man has no "memory", except for what is on the papers.
1) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then
obviously he has access the full machine description, or how else
the fuck is he doing any of these state transitions??? therefore he >>>>> obviously can dump the machine description, in whatever format he
has it in, to the tape when REFLECT is encountered.
No, he has the book of instructions. he doesn't necessarily know how
to convert those instructions into the notes he is allowed to write
on the pieces of paper.
He also doesn't remember what values the pile of papers had on it
when he started,
2) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then
obviously he can to the side save the initial tape in a "buffer"
that than cannot be overwritten. with that he can can obviously
dump the initial tape state to the tape whenever REFLECT is
encountered.
Right, so even if you gave him a side bucket to put the information
in, when he starts this sub-operation, it begins by telling him to copy >>>>
3) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then
obviously he has access input of a particular transition, and
therefore can dump that input to the tape when REFLECT is
encountered, in whatever format he encounters it in.
4) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation ... he can
obviously duplicate the tape when REFLECT is called. or more
precisely he can save it into a buffer, and dump from the buffer
after putting 1-3 on the tape.
But to where? Remember, the pile of papers, as a total, is DEFINED
to be the input to the compuation.
Thus, if the outer part of the operation made a note of state of the
machine and put it into the pile of paper, it becomes part of the
input to the sub-operation.
But the sub-operation wasn't defined to have that as its input.
It can't be a "hidden" pile that only comes out with a reflect
instruction as there is defined that there isn't such a pile
>
THAT IS THE SAME LEVEL OF FORMAT JUSTIFICATION TURING ULTIMATELY
GIVES FOR ANY COMPUTING MACHINE. SERIOUSLY READ HIS FUCKING ESSAY
YOU DORK
Nope, because your description changes the input given, and thus is
about lying.
Again, HOW does the "machine" do what you want with what Turing gave
it.
IF it passes that information down from the outer routine to the
inner, then by DEFINITION that inner routine has a diffent input
then before, and thus the program P isn't the required one. The
"call" to the decider that P makes, must have the exact same input
as when we directly call it for the answer.
If not, then your system just fails to have proper reuse of
algorithms, which makes it less than Turing Complete.
please tell me where u are confused, not how u think i'm wrong
I am not confused, which is part of your issue, you refuse to look
at the errors ppinted out.
You aren't allowed to change the fundamental definitions without
kicking yourself out of the field you claim to be in.
Turing Machines have no private memory other than their current state. >>>>
The question is ONLY a function of the description of the program to
run, and thus the decider CAN'T depend on anything other than that
description, or the decider is by definition incorrect.
Thus, even if you could define such a thing as a RTM, and program
that actually tries to use that capability to affect its answer,
couldn't be a correct halt decider.
Any attempt to try to define it as such will fundamentally turn your
logic system into an incoherent worthless mess.
are you seriously trying to tell me that you don't think it's
possible to design a computer chip that can do simple things like:
Didn't say that, I said you couldn't make a Turing Machine do that.
I guess you just don't know what those words mean.
1) dump the program it's running on demand?
2) save the initial memory to an internal buffer to dump on demand?
3) dump the current instruction address on demand?
4) duplicate memory on demand????
cause right now ur saying u can't imagine a computer chip doing that
Nope, I said a Turing Machine, or a Computation couldn't do it.
u can't actually prove the church-turing thesis, so u can't refute RTM abilities because TMs can't directly compute RTM machine descriptions.
but that not only can you not imagine a computer chip doing that, ur
apparently also too fucking retarded as a person to follow
instructions like that.
And if you think you have been talking about compuer chips, you are
just showing your utter stupidity.
THE FACT WE CAN OBVIOUSLY DO THE REFLECTION (AS I'VE DEFINED SEVERAL
TIMES NOW) MECHANICALLY, IS WHAT JUSTIFIES RTMs THEORETICAL EXISTENCE
idk richard, are you intelligent enough to write the machine
description to a tape upon seeing a REFLECT command? or is that
beyond ur ability to follow instructions???
It is IMPOSSIBLE, as it requires information not in the machine as
defined.
the RTMs are defined to have access to the machine description that's
being run at all times during the confirmation
not only is this mechanically possible with real hardware, it's possible
if a man with a paper and pencil if ur name is retarded richard
this
u must have like an 80 IQ if 1-4 are so beyond ur conception that you
need to write paragraphs on an apparently inability to do so LOL
Nope, I suspect mine is much higher than yours.
I will note that you have yet to explain how you think you could do
either.
THE FACT WE CAN OBVIOUSLY DO THE REFLECTION AS I'VE DEFINED SEVERAL
TIMES NOW MECHANICALLY, IS WHAT JUSTIFIES RTMs THEORETICAL EXISTENCE
All you seem to be able to do is just assume it can be done, but since
yes THAT'S HOW WE JUSTIFY TURING MACHINES AS WELL. we just assume the operations are possible because we can do then mechanically...
ur just special pleading endlessly. u couldn't spot theoretical
innovation even if took a shit in ur mouth while whacking u off...
you seem to not actually understand what a Turing machine is, even
a set of state transitions:
(curState, symbolAtHead) -> (command, nextState)
where command are the system transformations HEAD_LEFT or HEAD_RIGHT or WRITE_SYMBOL.
for example:
<q0,0,WRITE_1,q0>
<q0,1,HEAD_RIGHT,q0>
which will overwrite a tape with 1s (^ denotes where the head is):
q0: 0
^
q0: 1
^
q0: 10
^
q0: 11
^
q0: 110
^
u telling me i don't understand what a turing machine is just u
blatantly lying about ur fellow human being in a convo,
because ur honestly piece of totally disingenuous dogshit
though you can quote some of the papers on them, as apparently you
actually have no idea what they were talking about.
all RTMs add is a new command variant REFLECT, which does things i've already repeated to you several times now. a really simple usage which
just runs REFLECT and ends
<q0,1,REFLECT,q1>
q0: 1
^
q1: <q0,1,REFLECT,q1>1q011
^
On 10/30/25 9:50 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-10-31, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 10/30/25 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/30/25 2:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/30/25 4:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/29/25 11:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/29/25 12:24 PM, dart200 wrote:TMs with a modification, specifically adding full mechanical
On 10/29/25 4:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/28/25 11:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/28/25 9:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:34 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/28/2025 5:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
[...]
not my argument u fucking useless boomer
Well, how do you solve the halting problem?
with reflection, something u lack as a useless fucking boomer >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Which you can't say how to do, because your only answer is to >>>>>>>>>>>> define that you can.
we haven't even gotten the point of working out the
ramifications of what i've defined,
Because you haven't actually defined what you are doing.
blatant lie
Really, show where you have ACTUALLY fully defined your computation >>>>>>>> machine to a level you can actually analyize one.
reflection to TMs in order to produce Reflective TMs (RTMs)
But they arn't TMs, and you can't add the feature and maintain them >>>>>> as having the basic property of TMS.
You don't seem to understand that this "simple modification" to a TM >>>>>> do add this is akin to adding to arithmatic the rule that 1 can be >>>>>> equal to 2.
adding full mechanical reflection just means it gets a single
instruction that dumps *all* this information to the tape, at the >>>>>>> head, when that instruction is called:
But TMs don't HAVE that sort of instructions.
Their FULL array of operations is the mapping of the current state >>>>>> and Tape Symbol to the new state and tape symbol, plus a step of the >>>>>> tape in one direction of the other.
There is not place in that format of "instruction" to add such a
feature.
That is why I keep telling you that you haven't actually DEFINED how >>>>>> you system works, as it is based on just assuming that "somehow" you >>>>>> can do what you want
1) machine description
2) initial tape state
3) current instruction
4) current tape state
And where does it get that information from to do so?
That is like saying there can be a "Get the right answer" instruction >>>>>> to a deterministic computation devide.
Remember, Turing Machines have no memory other than the current state >>>>>> and the current contents of the tape, which is defined to be the
input to that current state.
call it REFLECT, if u will... this information allows a computation >>>>>>> to know exactly where it is in the overall runtime of computation, >>>>>>> and with that it can subvert semantic paradoxes like the halting >>>>>>> problem.
Call WHAT "REFLECT".
Your problem is you don't understand that Turing Machines don't have >>>>>> the ability to have arbitrary instructions due to how they are
define.
Just like they don't have instrucitons like Add or Call or Multiply. >>>>>>
you have to understand this is a *mechanical* modification to turing >>>>>>> machines, not a computational one. much like how RTMs can move a >>>>>>> head left/right, or write 0/1 to the tape ... they mechanically just >>>>>>> do this operation when the instruction is called.
How?
Note, Turing Machine are pure Mathematical constructs, in a system >>>>>> with defined rules.
There is no operation defined to do what you want.
All you are doing is showing you are as ignorant of what you are
talking about as Olcot.
*these mechanics are (relatively) simple and self-evidentially
possible and therefore mathematically feasible.*
There are no "mechanics" to a Turing Machine but state transition, >>>>>> changing the contents of the tape, and moving it a step.
BUT, let me try a step deeper, and quote turing at you from his
original paper on computable numbers:
/We may compare a man in the process of computing a real number to a >>>>>>> machine which is only capable of a finite number of conditions/ >>>>>>> [Tur36]
Right, so, how does that man do that operation?
Right, so how do you "mechanically" create information from no where. >>>>>>
THE ENTIRE JUSTIFICATION FOR TURING MACHINES RESTS SQUARELY ON THE >>>>>>> NOTION OF "CAN A MAN MECHANICALLY UNDERTAKE THESE STATE TRANSITIONS" >>>>>>
The man has no "memory", except for what is on the papers.
1) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then
obviously he has access the full machine description, or how else >>>>>>> the fuck is he doing any of these state transitions??? therefore he >>>>>>> obviously can dump the machine description, in whatever format he >>>>>>> has it in, to the tape when REFLECT is encountered.
No, he has the book of instructions. he doesn't necessarily know how >>>>>> to convert those instructions into the notes he is allowed to write >>>>>> on the pieces of paper.
He also doesn't remember what values the pile of papers had on it
when he started,
Right, so even if you gave him a side bucket to put the information >>>>>> in, when he starts this sub-operation, it begins by telling him to >>>>>> copy
2) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then
obviously he can to the side save the initial tape in a "buffer" >>>>>>> that than cannot be overwritten. with that he can can obviously dump >>>>>>> the initial tape state to the tape whenever REFLECT is encountered. >>>>>>
3) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then
obviously he has access input of a particular transition, and
therefore can dump that input to the tape when REFLECT is
encountered, in whatever format he encounters it in.
4) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation ... he can >>>>>>> obviously duplicate the tape when REFLECT is called. or more
precisely he can save it into a buffer, and dump from the buffer >>>>>>> after putting 1-3 on the tape.
But to where? Remember, the pile of papers, as a total, is DEFINED to >>>>>> be the input to the compuation.
Thus, if the outer part of the operation made a note of state of the >>>>>> machine and put it into the pile of paper, it becomes part of the
input to the sub-operation.
But the sub-operation wasn't defined to have that as its input.
It can't be a "hidden" pile that only comes out with a reflect
instruction as there is defined that there isn't such a pile
>
THAT IS THE SAME LEVEL OF FORMAT JUSTIFICATION TURING ULTIMATELY >>>>>>> GIVES FOR ANY COMPUTING MACHINE. SERIOUSLY READ HIS FUCKING ESSAY >>>>>>> YOU DORK
Nope, because your description changes the input given, and thus is >>>>>> about lying.
Again, HOW does the "machine" do what you want with what Turing
gave it.
IF it passes that information down from the outer routine to the
inner, then by DEFINITION that inner routine has a diffent input then >>>>>> before, and thus the program P isn't the required one. The "call" to >>>>>> the decider that P makes, must have the exact same input as when we >>>>>> directly call it for the answer.
If not, then your system just fails to have proper reuse of
algorithms, which makes it less than Turing Complete.
please tell me where u are confused, not how u think i'm wrong
I am not confused, which is part of your issue, you refuse to look at >>>>>> the errors ppinted out.
You aren't allowed to change the fundamental definitions without
kicking yourself out of the field you claim to be in.
Turing Machines have no private memory other than their current
state.
The question is ONLY a function of the description of the program to >>>>>> run, and thus the decider CAN'T depend on anything other than that >>>>>> description, or the decider is by definition incorrect.
Thus, even if you could define such a thing as a RTM, and program
that actually tries to use that capability to affect its answer,
couldn't be a correct halt decider.
Any attempt to try to define it as such will fundamentally turn your >>>>>> logic system into an incoherent worthless mess.
are you seriously trying to tell me that you don't think it's possible >>>>> to design a computer chip that can do simple things like:
Didn't say that, I said you couldn't make a Turing Machine do that.
I guess you just don't know what those words mean.
1) dump the program it's running on demand?
2) save the initial memory to an internal buffer to dump on demand?
3) dump the current instruction address on demand?
4) duplicate memory on demand????
cause right now ur saying u can't imagine a computer chip doing that
Nope, I said a Turing Machine, or a Computation couldn't do it.
u can't actually prove the church-turing thesis, so u can't refute RTM
abilities because TMs can't directly compute RTM machine descriptions.
but that not only can you not imagine a computer chip doing that, ur >>>>> apparently also too fucking retarded as a person to follow
instructions like that.
And if you think you have been talking about compuer chips, you are
just
showing your utter stupidity.
THE FACT WE CAN OBVIOUSLY DO THE REFLECTION (AS I'VE DEFINED SEVERAL
TIMES NOW) MECHANICALLY, IS WHAT JUSTIFIES RTMs THEORETICAL EXISTENCE
idk richard, are you intelligent enough to write the machine
description to a tape upon seeing a REFLECT command? or is that beyond >>>>> ur ability to follow instructions???
It is IMPOSSIBLE, as it requires information not in the machine as
defined.
the RTMs are defined to have access to the machine description that's
being run at all times during the confirmation
The only problem is that nobody has been able to come up with a
computational system that hasn't been proven to be Turing equivalent.
It's extremely unlikely that you're the first to invent machines with
magic instructions for reflection and whatnot.
If it were that easy to escape from Turing computation, someone would
have done it.
or u and the rest of this industry are actually complete fucking idiots
not only is this mechanically possible with real hardware, it's possible >>> if a man with a paper and pencil if ur name is retarded richard
As soon as you have "mechanicaally possible with real hardware"
you probably have a Turing calculation, especially if the mechanics
is symbol manipulation according to rules.
RTMs relationship with turing computation does not reduce down is or is
not a TM computation.
semantic paradoxes like the halting problem stem from a /mechanical/ limitation of TMs not /computational/
As soon as your system is shown to be Turing, we know it succumbs
to the undecidability of Turing halting by Turing machines.
u would need to show a new form of undecidability
You think that if you have certain privilege levels or whatever
with restricted access ot the magic instructions that you can somehow
evade attempts at thwarting halting decisions.
it's not just "somehow", it follows from the ramifications of being able
to decide in a context-aware manner
One problem is that if you have a Turing computational substrate,
it can be used to program interpreters. Those interpreters can then
be used to write programs about which we ask, does it halt?
RTMs being able to decide on how far down it is in a call chain, allows
them to compute thru attempts are forming pathological programs
ur not going to understand until u try to understand, which u haven't committed to yet
On 10/29/25 8:42 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/29/2025 10:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/29/25 12:24 PM, dart200 wrote:TMs with a modification, specifically adding full mechanical
On 10/29/25 4:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/28/25 11:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/28/25 9:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:34 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/28/2025 5:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
[...]
not my argument u fucking useless boomer
Well, how do you solve the halting problem?
with reflection, something u lack as a useless fucking boomer >>>>>>>>>
Which you can't say how to do, because your only answer is to >>>>>>>> define that you can.
we haven't even gotten the point of working out the ramifications >>>>>>> of what i've defined,
Because you haven't actually defined what you are doing.
blatant lie
Really, show where you have ACTUALLY fully defined your computation
machine to a level you can actually analyize one.
reflection to TMs in order to produce Reflective TMs (RTMs)
adding full mechanical reflection just means it gets a single
instruction that dumps *all* this information to the tape, at the
head, when that instruction is called:
1) machine description
2) initial tape state
3) current instruction
4) current tape state
call it REFLECT, if u will... this information allows a computation
to know exactly where it is in the overall runtime of computation,
and with that it can subvert semantic paradoxes like the halting
problem.
you have to understand this is a *mechanical* modification to turing
machines, not a computational one. much like how RTMs can move a head
left/right, or write 0/1 to the tape ... they mechanically just do
this operation when the instruction is called.
*these mechanics are (relatively) simple and self-evidentially
possible and therefore mathematically feasible.*
BUT, let me try a step deeper, and quote turing at you from his
original paper on computable numbers:
/We may compare a man in the process of computing a real number to a
machine which is only capable of a finite number of conditions/ [Tur36]
THE ENTIRE JUSTIFICATION FOR TURING MACHINES RESTS SQUARELY ON THE
NOTION OF "CAN A MAN MECHANICALLY UNDERTAKE THESE STATE TRANSITIONS"
1) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then
obviously he has access the full machine description, or how else the
fuck is he doing any of these state transitions??? therefore he
obviously can dump the machine description, in whatever format he has
it in, to the tape when REFLECT is encountered.
2) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then
obviously he can to the side save the initial tape in a "buffer" that
than cannot be overwritten. with that he can can obviously dump the
initial tape state to the tape whenever REFLECT is encountered.
3) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then
obviously he has access input of a particular transition, and
therefore can dump that input to the tape when REFLECT is
encountered, in whatever format he encounters it in.
4) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation ... he can
obviously duplicate the tape when REFLECT is called. or more
precisely he can save it into a buffer, and dump from the buffer
after putting 1-3 on the tape.
THAT IS THE SAME LEVEL OF FORMAT JUSTIFICATION TURING ULTIMATELY
GIVES FOR ANY COMPUTING MACHINE. SERIOUSLY READ HIS FUCKING ESSAY YOU
DORK
please tell me where u are confused, not how u think i'm wrong
I can finally see the gist of what you are saying
and it seems to be very similar to my idea.
like i've said polcott, i consider you having a half-way solution. u
have something that's executable for sure, and that is a definite improvement over total undecidability.
but it's not totally epistemically useful, it still doesn't /effectively compute/ the halting function in a *general* manner.
i'm proposing something that's both executable *and* epistemically
useful for that purpose.
the RTM i'm proposing here is just the underlying theoretical mechanisms that can be used to produce a theoretically coherent context-dependent decider,
which can then be used to /effectively compute/ the halting function irrespective of semantic paradoxes ...
something that is in total a step beyond the mere executability that you
are proposing.
On 10/30/25 5:37 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/30/2025 5:35 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/30/25 5:31 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/30/2025 5:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/30/25 5:01 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/30/2025 3:40 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/30/25 2:00 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/30/2025 1:57 PM, dart200 wrote:
[...]
ur fucking retard
Remember to keep working on your solution to the halting problem >>>>>>>> using reflection... :^)
remember to keep shoving cocks down ur throat... :^)
Your fantasy about me is very strange... Wow. Anyway, just make
sure to code up your reflection solution to the halting problem.
Show it to us!
theory is proven not demonstrated,
unlike shoving a cock up ur ass, which is demonstrated rather than
proven
That should be your forward to a book somebody writes about you?
oh no i wrote some vulgar words on the internet in response to an
incessantly retarded boomer troll,
i'm sure posterity will care after how much ur generation fucked us
more than you personally ever took it up the ass
You are a nice person right? ;^o
you are most definitely not a nice person
On 10/30/25 2:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 8:42 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/29/2025 10:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/29/25 12:24 PM, dart200 wrote:TMs with a modification, specifically adding full mechanical
On 10/29/25 4:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/28/25 11:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/28/25 9:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:34 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/28/2025 5:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
[...]
not my argument u fucking useless boomer
Well, how do you solve the halting problem?
with reflection, something u lack as a useless fucking boomer >>>>>>>>>>
Which you can't say how to do, because your only answer is to >>>>>>>>> define that you can.
we haven't even gotten the point of working out the
ramifications of what i've defined,
Because you haven't actually defined what you are doing.
blatant lie
Really, show where you have ACTUALLY fully defined your computation >>>>> machine to a level you can actually analyize one.
reflection to TMs in order to produce Reflective TMs (RTMs)
adding full mechanical reflection just means it gets a single
instruction that dumps *all* this information to the tape, at the
head, when that instruction is called:
1) machine description
2) initial tape state
3) current instruction
4) current tape state
call it REFLECT, if u will... this information allows a computation
to know exactly where it is in the overall runtime of computation,
and with that it can subvert semantic paradoxes like the halting
problem.
you have to understand this is a *mechanical* modification to turing
machines, not a computational one. much like how RTMs can move a
head left/right, or write 0/1 to the tape ... they mechanically just
do this operation when the instruction is called.
*these mechanics are (relatively) simple and self-evidentially
possible and therefore mathematically feasible.*
BUT, let me try a step deeper, and quote turing at you from his
original paper on computable numbers:
/We may compare a man in the process of computing a real number to a
machine which is only capable of a finite number of conditions/ [Tur36] >>>>
THE ENTIRE JUSTIFICATION FOR TURING MACHINES RESTS SQUARELY ON THE
NOTION OF "CAN A MAN MECHANICALLY UNDERTAKE THESE STATE TRANSITIONS"
1) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then
obviously he has access the full machine description, or how else
the fuck is he doing any of these state transitions??? therefore he
obviously can dump the machine description, in whatever format he
has it in, to the tape when REFLECT is encountered.
2) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then
obviously he can to the side save the initial tape in a "buffer"
that than cannot be overwritten. with that he can can obviously dump
the initial tape state to the tape whenever REFLECT is encountered.
3) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then
obviously he has access input of a particular transition, and
therefore can dump that input to the tape when REFLECT is
encountered, in whatever format he encounters it in.
4) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation ... he can
obviously duplicate the tape when REFLECT is called. or more
precisely he can save it into a buffer, and dump from the buffer
after putting 1-3 on the tape.
THAT IS THE SAME LEVEL OF FORMAT JUSTIFICATION TURING ULTIMATELY
GIVES FOR ANY COMPUTING MACHINE. SERIOUSLY READ HIS FUCKING ESSAY
YOU DORK
please tell me where u are confused, not how u think i'm wrong
I can finally see the gist of what you are saying
and it seems to be very similar to my idea.
like i've said polcott, i consider you having a half-way solution. u
have something that's executable for sure, and that is a definite
improvement over total undecidability.
but it's not totally epistemically useful, it still doesn't /
effectively compute/ the halting function in a *general* manner.
i'm proposing something that's both executable *and* epistemically
useful for that purpose.
the RTM i'm proposing here is just the underlying theoretical
mechanisms that can be used to produce a theoretically coherent
context-dependent decider,
which can then be used to /effectively compute/ the halting function
irrespective of semantic paradoxes ...
something that is in total a step beyond the mere executability that
you are proposing.
No, the problem you have is that you make the same error and try to
redefine the question, and allow your machine to give wrong answers.
that's incredibly unfair of you--
#god
On 10/30/25 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:[...]
On 10/30/25 2:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/30/25 4:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/29/25 11:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/29/25 12:24 PM, dart200 wrote:TMs with a modification, specifically adding full mechanical
On 10/29/25 4:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/28/25 11:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/28/25 9:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:34 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/28/2025 5:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
[...]
not my argument u fucking useless boomer
Well, how do you solve the halting problem?
with reflection, something u lack as a useless fucking boomer >>>>>>>>>>>
Which you can't say how to do, because your only answer is to >>>>>>>>>> define that you can.
we haven't even gotten the point of working out the
ramifications of what i've defined,
Because you haven't actually defined what you are doing.
blatant lie
Really, show where you have ACTUALLY fully defined your
computation machine to a level you can actually analyize one.
reflection to TMs in order to produce Reflective TMs (RTMs)
But they arn't TMs, and you can't add the feature and maintain them
as having the basic property of TMS.
You don't seem to understand that this "simple modification" to a TM
do add this is akin to adding to arithmatic the rule that 1 can be
equal to 2.
adding full mechanical reflection just means it gets a single
instruction that dumps *all* this information to the tape, at the
head, when that instruction is called:
But TMs don't HAVE that sort of instructions.
Their FULL array of operations is the mapping of the current state
and Tape Symbol to the new state and tape symbol, plus a step of the
tape in one direction of the other.
There is not place in that format of "instruction" to add such a
feature.
That is why I keep telling you that you haven't actually DEFINED how
you system works, as it is based on just assuming that "somehow" you
can do what you want
1) machine description
2) initial tape state
3) current instruction
4) current tape state
And where does it get that information from to do so?
That is like saying there can be a "Get the right answer"
instruction to a deterministic computation devide.
Remember, Turing Machines have no memory other than the current
state and the current contents of the tape, which is defined to be
the input to that current state.
call it REFLECT, if u will... this information allows a computation >>>>> to know exactly where it is in the overall runtime of computation,
and with that it can subvert semantic paradoxes like the halting
problem.
Call WHAT "REFLECT".
Your problem is you don't understand that Turing Machines don't have
the ability to have arbitrary instructions due to how they are define. >>>>
Just like they don't have instrucitons like Add or Call or Multiply.
you have to understand this is a *mechanical* modification to
turing machines, not a computational one. much like how RTMs can
move a head left/right, or write 0/1 to the tape ... they
mechanically just do this operation when the instruction is called.
How?
Note, Turing Machine are pure Mathematical constructs, in a system
with defined rules.
There is no operation defined to do what you want.
All you are doing is showing you are as ignorant of what you are
talking about as Olcot.
*these mechanics are (relatively) simple and self-evidentially
possible and therefore mathematically feasible.*
There are no "mechanics" to a Turing Machine but state transition,
changing the contents of the tape, and moving it a step.
BUT, let me try a step deeper, and quote turing at you from his
original paper on computable numbers:
/We may compare a man in the process of computing a real number to a >>>>> machine which is only capable of a finite number of conditions/
[Tur36]
Right, so, how does that man do that operation?
THE ENTIRE JUSTIFICATION FOR TURING MACHINES RESTS SQUARELY ON THE
NOTION OF "CAN A MAN MECHANICALLY UNDERTAKE THESE STATE TRANSITIONS"
Right, so how do you "mechanically" create information from no where.
The man has no "memory", except for what is on the papers.
1) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then
obviously he has access the full machine description, or how else
the fuck is he doing any of these state transitions??? therefore he >>>>> obviously can dump the machine description, in whatever format he
has it in, to the tape when REFLECT is encountered.
No, he has the book of instructions. he doesn't necessarily know how
to convert those instructions into the notes he is allowed to write
on the pieces of paper.
He also doesn't remember what values the pile of papers had on it
when he started,
2) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then
obviously he can to the side save the initial tape in a "buffer"
that than cannot be overwritten. with that he can can obviously
dump the initial tape state to the tape whenever REFLECT is
encountered.
Right, so even if you gave him a side bucket to put the information
in, when he starts this sub-operation, it begins by telling him to copy >>>>
3) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then
obviously he has access input of a particular transition, and
therefore can dump that input to the tape when REFLECT is
encountered, in whatever format he encounters it in.
4) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation ... he can
obviously duplicate the tape when REFLECT is called. or more
precisely he can save it into a buffer, and dump from the buffer
after putting 1-3 on the tape.
But to where? Remember, the pile of papers, as a total, is DEFINED
to be the input to the compuation.
Thus, if the outer part of the operation made a note of state of the
machine and put it into the pile of paper, it becomes part of the
input to the sub-operation.
But the sub-operation wasn't defined to have that as its input.
It can't be a "hidden" pile that only comes out with a reflect
instruction as there is defined that there isn't such a pile
>
THAT IS THE SAME LEVEL OF FORMAT JUSTIFICATION TURING ULTIMATELY
GIVES FOR ANY COMPUTING MACHINE. SERIOUSLY READ HIS FUCKING ESSAY
YOU DORK
Nope, because your description changes the input given, and thus is
about lying.
Again, HOW does the "machine" do what you want with what Turing gave
it.
IF it passes that information down from the outer routine to the
inner, then by DEFINITION that inner routine has a diffent input
then before, and thus the program P isn't the required one. The
"call" to the decider that P makes, must have the exact same input
as when we directly call it for the answer.
If not, then your system just fails to have proper reuse of
algorithms, which makes it less than Turing Complete.
please tell me where u are confused, not how u think i'm wrong
I am not confused, which is part of your issue, you refuse to look
at the errors ppinted out.
You aren't allowed to change the fundamental definitions without
kicking yourself out of the field you claim to be in.
Turing Machines have no private memory other than their current state. >>>>
The question is ONLY a function of the description of the program to
run, and thus the decider CAN'T depend on anything other than that
description, or the decider is by definition incorrect.
Thus, even if you could define such a thing as a RTM, and program
that actually tries to use that capability to affect its answer,
couldn't be a correct halt decider.
Any attempt to try to define it as such will fundamentally turn your
logic system into an incoherent worthless mess.
are you seriously trying to tell me that you don't think it's
possible to design a computer chip that can do simple things like:
Didn't say that, I said you couldn't make a Turing Machine do that.
I guess you just don't know what those words mean.
1) dump the program it's running on demand?
2) save the initial memory to an internal buffer to dump on demand?
3) dump the current instruction address on demand?
4) duplicate memory on demand????
cause right now ur saying u can't imagine a computer chip doing that
Nope, I said a Turing Machine, or a Computation couldn't do it.
u can't actually prove the church-turing thesis, so u can't refute RTM abilities because TMs can't directly compute RTM machine descriptions.
but that not only can you not imagine a computer chip doing that, ur
apparently also too fucking retarded as a person to follow
instructions like that.
And if you think you have been talking about compuer chips, you are
just showing your utter stupidity.
THE FACT WE CAN OBVIOUSLY DO THE REFLECTION (AS I'VE DEFINED SEVERAL
TIMES NOW) MECHANICALLY, IS WHAT JUSTIFIES RTMs THEORETICAL EXISTENCE
idk richard, are you intelligent enough to write the machine
description to a tape upon seeing a REFLECT command? or is that
beyond ur ability to follow instructions???
It is IMPOSSIBLE, as it requires information not in the machine as
defined.
the RTMs are defined to have access to the machine description that's
being run at all times during the confirmation
not only is this mechanically possible with real hardware, it's possible
if a man with a paper and pencil if ur name is retarded richard
this
u must have like an 80 IQ if 1-4 are so beyond ur conception that you
need to write paragraphs on an apparently inability to do so LOL
Nope, I suspect mine is much higher than yours.
I will note that you have yet to explain how you think you could do
either.
THE FACT WE CAN OBVIOUSLY DO THE REFLECTION AS I'VE DEFINED SEVERAL
TIMES NOW MECHANICALLY, IS WHAT JUSTIFIES RTMs THEORETICAL EXISTENCE
On 10/30/2025 8:58 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/30/25 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:[...]
On 10/30/25 2:13 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/30/25 4:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/29/25 11:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/29/25 12:24 PM, dart200 wrote:TMs with a modification, specifically adding full mechanical
On 10/29/25 4:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/28/25 11:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/28/25 9:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:34 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/28/2025 5:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
[...]
not my argument u fucking useless boomer
Well, how do you solve the halting problem?
with reflection, something u lack as a useless fucking boomer >>>>>>>>>>>>
Which you can't say how to do, because your only answer is to >>>>>>>>>>> define that you can.
we haven't even gotten the point of working out the
ramifications of what i've defined,
Because you haven't actually defined what you are doing.
blatant lie
Really, show where you have ACTUALLY fully defined your
computation machine to a level you can actually analyize one.
reflection to TMs in order to produce Reflective TMs (RTMs)
But they arn't TMs, and you can't add the feature and maintain them >>>>> as having the basic property of TMS.
You don't seem to understand that this "simple modification" to a
TM do add this is akin to adding to arithmatic the rule that 1 can
be equal to 2.
adding full mechanical reflection just means it gets a single
instruction that dumps *all* this information to the tape, at the >>>>>> head, when that instruction is called:
But TMs don't HAVE that sort of instructions.
Their FULL array of operations is the mapping of the current state
and Tape Symbol to the new state and tape symbol, plus a step of
the tape in one direction of the other.
There is not place in that format of "instruction" to add such a
feature.
That is why I keep telling you that you haven't actually DEFINED
how you system works, as it is based on just assuming that
"somehow" you can do what you want
1) machine description
2) initial tape state
3) current instruction
4) current tape state
And where does it get that information from to do so?
That is like saying there can be a "Get the right answer"
instruction to a deterministic computation devide.
Remember, Turing Machines have no memory other than the current
state and the current contents of the tape, which is defined to be
the input to that current state.
call it REFLECT, if u will... this information allows a
computation to know exactly where it is in the overall runtime of >>>>>> computation, and with that it can subvert semantic paradoxes like >>>>>> the halting problem.
Call WHAT "REFLECT".
Your problem is you don't understand that Turing Machines don't
have the ability to have arbitrary instructions due to how they are >>>>> define.
Just like they don't have instrucitons like Add or Call or Multiply. >>>>>
you have to understand this is a *mechanical* modification toHow?
turing machines, not a computational one. much like how RTMs can
move a head left/right, or write 0/1 to the tape ... they
mechanically just do this operation when the instruction is called. >>>>>
Note, Turing Machine are pure Mathematical constructs, in a system
with defined rules.
There is no operation defined to do what you want.
All you are doing is showing you are as ignorant of what you are
talking about as Olcot.
*these mechanics are (relatively) simple and self-evidentially
possible and therefore mathematically feasible.*
There are no "mechanics" to a Turing Machine but state transition,
changing the contents of the tape, and moving it a step.
BUT, let me try a step deeper, and quote turing at you from his
original paper on computable numbers:
/We may compare a man in the process of computing a real number to a >>>>>> machine which is only capable of a finite number of conditions/
[Tur36]
Right, so, how does that man do that operation?
Right, so how do you "mechanically" create information from no where. >>>>>
THE ENTIRE JUSTIFICATION FOR TURING MACHINES RESTS SQUARELY ON THE >>>>>> NOTION OF "CAN A MAN MECHANICALLY UNDERTAKE THESE STATE TRANSITIONS" >>>>>
The man has no "memory", except for what is on the papers.
1) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then
obviously he has access the full machine description, or how else >>>>>> the fuck is he doing any of these state transitions??? therefore
he obviously can dump the machine description, in whatever format >>>>>> he has it in, to the tape when REFLECT is encountered.
No, he has the book of instructions. he doesn't necessarily know
how to convert those instructions into the notes he is allowed to
write on the pieces of paper.
He also doesn't remember what values the pile of papers had on it
when he started,
2) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then
obviously he can to the side save the initial tape in a "buffer"
that than cannot be overwritten. with that he can can obviously
dump the initial tape state to the tape whenever REFLECT is
encountered.
Right, so even if you gave him a side bucket to put the information >>>>> in, when he starts this sub-operation, it begins by telling him to
copy
3) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then
obviously he has access input of a particular transition, and
therefore can dump that input to the tape when REFLECT is
encountered, in whatever format he encounters it in.
4) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation ... he can >>>>>> obviously duplicate the tape when REFLECT is called. or more
precisely he can save it into a buffer, and dump from the buffer
after putting 1-3 on the tape.
But to where? Remember, the pile of papers, as a total, is DEFINED
to be the input to the compuation.
Thus, if the outer part of the operation made a note of state of
the machine and put it into the pile of paper, it becomes part of
the input to the sub-operation.
But the sub-operation wasn't defined to have that as its input.
It can't be a "hidden" pile that only comes out with a reflect
instruction as there is defined that there isn't such a pile
>
THAT IS THE SAME LEVEL OF FORMAT JUSTIFICATION TURING ULTIMATELY
GIVES FOR ANY COMPUTING MACHINE. SERIOUSLY READ HIS FUCKING ESSAY >>>>>> YOU DORK
Nope, because your description changes the input given, and thus is >>>>> about lying.
Again, HOW does the "machine" do what you want with what Turing
gave it.
IF it passes that information down from the outer routine to the
inner, then by DEFINITION that inner routine has a diffent input
then before, and thus the program P isn't the required one. The
"call" to the decider that P makes, must have the exact same input
as when we directly call it for the answer.
If not, then your system just fails to have proper reuse of
algorithms, which makes it less than Turing Complete.
please tell me where u are confused, not how u think i'm wrong
I am not confused, which is part of your issue, you refuse to look
at the errors ppinted out.
You aren't allowed to change the fundamental definitions without
kicking yourself out of the field you claim to be in.
Turing Machines have no private memory other than their current state. >>>>>
The question is ONLY a function of the description of the program
to run, and thus the decider CAN'T depend on anything other than
that description, or the decider is by definition incorrect.
Thus, even if you could define such a thing as a RTM, and program
that actually tries to use that capability to affect its answer,
couldn't be a correct halt decider.
Any attempt to try to define it as such will fundamentally turn
your logic system into an incoherent worthless mess.
are you seriously trying to tell me that you don't think it's
possible to design a computer chip that can do simple things like:
Didn't say that, I said you couldn't make a Turing Machine do that.
I guess you just don't know what those words mean.
1) dump the program it's running on demand?
2) save the initial memory to an internal buffer to dump on demand?
3) dump the current instruction address on demand?
4) duplicate memory on demand????
cause right now ur saying u can't imagine a computer chip doing that
Nope, I said a Turing Machine, or a Computation couldn't do it.
u can't actually prove the church-turing thesis, so u can't refute RTM
abilities because TMs can't directly compute RTM machine descriptions.
;but that not only can you not imagine a computer chip doing that, ur
apparently also too fucking retarded as a person to follow
instructions like that.
And if you think you have been talking about compuer chips, you are
just showing your utter stupidity.
THE FACT WE CAN OBVIOUSLY DO THE REFLECTION (AS I'VE DEFINED SEVERAL
TIMES NOW) MECHANICALLY, IS WHAT JUSTIFIES RTMs THEORETICAL EXISTENCE
idk richard, are you intelligent enough to write the machine
description to a tape upon seeing a REFLECT command? or is that
beyond ur ability to follow instructions???
It is IMPOSSIBLE, as it requires information not in the machine as
defined.
the RTMs are defined to have access to the machine description that's
being run at all times during the confirmation
not only is this mechanically possible with real hardware, it's
possible if a man with a paper and pencil if ur name is retarded richard
do this
u must have like an 80 IQ if 1-4 are so beyond ur conception that
you need to write paragraphs on an apparently inability to do so LOL
Nope, I suspect mine is much higher than yours.
I will note that you have yet to explain how you think you could
either.
THE FACT WE CAN OBVIOUSLY DO THE REFLECTION AS I'VE DEFINED SEVERAL
TIMES NOW MECHANICALLY, IS WHAT JUSTIFIES RTMs THEORETICAL EXISTENCE
Code it up!
The non-computablity of some problem is a natural and essential part of
the system, and the only way to make a Computation System not have any non-comutable problem is to GREATLY limit the scope of the system. It
comes from the fact that there are is a higher class of infinity problem
we can create, then there are algorithms that could try to compute them, thus we CAN'T create an algorirhm for all, or even most, or the problems.
On 10/31/25 9:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
The non-computablity of some problem is a natural and essential part
of the system, and the only way to make a Computation System not have
any non-comutable problem is to GREATLY limit the scope of the system.
It comes from the fact that there are is a higher class of infinity
problem we can create, then there are algorithms that could try to
compute them, thus we CAN'T create an algorirhm for all, or even most,
or the problems.
actually in the process of refuting turing's paper i do demonstrate a function remaining uncomputable, and that's integral.
just because semantics can be decided upon does not refute the fact uncomputable functions exist.
i don't have a problem with uncomputable functions, i have a problem
with semantics algorithms not existing because of semantic paradoxes.
u still are trying to inform of why i'm wrong without actually listening
to what i'm saying. it's just hubris of u to think u can refute me
without actually listening to what i've said.
you seem to not actually understand what a Turing machine is, even
a set of state transitions:
(curState, symbolAtHead) -> (command, nextState)
where command are the system transformations HEAD_LEFT or HEAD_RIGHT
or WRITE_SYMBOL.
Nope, because they always write a "new symbol" (which might be the same)
On 10/31/2025 7:11 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/31/25 9:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
The non-computablity of some problem is a natural and essential part
of the system, and the only way to make a Computation System not have
any non-comutable problem is to GREATLY limit the scope of the
system. It comes from the fact that there are is a higher class of
infinity problem we can create, then there are algorithms that could
try to compute them, thus we CAN'T create an algorirhm for all, or
even most, or the problems.
actually in the process of refuting turing's paper i do demonstrate a
function remaining uncomputable, and that's integral.
just because semantics can be decided upon does not refute the fact
uncomputable functions exist.
i don't have a problem with uncomputable functions, i have a problem
with semantics algorithms not existing because of semantic paradoxes.
Yes me too. This has been the key focus of all my work
for 28 years.
On 10/31/25 5:17 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/31/2025 7:11 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/31/25 9:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
The non-computablity of some problem is a natural and essential part
of the system, and the only way to make a Computation System not
have any non-comutable problem is to GREATLY limit the scope of the
system. It comes from the fact that there are is a higher class of
infinity problem we can create, then there are algorithms that could
try to compute them, thus we CAN'T create an algorirhm for all, or
even most, or the problems.
actually in the process of refuting turing's paper i do demonstrate a
function remaining uncomputable, and that's integral.
just because semantics can be decided upon does not refute the fact
uncomputable functions exist.
i don't have a problem with uncomputable functions, i have a problem
with semantics algorithms not existing because of semantic paradoxes.
Yes me too. This has been the key focus of all my work
for 28 years.
the problem is polcott, no one is going to accept an algo that doesn't
give us an /effectively computable/ resolution to whether an input
machine halts or not.
so far you've just got something that's *just* computable, but it's
not /effectively computable/ in respect deciding on whether an input
machine halts or not.
On 10/31/25 9:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/30/25 2:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 8:42 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/29/2025 10:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/29/25 12:24 PM, dart200 wrote:TMs with a modification, specifically adding full mechanical
On 10/29/25 4:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/28/25 11:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/28/25 9:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:34 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/28/2025 5:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
[...]
not my argument u fucking useless boomer
Well, how do you solve the halting problem?
with reflection, something u lack as a useless fucking boomer >>>>>>>>>>>
Which you can't say how to do, because your only answer is to >>>>>>>>>> define that you can.
we haven't even gotten the point of working out the
ramifications of what i've defined,
Because you haven't actually defined what you are doing.
blatant lie
Really, show where you have ACTUALLY fully defined your
computation machine to a level you can actually analyize one.
reflection to TMs in order to produce Reflective TMs (RTMs)
adding full mechanical reflection just means it gets a single
instruction that dumps *all* this information to the tape, at the
head, when that instruction is called:
1) machine description
2) initial tape state
3) current instruction
4) current tape state
call it REFLECT, if u will... this information allows a computation >>>>> to know exactly where it is in the overall runtime of computation,
and with that it can subvert semantic paradoxes like the halting
problem.
you have to understand this is a *mechanical* modification to
turing machines, not a computational one. much like how RTMs can
move a head left/right, or write 0/1 to the tape ... they
mechanically just do this operation when the instruction is called.
*these mechanics are (relatively) simple and self-evidentially
possible and therefore mathematically feasible.*
BUT, let me try a step deeper, and quote turing at you from his
original paper on computable numbers:
/We may compare a man in the process of computing a real number to a >>>>> machine which is only capable of a finite number of conditions/
[Tur36]
THE ENTIRE JUSTIFICATION FOR TURING MACHINES RESTS SQUARELY ON THE
NOTION OF "CAN A MAN MECHANICALLY UNDERTAKE THESE STATE TRANSITIONS" >>>>>
1) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then
obviously he has access the full machine description, or how else
the fuck is he doing any of these state transitions??? therefore he >>>>> obviously can dump the machine description, in whatever format he
has it in, to the tape when REFLECT is encountered.
2) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then
obviously he can to the side save the initial tape in a "buffer"
that than cannot be overwritten. with that he can can obviously
dump the initial tape state to the tape whenever REFLECT is
encountered.
3) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then
obviously he has access input of a particular transition, and
therefore can dump that input to the tape when REFLECT is
encountered, in whatever format he encounters it in.
4) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation ... he can
obviously duplicate the tape when REFLECT is called. or more
precisely he can save it into a buffer, and dump from the buffer
after putting 1-3 on the tape.
THAT IS THE SAME LEVEL OF FORMAT JUSTIFICATION TURING ULTIMATELY
GIVES FOR ANY COMPUTING MACHINE. SERIOUSLY READ HIS FUCKING ESSAY
YOU DORK
please tell me where u are confused, not how u think i'm wrong
I can finally see the gist of what you are saying
and it seems to be very similar to my idea.
like i've said polcott, i consider you having a half-way solution. u
have something that's executable for sure, and that is a definite
improvement over total undecidability.
but it's not totally epistemically useful, it still doesn't /
effectively compute/ the halting function in a *general* manner.
i'm proposing something that's both executable *and* epistemically
useful for that purpose.
the RTM i'm proposing here is just the underlying theoretical
mechanisms that can be used to produce a theoretically coherent
context-dependent decider,
which can then be used to /effectively compute/ the halting function
irrespective of semantic paradoxes ...
something that is in total a step beyond the mere executability that
you are proposing.
No, the problem you have is that you make the same error and try to
redefine the question, and allow your machine to give wrong answers.
it's not a "wrong" answer if it contains no information to be wrong
about, and it's only given in a situation where there's no "right" answer.
how is it reasonable to expect a decider to respond truthfully to a situation that would only make that truth untrue
that's incredibly unfair of you
#god
On 10/31/25 9:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
The non-computablity of some problem is a natural and essential part
of the system, and the only way to make a Computation System not have
any non-comutable problem is to GREATLY limit the scope of the system.
It comes from the fact that there are is a higher class of infinity
problem we can create, then there are algorithms that could try to
compute them, thus we CAN'T create an algorirhm for all, or even most,
or the problems.
actually in the process of refuting turing's paper i do demonstrate a function remaining uncomputable, and that's integral.
just because semantics can be decided upon does not refute the fact uncomputable functions exist.
i don't have a problem with uncomputable functions, i have a problem
with semantics algorithms not existing because of semantic paradoxes.
u still are trying to inform of why i'm wrong without actually listening
to what i'm saying. it's just hubris of u to think u can refute me
without actually listening to what i've said.
On 10/31/25 3:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/31/25 9:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/30/25 2:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 8:42 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/29/2025 10:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/29/25 12:24 PM, dart200 wrote:TMs with a modification, specifically adding full mechanical
On 10/29/25 4:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/28/25 11:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/28/25 9:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:34 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/28/2025 5:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
[...]
not my argument u fucking useless boomer
Well, how do you solve the halting problem?
with reflection, something u lack as a useless fucking boomer >>>>>>>>>>>>
Which you can't say how to do, because your only answer is to >>>>>>>>>>> define that you can.
we haven't even gotten the point of working out the
ramifications of what i've defined,
Because you haven't actually defined what you are doing.
blatant lie
Really, show where you have ACTUALLY fully defined your
computation machine to a level you can actually analyize one.
reflection to TMs in order to produce Reflective TMs (RTMs)
adding full mechanical reflection just means it gets a single
instruction that dumps *all* this information to the tape, at the >>>>>> head, when that instruction is called:
1) machine description
2) initial tape state
3) current instruction
4) current tape state
call it REFLECT, if u will... this information allows a
computation to know exactly where it is in the overall runtime of >>>>>> computation, and with that it can subvert semantic paradoxes like >>>>>> the halting problem.
you have to understand this is a *mechanical* modification to
turing machines, not a computational one. much like how RTMs can
move a head left/right, or write 0/1 to the tape ... they
mechanically just do this operation when the instruction is called. >>>>>>
*these mechanics are (relatively) simple and self-evidentially
possible and therefore mathematically feasible.*
BUT, let me try a step deeper, and quote turing at you from his
original paper on computable numbers:
/We may compare a man in the process of computing a real number to a >>>>>> machine which is only capable of a finite number of conditions/
[Tur36]
THE ENTIRE JUSTIFICATION FOR TURING MACHINES RESTS SQUARELY ON THE >>>>>> NOTION OF "CAN A MAN MECHANICALLY UNDERTAKE THESE STATE TRANSITIONS" >>>>>>
1) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then
obviously he has access the full machine description, or how else >>>>>> the fuck is he doing any of these state transitions??? therefore
he obviously can dump the machine description, in whatever format >>>>>> he has it in, to the tape when REFLECT is encountered.
2) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then
obviously he can to the side save the initial tape in a "buffer"
that than cannot be overwritten. with that he can can obviously
dump the initial tape state to the tape whenever REFLECT is
encountered.
3) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then
obviously he has access input of a particular transition, and
therefore can dump that input to the tape when REFLECT is
encountered, in whatever format he encounters it in.
4) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation ... he can >>>>>> obviously duplicate the tape when REFLECT is called. or more
precisely he can save it into a buffer, and dump from the buffer
after putting 1-3 on the tape.
THAT IS THE SAME LEVEL OF FORMAT JUSTIFICATION TURING ULTIMATELY
GIVES FOR ANY COMPUTING MACHINE. SERIOUSLY READ HIS FUCKING ESSAY >>>>>> YOU DORK
please tell me where u are confused, not how u think i'm wrong
I can finally see the gist of what you are saying
and it seems to be very similar to my idea.
like i've said polcott, i consider you having a half-way solution. u
have something that's executable for sure, and that is a definite
improvement over total undecidability.
but it's not totally epistemically useful, it still doesn't /
effectively compute/ the halting function in a *general* manner.
i'm proposing something that's both executable *and* epistemically
useful for that purpose.
the RTM i'm proposing here is just the underlying theoretical
mechanisms that can be used to produce a theoretically coherent
context-dependent decider,
which can then be used to /effectively compute/ the halting function
irrespective of semantic paradoxes ...
something that is in total a step beyond the mere executability that
you are proposing.
No, the problem you have is that you make the same error and try to
redefine the question, and allow your machine to give wrong answers.
it's not a "wrong" answer if it contains no information to be wrong
about, and it's only given in a situation where there's no "right"
answer.
But their is a right answer for every actual D based on every actual H.
It just isn't the answer that H gives.
how is it reasonable to expect a decider to respond truthfully to a
situation that would only make that truth untrue
Because deciders are just deterministic processes with a fixed algorithm.
Note, the system DOES understand that some problems turn out to be uncomputable, so no decider exists that can be correct for all inputs. Nothing wrong with that, it just means that any decider that wants to
try to claim to solve it will be wrong for some input.
The key point here is the question can't be asked until after a decider steps up to make the claim, as the prove-it-wrong input is different for every possible decider, and thus, by the time the question can be asked,
the deciders result for that input was already determined by its
algorithm. For the decider it isn't a matter of being "truthful", it is
just doing what it was programmed to do.
It becomes a matter of correctness, not truthfulness.
It is the creator of the algoritm to which truthfulness is applied, and claiming that it will give the right answer when it doesn't shows that
his claim wasn't truthful.
On 10/31/2025 7:11 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/31/25 9:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
The non-computablity of some problem is a natural and essential part
of the system, and the only way to make a Computation System not have
any non-comutable problem is to GREATLY limit the scope of the
system. It comes from the fact that there are is a higher class of
infinity problem we can create, then there are algorithms that could
try to compute them, thus we CAN'T create an algorirhm for all, or
even most, or the problems.
actually in the process of refuting turing's paper i do demonstrate a
function remaining uncomputable, and that's integral.
just because semantics can be decided upon does not refute the fact
uncomputable functions exist.
i don't have a problem with uncomputable functions, i have a problem
with semantics algorithms not existing because of semantic paradoxes.
Yes me too. This has been the key focus of all my work
for 28 years.
u still are trying to inform of why i'm wrong without actually
listening to what i'm saying. it's just hubris of u to think u can
refute me without actually listening to what i've said.
His ADD may be so bad that it is impossible for his to actually
pay close attention to anything. I don't have ADD but I did
find that carefully studying the exact same material 16 times
did really deepen my understanding.
On 10/31/25 8:11 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/31/25 9:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
The non-computablity of some problem is a natural and essential part
of the system, and the only way to make a Computation System not have
any non-comutable problem is to GREATLY limit the scope of the
system. It comes from the fact that there are is a higher class of
infinity problem we can create, then there are algorithms that could
try to compute them, thus we CAN'T create an algorirhm for all, or
even most, or the problems.
actually in the process of refuting turing's paper i do demonstrate a
function remaining uncomputable, and that's integral.
just because semantics can be decided upon does not refute the fact
uncomputable functions exist.
i don't have a problem with uncomputable functions, i have a problem
with semantics algorithms not existing because of semantic paradoxes.
u still are trying to inform of why i'm wrong without actually
listening to what i'm saying. it's just hubris of u to think u can
refute me without actually listening to what i've said.
So, what is your problem with Semantic Algorithms having problems.
Semanatic problems just fall into that case of the explosion of cases,
which leads to uncomputability.
Note, nothing says that we can't give a semantic answer for a LOT of the possible inputs, just that there will always exist some input that is an edge case that pushes us to need infinite time to resolve.
It shows that the language the semantics are framed in are powerful
enough to allow for these unresolvable cases.
Think of it this way, by our definitions, we have a countable infinte
number of possible inputs. The decision process needs to divide these
into categories, and at least one of those categories will need to be countably infinite in size.
The language of Computations is powerful enough that for a non-trivial property, at least one of those infinite categories turns out to not be decided fully in finite steps, but there is some bounded relationship
such that for any finite number of steps, and infinte number of members
will remain to be decided.
The lack of COMPLETE computability of Semantic Properties is an
indication of the POWER of creating programs, that grows faster than the ability to analyze them.
On 10/31/25 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/31/25 3:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/31/25 9:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/30/25 2:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 8:42 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/29/2025 10:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/29/25 12:24 PM, dart200 wrote:TMs with a modification, specifically adding full mechanical
On 10/29/25 4:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/28/25 11:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/28/25 9:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:34 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/28/2025 5:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
[...]
not my argument u fucking useless boomer
Well, how do you solve the halting problem?
with reflection, something u lack as a useless fucking boomer >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Which you can't say how to do, because your only answer is >>>>>>>>>>>> to define that you can.
we haven't even gotten the point of working out the
ramifications of what i've defined,
Because you haven't actually defined what you are doing.
blatant lie
Really, show where you have ACTUALLY fully defined your
computation machine to a level you can actually analyize one.
reflection to TMs in order to produce Reflective TMs (RTMs)
adding full mechanical reflection just means it gets a single
instruction that dumps *all* this information to the tape, at the >>>>>>> head, when that instruction is called:
1) machine description
2) initial tape state
3) current instruction
4) current tape state
call it REFLECT, if u will... this information allows a
computation to know exactly where it is in the overall runtime of >>>>>>> computation, and with that it can subvert semantic paradoxes like >>>>>>> the halting problem.
you have to understand this is a *mechanical* modification to
turing machines, not a computational one. much like how RTMs can >>>>>>> move a head left/right, or write 0/1 to the tape ... they
mechanically just do this operation when the instruction is called. >>>>>>>
*these mechanics are (relatively) simple and self-evidentially
possible and therefore mathematically feasible.*
BUT, let me try a step deeper, and quote turing at you from his >>>>>>> original paper on computable numbers:
/We may compare a man in the process of computing a real number to a >>>>>>> machine which is only capable of a finite number of conditions/ >>>>>>> [Tur36]
THE ENTIRE JUSTIFICATION FOR TURING MACHINES RESTS SQUARELY ON
THE NOTION OF "CAN A MAN MECHANICALLY UNDERTAKE THESE STATE
TRANSITIONS"
1) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then
obviously he has access the full machine description, or how else >>>>>>> the fuck is he doing any of these state transitions??? therefore >>>>>>> he obviously can dump the machine description, in whatever format >>>>>>> he has it in, to the tape when REFLECT is encountered.
2) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then
obviously he can to the side save the initial tape in a "buffer" >>>>>>> that than cannot be overwritten. with that he can can obviously >>>>>>> dump the initial tape state to the tape whenever REFLECT is
encountered.
3) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then
obviously he has access input of a particular transition, and
therefore can dump that input to the tape when REFLECT is
encountered, in whatever format he encounters it in.
4) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation ... he can >>>>>>> obviously duplicate the tape when REFLECT is called. or more
precisely he can save it into a buffer, and dump from the buffer >>>>>>> after putting 1-3 on the tape.
THAT IS THE SAME LEVEL OF FORMAT JUSTIFICATION TURING ULTIMATELY >>>>>>> GIVES FOR ANY COMPUTING MACHINE. SERIOUSLY READ HIS FUCKING ESSAY >>>>>>> YOU DORK
please tell me where u are confused, not how u think i'm wrong
I can finally see the gist of what you are saying
and it seems to be very similar to my idea.
like i've said polcott, i consider you having a half-way solution.
u have something that's executable for sure, and that is a definite >>>>> improvement over total undecidability.
but it's not totally epistemically useful, it still doesn't /
effectively compute/ the halting function in a *general* manner.
i'm proposing something that's both executable *and* epistemically
useful for that purpose.
the RTM i'm proposing here is just the underlying theoretical
mechanisms that can be used to produce a theoretically coherent
context-dependent decider,
which can then be used to /effectively compute/ the halting
function irrespective of semantic paradoxes ...
something that is in total a step beyond the mere executability
that you are proposing.
No, the problem you have is that you make the same error and try to
redefine the question, and allow your machine to give wrong answers.
it's not a "wrong" answer if it contains no information to be wrong
about, and it's only given in a situation where there's no "right"
answer.
But their is a right answer for every actual D based on every actual H.
It just isn't the answer that H gives.
how is it reasonable to expect a decider to respond truthfully to a
situation that would only make that truth untrue
Because deciders are just deterministic processes with a fixed algorithm.
right, and context can be an input to the determinism
console.trace() isn't nondeterministic, it's context dependent
Note, the system DOES understand that some problems turn out to be
uncomputable, so no decider exists that can be correct for all inputs.
Nothing wrong with that, it just means that any decider that wants to
try to claim to solve it will be wrong for some input.
The key point here is the question can't be asked until after a
decider steps up to make the claim, as the prove-it-wrong input is
different for every possible decider, and thus, by the time the
question can be asked, the deciders result for that input was already
determined by its algorithm. For the decider it isn't a matter of
being "truthful", it is just doing what it was programmed to do.
It becomes a matter of correctness, not truthfulness.
It is the creator of the algoritm to which truthfulness is applied,
and claiming that it will give the right answer when it doesn't shows
that his claim wasn't truthful.
there's no "correct" answer to a pathological question of halts(und) on
this line:
und = () -> halts(und) && loop_forever()
and the resolution is just to give a non-answer, so i split the decider
into two halves and made false a non-answer. it cannot be a
contradiction because it doesn't give information /in that moment/ about und() to contradict.
yes this does mean maybe /false/ could be returned everywhere, but
that's not fucking interesting ... nor does it give /effective computability/ in regards to the halting question.
which is the point of the context-dependent decider. halts() is required
to return /true/ only whereever both /possible/ and /truthful/ to do so.
if u don't agree with this, that's fine...
but you actually need to construct a contradiction, you can't just continually make bare assertions that it's a contradiction.
it's like u never learned what a coherent argument is ... u just learned
how to barely stick together facts u memorized.
On 10/31/2025 8:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/31/25 5:17 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/31/2025 7:11 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/31/25 9:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
The non-computablity of some problem is a natural and essential
part of the system, and the only way to make a Computation System
not have any non-comutable problem is to GREATLY limit the scope of >>>>> the system. It comes from the fact that there are is a higher class >>>>> of infinity problem we can create, then there are algorithms that
could try to compute them, thus we CAN'T create an algorirhm for
all, or even most, or the problems.
actually in the process of refuting turing's paper i do demonstrate
a function remaining uncomputable, and that's integral.
just because semantics can be decided upon does not refute the fact
uncomputable functions exist.
i don't have a problem with uncomputable functions, i have a problem
with semantics algorithms not existing because of semantic paradoxes.
Yes me too. This has been the key focus of all my work
for 28 years.
the problem is polcott, no one is going to accept an algo that doesn't
give us an /effectively computable/ resolution to whether an input
machine halts or not.
so far you've just got something that's *just* computable, but it's
not /effectively computable/ in respect deciding on whether an input
machine halts or not.
The key most important point is that the halting
problem itself has simply been flat out incorrect
since its beginning.
Turing machine deciders only compute on the basis
of what is actually specified in their actual inputs.
Prior to my 2016 innovation of a simulating halt
decider (more precisely a termination analyzer)
people had to way to determine that the input does
specify an exact behavior.
It like the idiots of humanity that to this day
are trying to figure out whether the liar paradox
is true or false. "This sentence is not true"
has always been semantically incoherent.
On 10/31/25 11:16 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/31/25 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/31/25 3:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/31/25 9:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/30/25 2:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 8:42 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/29/2025 10:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/29/25 12:24 PM, dart200 wrote:TMs with a modification, specifically adding full mechanical
On 10/29/25 4:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/28/25 11:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/28/25 9:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:34 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/28/2025 5:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
[...]
not my argument u fucking useless boomer
Well, how do you solve the halting problem?
with reflection, something u lack as a useless fucking boomer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Which you can't say how to do, because your only answer is >>>>>>>>>>>>> to define that you can.
we haven't even gotten the point of working out the
ramifications of what i've defined,
Because you haven't actually defined what you are doing.
blatant lie
Really, show where you have ACTUALLY fully defined your
computation machine to a level you can actually analyize one. >>>>>>>>>
reflection to TMs in order to produce Reflective TMs (RTMs)
adding full mechanical reflection just means it gets a single >>>>>>>> instruction that dumps *all* this information to the tape, at >>>>>>>> the head, when that instruction is called:
1) machine description
2) initial tape state
3) current instruction
4) current tape state
call it REFLECT, if u will... this information allows a
computation to know exactly where it is in the overall runtime >>>>>>>> of computation, and with that it can subvert semantic paradoxes >>>>>>>> like the halting problem.
you have to understand this is a *mechanical* modification to >>>>>>>> turing machines, not a computational one. much like how RTMs can >>>>>>>> move a head left/right, or write 0/1 to the tape ... they
mechanically just do this operation when the instruction is called. >>>>>>>>
*these mechanics are (relatively) simple and self-evidentially >>>>>>>> possible and therefore mathematically feasible.*
BUT, let me try a step deeper, and quote turing at you from his >>>>>>>> original paper on computable numbers:
/We may compare a man in the process of computing a real number >>>>>>>> to a
machine which is only capable of a finite number of conditions/ >>>>>>>> [Tur36]
THE ENTIRE JUSTIFICATION FOR TURING MACHINES RESTS SQUARELY ON >>>>>>>> THE NOTION OF "CAN A MAN MECHANICALLY UNDERTAKE THESE STATE
TRANSITIONS"
1) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then
obviously he has access the full machine description, or how
else the fuck is he doing any of these state transitions???
therefore he obviously can dump the machine description, in
whatever format he has it in, to the tape when REFLECT is
encountered.
2) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then
obviously he can to the side save the initial tape in a "buffer" >>>>>>>> that than cannot be overwritten. with that he can can obviously >>>>>>>> dump the initial tape state to the tape whenever REFLECT is
encountered.
3) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then
obviously he has access input of a particular transition, and >>>>>>>> therefore can dump that input to the tape when REFLECT is
encountered, in whatever format he encounters it in.
4) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation ... he >>>>>>>> can obviously duplicate the tape when REFLECT is called. or more >>>>>>>> precisely he can save it into a buffer, and dump from the buffer >>>>>>>> after putting 1-3 on the tape.
THAT IS THE SAME LEVEL OF FORMAT JUSTIFICATION TURING ULTIMATELY >>>>>>>> GIVES FOR ANY COMPUTING MACHINE. SERIOUSLY READ HIS FUCKING
ESSAY YOU DORK
please tell me where u are confused, not how u think i'm wrong >>>>>>>>
I can finally see the gist of what you are saying
and it seems to be very similar to my idea.
like i've said polcott, i consider you having a half-way solution. >>>>>> u have something that's executable for sure, and that is a
definite improvement over total undecidability.
but it's not totally epistemically useful, it still doesn't /
effectively compute/ the halting function in a *general* manner.
i'm proposing something that's both executable *and* epistemically >>>>>> useful for that purpose.
the RTM i'm proposing here is just the underlying theoretical
mechanisms that can be used to produce a theoretically coherent
context-dependent decider,
which can then be used to /effectively compute/ the halting
function irrespective of semantic paradoxes ...
something that is in total a step beyond the mere executability
that you are proposing.
No, the problem you have is that you make the same error and try to >>>>> redefine the question, and allow your machine to give wrong answers.
it's not a "wrong" answer if it contains no information to be wrong
about, and it's only given in a situation where there's no "right"
answer.
But their is a right answer for every actual D based on every actual H.
It just isn't the answer that H gives.
how is it reasonable to expect a decider to respond truthfully to a
situation that would only make that truth untrue
Because deciders are just deterministic processes with a fixed
algorithm.
right, and context can be an input to the determinism
console.trace() isn't nondeterministic, it's context dependent
Note, the system DOES understand that some problems turn out to be
uncomputable, so no decider exists that can be correct for all
inputs. Nothing wrong with that, it just means that any decider that
wants to try to claim to solve it will be wrong for some input.
The key point here is the question can't be asked until after a
decider steps up to make the claim, as the prove-it-wrong input is
different for every possible decider, and thus, by the time the
question can be asked, the deciders result for that input was already
determined by its algorithm. For the decider it isn't a matter of
being "truthful", it is just doing what it was programmed to do.
It becomes a matter of correctness, not truthfulness.
It is the creator of the algoritm to which truthfulness is applied,
and claiming that it will give the right answer when it doesn't shows
that his claim wasn't truthful.
there's no "correct" answer to a pathological question of halts(und)
on this line:
und = () -> halts(und) && loop_forever()
Which isn't a computation if your symbology means that halts is taken
from the context that the symbol und is used in.
Sorry, you are just showing you don't know the meaning of the words.
and the resolution is just to give a non-answer, so i split the
decider into two halves and made false a non-answer. it cannot be a
contradiction because it doesn't give information /in that moment/
about und() to contradict.
But since you are starting with the same category error of Olcott, you
get the same nonsense he does.
The category for the input to a Halt Decider is the representation of a Computation.
By DEFINITION, this has a FULLY defined algorithm, and thus NOT a closure.
If you want to try to define your own theory of computation that uses a broader defintion, go ahead, the problem is you will find you can do
litle with it, and that the semantic paradox you are complaining about
is totally due to you altered definition of a computation.
yes this does mean maybe /false/ could be returned everywhere, but
that's not fucking interesting ... nor does it give /effective
computability/ in regards to the halting question.
Since your input is a category error for the actual Computation Theory
as classical defined, your results don't apply.
which is the point of the context-dependent decider. halts() is
required to return /true/ only whereever both /possible/ and /
truthful/ to do so.
So, if you want to try to talk about this, you first need to try to
develop a basic theory about context dependent Computations, to see if
it can actually be useful for anything.
if u don't agree with this, that's fine...
Again, once you admit that you aren't working in the Classical
Computation Theory, go ahead, just do the ground work to show what you
idea can do, and don't claim it actually applies to the classical thoery.
but you actually need to construct a contradiction, you can't just
continually make bare assertions that it's a contradiction.
The problem is in your system, the basic question of "Does the Program Halt?" doesn't have a simple answer, as the behavior of the program
depends on its context.
On 10/31/25 8:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/31/25 8:11 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/31/25 9:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
The non-computablity of some problem is a natural and essential part
of the system, and the only way to make a Computation System not
have any non-comutable problem is to GREATLY limit the scope of the
system. It comes from the fact that there are is a higher class of
infinity problem we can create, then there are algorithms that could
try to compute them, thus we CAN'T create an algorirhm for all, or
even most, or the problems.
actually in the process of refuting turing's paper i do demonstrate a
function remaining uncomputable, and that's integral.
just because semantics can be decided upon does not refute the fact
uncomputable functions exist.
i don't have a problem with uncomputable functions, i have a problem
with semantics algorithms not existing because of semantic paradoxes.
u still are trying to inform of why i'm wrong without actually
listening to what i'm saying. it's just hubris of u to think u can
refute me without actually listening to what i've said.
So, what is your problem with Semantic Algorithms having problems.
that we aren't proving our production code as semantically
correct??? ... that's really fucking stupid
also we exploded our computing infrastructure far beyond necessary cause
we have no theoretical way to pair down everything as turing equivalence falls under semantic algos, so we don't have a general way to compute semantic/turing equivalence.
Semanatic problems just fall into that case of the explosion of cases,
which leads to uncomputability.
actually the only actual proofs of uncomputability rests on really
simple cases, as they need to be actually understandable.
Note, nothing says that we can't give a semantic answer for a LOT of
the possible inputs, just that there will always exist some input that
is an edge case that pushes us to need infinite time to resolve.
right and getting the philosophy wrong messes us up.
i hate have to explain to people that getting truth correct is in fact necessary beyond all possible reason i could give.
It shows that the language the semantics are framed in are powerful
enough to allow for these unresolvable cases.
or maybe godel was wrong too. it's not like we did anything of note with godel's incompleteness.
"oh we know our limits now" ... OR MAYBE WE JUST SHOT OURSELVES IN THE
FOOT U FUCKIND TARD
anyways, I'M NOT TRYING TO DIRECTLY REFUTING GODEL, as least i don't
know so.
i'm concerned primarily with computing, not all of math. tho i am
directly refuting turing's support of godel.
Think of it this way, by our definitions, we have a countable infinte
number of possible inputs. The decision process needs to divide these
into categories, and at least one of those categories will need to be
countably infinite in size.
The language of Computations is powerful enough that for a non-trivial
property, at least one of those infinite categories turns out to not
be decided fully in finite steps, but there is some bounded
relationship such that for any finite number of steps, and infinte
number of members will remain to be decided.
The lack of COMPLETE computability of Semantic Properties is an
indication of the POWER of creating programs, that grows faster than
the ability to analyze them.
gishgallop, and i don't fucking care about creating programs we can't
even analyze???
seriously, what is so fascinating about a bunch of creations we provable
can never do anything with??? and what in the fuck is going on in
computing theory???
On 10/31/25 9:17 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
you seem to not actually understand what a Turing machine is, even
a set of state transitions:
(curState, symbolAtHead) -> (command, nextState)
where command are the system transformations HEAD_LEFT or HEAD_RIGHT
or WRITE_SYMBOL.
Nope, because they always write a "new symbol" (which might be the same)
again, let me fucking quote turing at you again. because ur a narrow
minded fool arguing way outside his league:
/A machine can be constructed to compute the sequence 010101... The
machine is to have the four m-configurations "b" , "c" , "f" , "e" and
is capable of printing "0" and "1". The behavior of the machine is
described in the following table in which "R" means "the machine moves
so that it scans the square immediately on the right of the one it was scanning previously". Similarly for "L". "E" means "the scanned symbol
is erased" and "P" stands for "prints". This table (and all succeeding tables of the same kind) is to be understood to mean that for a configuration described in the first two columns the operations in the
third column are carried out successively, and the machine then goes
over into the m-configuration described in the last column. When the
second column is left blank, it is understood that the behavior of the
third and fourth columns applies for any symbol and for no symbol. The machine starts in the m-configuration b with a blank tape:/
Configuration Behavior
m-config symbol operations final-m-config
b None P0,R c
c None R e
e None P1,R f
f None R b
[Tur36]
turing's first example ever had states that both just *just* shifted the head as well as states that wrote with a shift. turing didn't even
require a particular symbol at head (doing so just makes accept any)
turing went further too:
/If (contrary to the description in §1) we allow the letters L, R to
appear more than once in the operations column we can simplify the table considerably./
Configuration Behavior
m-config symbol operations final-m-config
b None P0 b
b 0 R,R,P1 b
b 1 R,R,P0 b
[Tur36]
turing was intelligent enough to "break" his own rule in his 2nd example
to produce a more succinct definition ... succinctness is something u
know fuck all about. turing uses this in the rest of paper and composes states the commit 10 or more operations at once. wow, first paper on computing and we're already batching operations.
seriously richard, you would literally be a guy arguing turing himself
was wrong because he doesn't fit some asinine overly-narrow definition
of computing you seem have grasped onto ... why are you being so fucking stupid about everything???
mabye u need to back the fuck off a bit with gishgallop, eh???. look at
how much it takes to refute one line of ur chronic bullshit???
On 10/31/25 12:53 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/30/2025 8:58 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/30/25 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:[...]
THE FACT WE CAN OBVIOUSLY DO THE REFLECTION AS I'VE DEFINED SEVERAL
TIMES NOW MECHANICALLY, IS WHAT JUSTIFIES RTMs THEORETICAL EXISTENCE
Code it up!
irrelevant to people who can think
there's no "correct" answer to a pathological question of halts(und) on
this line:
und = () -> halts(und) && loop_forever()
yes this does mean maybe /false/ could be returned everywhere, but
that's not fucking interesting ... nor does it give /effective computability/ in regards to the halting question.
which is the point of the context-dependent decider. halts() is required
to return /true/ only whereever both /possible/ and /truthful/ to do so.
if u don't agree with this, that's fine...
but you actually need to construct a contradiction, you can't just continually make bare assertions that it's a contradiction.
On 10/31/25 8:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/31/25 11:16 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/31/25 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/31/25 3:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/31/25 9:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/30/25 2:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 8:42 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/29/2025 10:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/29/25 12:24 PM, dart200 wrote:TMs with a modification, specifically adding full mechanical >>>>>>>>> reflection to TMs in order to produce Reflective TMs (RTMs)
On 10/29/25 4:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/28/25 11:23 PM, dart200 wrote:blatant lie
On 10/28/25 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/28/25 9:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:34 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/28/2025 5:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
[...]
not my argument u fucking useless boomer
Well, how do you solve the halting problem?
with reflection, something u lack as a useless fucking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> boomer
Which you can't say how to do, because your only answer is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to define that you can.
we haven't even gotten the point of working out the >>>>>>>>>>>>> ramifications of what i've defined,
Because you haven't actually defined what you are doing. >>>>>>>>>>>
Really, show where you have ACTUALLY fully defined your
computation machine to a level you can actually analyize one. >>>>>>>>>>
adding full mechanical reflection just means it gets a single >>>>>>>>> instruction that dumps *all* this information to the tape, at >>>>>>>>> the head, when that instruction is called:
1) machine description
2) initial tape state
3) current instruction
4) current tape state
call it REFLECT, if u will... this information allows a
computation to know exactly where it is in the overall runtime >>>>>>>>> of computation, and with that it can subvert semantic paradoxes >>>>>>>>> like the halting problem.
you have to understand this is a *mechanical* modification to >>>>>>>>> turing machines, not a computational one. much like how RTMs >>>>>>>>> can move a head left/right, or write 0/1 to the tape ... they >>>>>>>>> mechanically just do this operation when the instruction is >>>>>>>>> called.
*these mechanics are (relatively) simple and self-evidentially >>>>>>>>> possible and therefore mathematically feasible.*
BUT, let me try a step deeper, and quote turing at you from his >>>>>>>>> original paper on computable numbers:
/We may compare a man in the process of computing a real number >>>>>>>>> to a
machine which is only capable of a finite number of conditions/ >>>>>>>>> [Tur36]
THE ENTIRE JUSTIFICATION FOR TURING MACHINES RESTS SQUARELY ON >>>>>>>>> THE NOTION OF "CAN A MAN MECHANICALLY UNDERTAKE THESE STATE >>>>>>>>> TRANSITIONS"
1) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then >>>>>>>>> obviously he has access the full machine description, or how >>>>>>>>> else the fuck is he doing any of these state transitions??? >>>>>>>>> therefore he obviously can dump the machine description, in >>>>>>>>> whatever format he has it in, to the tape when REFLECT is
encountered.
2) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then >>>>>>>>> obviously he can to the side save the initial tape in a
"buffer" that than cannot be overwritten. with that he can can >>>>>>>>> obviously dump the initial tape state to the tape whenever
REFLECT is encountered.
3) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then >>>>>>>>> obviously he has access input of a particular transition, and >>>>>>>>> therefore can dump that input to the tape when REFLECT is
encountered, in whatever format he encounters it in.
4) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation ... he >>>>>>>>> can obviously duplicate the tape when REFLECT is called. or >>>>>>>>> more precisely he can save it into a buffer, and dump from the >>>>>>>>> buffer after putting 1-3 on the tape.
THAT IS THE SAME LEVEL OF FORMAT JUSTIFICATION TURING
ULTIMATELY GIVES FOR ANY COMPUTING MACHINE. SERIOUSLY READ HIS >>>>>>>>> FUCKING ESSAY YOU DORK
please tell me where u are confused, not how u think i'm wrong >>>>>>>>>
I can finally see the gist of what you are saying
and it seems to be very similar to my idea.
like i've said polcott, i consider you having a half-way
solution. u have something that's executable for sure, and that >>>>>>> is a definite improvement over total undecidability.
but it's not totally epistemically useful, it still doesn't /
effectively compute/ the halting function in a *general* manner. >>>>>>>
i'm proposing something that's both executable *and*
epistemically useful for that purpose.
the RTM i'm proposing here is just the underlying theoretical
mechanisms that can be used to produce a theoretically coherent >>>>>>> context-dependent decider,
which can then be used to /effectively compute/ the halting
function irrespective of semantic paradoxes ...
something that is in total a step beyond the mere executability >>>>>>> that you are proposing.
No, the problem you have is that you make the same error and try
to redefine the question, and allow your machine to give wrong
answers.
it's not a "wrong" answer if it contains no information to be wrong >>>>> about, and it's only given in a situation where there's no "right"
answer.
But their is a right answer for every actual D based on every actual H. >>>>
It just isn't the answer that H gives.
how is it reasonable to expect a decider to respond truthfully to a >>>>> situation that would only make that truth untrue
Because deciders are just deterministic processes with a fixed
algorithm.
right, and context can be an input to the determinism
console.trace() isn't nondeterministic, it's context dependent
Note, the system DOES understand that some problems turn out to be
uncomputable, so no decider exists that can be correct for all
inputs. Nothing wrong with that, it just means that any decider that
wants to try to claim to solve it will be wrong for some input.
The key point here is the question can't be asked until after a
decider steps up to make the claim, as the prove-it-wrong input is
different for every possible decider, and thus, by the time the
question can be asked, the deciders result for that input was
already determined by its algorithm. For the decider it isn't a
matter of being "truthful", it is just doing what it was programmed
to do.
It becomes a matter of correctness, not truthfulness.
It is the creator of the algoritm to which truthfulness is applied,
and claiming that it will give the right answer when it doesn't
shows that his claim wasn't truthful.
there's no "correct" answer to a pathological question of halts(und)
on this line:
und = () -> halts(und) && loop_forever()
Which isn't a computation if your symbology means that halts is taken
from the context that the symbol und is used in.
Sorry, you are just showing you don't know the meaning of the words.
and the resolution is just to give a non-answer, so i split the
decider into two halves and made false a non-answer. it cannot be a
contradiction because it doesn't give information /in that moment/
about und() to contradict.
But since you are starting with the same category error of Olcott, you
get the same nonsense he does.
The category for the input to a Halt Decider is the representation of
a Computation.
By DEFINITION, this has a FULLY defined algorithm, and thus NOT a
closure.
If you want to try to define your own theory of computation that uses
a broader defintion, go ahead, the problem is you will find you can do
litle with it, and that the semantic paradox you are complaining about
is totally due to you altered definition of a computation.
right why do u keep asserting ur existential fuckup is more correct than
a working decider on the matter???
yes this does mean maybe /false/ could be returned everywhere, but
that's not fucking interesting ... nor does it give /effective
computability/ in regards to the halting question.
Since your input is a category error for the actual Computation Theory
as classical defined, your results don't apply.
classic computing theory doesn't have a halt decider defined tho ... u
only have a halting function, not a decider. the decider is *disproven*
and therefore cannot be defined as per consensus theory.
u fucking retard.
u keep asserting SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T EVEN EXIST is somehow more
correct than SOMETHING THAT CAN EXIST
which is the point of the context-dependent decider. halts() is
required to return /true/ only whereever both /possible/ and /
truthful/ to do so.
So, if you want to try to talk about this, you first need to try to
develop a basic theory about context dependent Computations, to see if
it can actually be useful for anything.
i fucking already did. u just aren't reading cause ur too busy trying to show off how big a fucking retard u can be.
if u don't agree with this, that's fine...
Again, once you admit that you aren't working in the Classical
Computation Theory, go ahead, just do the ground work to show what you
idea can do, and don't claim it actually applies to the classical thoery.
RTMs can compute everything TMs can... but gain an additional ability to compute semantic facts about those computations because they can handle
what classically forms an undecidable paradox.
but you actually need to construct a contradiction, you can't just
continually make bare assertions that it's a contradiction.
The problem is in your system, the basic question of "Does the Program
Halt?" doesn't have a simple answer, as the behavior of the program
depends on its context.
that's just the inherent complexity of dealing with self-referential decision where the output of that decision in turn effects the decision
u tried to made.
in most cases (everything not self-referential) the deciders behavior is quite simple. even in self-referential cases if the output of the
decider doesn't effect the decision then it's still simple. only in the
case where the deciders output affects the context it's deciding upon
does this complexity come in ... and that's just inherent inescapable complexity.
which is fine, it's not actually that bad.
also in practice we would never write programs that take a decision on itself to then contradict it ... that's fucking impractical as shit and serves no useful purpose. i'm just trying to unblock theory so we can
get some fucking philosophical coherence up in the bitch.
On 10/31/2025 8:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/31/25 5:17 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/31/2025 7:11 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/31/25 9:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
The non-computablity of some problem is a natural and essential
part of the system, and the only way to make a Computation System
not have any non-comutable problem is to GREATLY limit the scope of >>>>> the system. It comes from the fact that there are is a higher class >>>>> of infinity problem we can create, then there are algorithms that
could try to compute them, thus we CAN'T create an algorirhm for
all, or even most, or the problems.
actually in the process of refuting turing's paper i do demonstrate
a function remaining uncomputable, and that's integral.
just because semantics can be decided upon does not refute the fact
uncomputable functions exist.
i don't have a problem with uncomputable functions, i have a problem
with semantics algorithms not existing because of semantic paradoxes.
Yes me too. This has been the key focus of all my work
for 28 years.
the problem is polcott, no one is going to accept an algo that doesn't
give us an /effectively computable/ resolution to whether an input
machine halts or not.
so far you've just got something that's *just* computable, but it's
not /effectively computable/ in respect deciding on whether an input
machine halts or not.
The key most important point is that the halting
problem itself has simply been flat out incorrect
since its beginning.
Turing machine deciders only compute on the basis
of what is actually specified in their actual inputs.
Prior to my 2016 innovation of a simulating halt
decider (more precisely a termination analyzer)
people had to way to determine that the input does
specify an exact behavior.
It like the idiots of humanity that to this day
are trying to figure out whether the liar paradox
is true or false. "This sentence is not true"
has always been semantically incoherent.
On 10/31/25 7:40 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/31/25 12:53 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/30/2025 8:58 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/30/25 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:[...]
THE FACT WE CAN OBVIOUSLY DO THE REFLECTION AS I'VE DEFINED SEVERAL
TIMES NOW MECHANICALLY, IS WHAT JUSTIFIES RTMs THEORETICAL EXISTENCE
Code it up!
irrelevant to people who can think
The answer of the person who can't.
On 2025-11-01, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
there's no "correct" answer to a pathological question of halts(und) on
this line:
und = () -> halts(und) && loop_forever()
Yes there is; the correct answer is ¬halts(und). The logical negation
of whatever halts(und) decides.
yes this does mean maybe /false/ could be returned everywhere, but
that's not fucking interesting ... nor does it give /effective
computability/ in regards to the halting question.
which is the point of the context-dependent decider. halts() is required
to return /true/ only whereever both /possible/ and /truthful/ to do so.
if u don't agree with this, that's fine...
but you actually need to construct a contradiction, you can't just
continually make bare assertions that it's a contradiction.
If contexts are represenable in a Turing substrate, then everything
succumbs to Turing incomputability of halting.
If contexts are not representable in Turing, then the
model-with-contexts is either effectievely computable non-Turing, or
else contexts are just imaginary, like magic oracles.
If they are imaginary, you only have a thought experiment.
(In which Turing-plus-contexts machines can decide Turing
halting, but so what?)
If you find some computational model with contexts which is effective,
but beyond Turing, then /that/ is the big deal; delegate the halting
cruft to others. You are important because you've done what nobody else
has done before: you found an effective method of computation that is
not Turing! So you go to conference sall over the world where you are
flocked by groupies. Fuck halting, at that point, you know?
On 10/31/25 11:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/31/25 8:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/31/25 11:16 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/31/25 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/31/25 3:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/31/25 9:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/30/25 2:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 8:42 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/29/2025 10:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/29/25 12:24 PM, dart200 wrote:TMs with a modification, specifically adding full mechanical >>>>>>>>>> reflection to TMs in order to produce Reflective TMs (RTMs) >>>>>>>>>>
On 10/29/25 4:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/28/25 11:23 PM, dart200 wrote:blatant lie
On 10/28/25 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/28/25 9:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:34 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/28/2025 5:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
[...]
not my argument u fucking useless boomer
Well, how do you solve the halting problem?
with reflection, something u lack as a useless fucking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> boomer
Which you can't say how to do, because your only answer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is to define that you can.
we haven't even gotten the point of working out the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ramifications of what i've defined,
Because you haven't actually defined what you are doing. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Really, show where you have ACTUALLY fully defined your >>>>>>>>>>> computation machine to a level you can actually analyize one. >>>>>>>>>>>
adding full mechanical reflection just means it gets a single >>>>>>>>>> instruction that dumps *all* this information to the tape, at >>>>>>>>>> the head, when that instruction is called:
1) machine description
2) initial tape state
3) current instruction
4) current tape state
call it REFLECT, if u will... this information allows a
computation to know exactly where it is in the overall runtime >>>>>>>>>> of computation, and with that it can subvert semantic
paradoxes like the halting problem.
you have to understand this is a *mechanical* modification to >>>>>>>>>> turing machines, not a computational one. much like how RTMs >>>>>>>>>> can move a head left/right, or write 0/1 to the tape ... they >>>>>>>>>> mechanically just do this operation when the instruction is >>>>>>>>>> called.
*these mechanics are (relatively) simple and self-evidentially >>>>>>>>>> possible and therefore mathematically feasible.*
BUT, let me try a step deeper, and quote turing at you from >>>>>>>>>> his original paper on computable numbers:
/We may compare a man in the process of computing a real
number to a
machine which is only capable of a finite number of
conditions/ [Tur36]
THE ENTIRE JUSTIFICATION FOR TURING MACHINES RESTS SQUARELY ON >>>>>>>>>> THE NOTION OF "CAN A MAN MECHANICALLY UNDERTAKE THESE STATE >>>>>>>>>> TRANSITIONS"
1) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then >>>>>>>>>> obviously he has access the full machine description, or how >>>>>>>>>> else the fuck is he doing any of these state transitions??? >>>>>>>>>> therefore he obviously can dump the machine description, in >>>>>>>>>> whatever format he has it in, to the tape when REFLECT is >>>>>>>>>> encountered.
2) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then >>>>>>>>>> obviously he can to the side save the initial tape in a
"buffer" that than cannot be overwritten. with that he can can >>>>>>>>>> obviously dump the initial tape state to the tape whenever >>>>>>>>>> REFLECT is encountered.
3) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then >>>>>>>>>> obviously he has access input of a particular transition, and >>>>>>>>>> therefore can dump that input to the tape when REFLECT is >>>>>>>>>> encountered, in whatever format he encounters it in.
4) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation ... he >>>>>>>>>> can obviously duplicate the tape when REFLECT is called. or >>>>>>>>>> more precisely he can save it into a buffer, and dump from the >>>>>>>>>> buffer after putting 1-3 on the tape.
THAT IS THE SAME LEVEL OF FORMAT JUSTIFICATION TURING
ULTIMATELY GIVES FOR ANY COMPUTING MACHINE. SERIOUSLY READ HIS >>>>>>>>>> FUCKING ESSAY YOU DORK
please tell me where u are confused, not how u think i'm wrong >>>>>>>>>>
I can finally see the gist of what you are saying
and it seems to be very similar to my idea.
like i've said polcott, i consider you having a half-way
solution. u have something that's executable for sure, and that >>>>>>>> is a definite improvement over total undecidability.
but it's not totally epistemically useful, it still doesn't / >>>>>>>> effectively compute/ the halting function in a *general* manner. >>>>>>>>
i'm proposing something that's both executable *and*
epistemically useful for that purpose.
the RTM i'm proposing here is just the underlying theoretical >>>>>>>> mechanisms that can be used to produce a theoretically coherent >>>>>>>> context-dependent decider,
which can then be used to /effectively compute/ the halting
function irrespective of semantic paradoxes ...
something that is in total a step beyond the mere executability >>>>>>>> that you are proposing.
No, the problem you have is that you make the same error and try >>>>>>> to redefine the question, and allow your machine to give wrong
answers.
it's not a "wrong" answer if it contains no information to be
wrong about, and it's only given in a situation where there's no
"right" answer.
But their is a right answer for every actual D based on every
actual H.
It just isn't the answer that H gives.
how is it reasonable to expect a decider to respond truthfully to >>>>>> a situation that would only make that truth untrue
Because deciders are just deterministic processes with a fixed
algorithm.
right, and context can be an input to the determinism
console.trace() isn't nondeterministic, it's context dependent
Note, the system DOES understand that some problems turn out to be
uncomputable, so no decider exists that can be correct for all
inputs. Nothing wrong with that, it just means that any decider
that wants to try to claim to solve it will be wrong for some input. >>>>>
The key point here is the question can't be asked until after a
decider steps up to make the claim, as the prove-it-wrong input is
different for every possible decider, and thus, by the time the
question can be asked, the deciders result for that input was
already determined by its algorithm. For the decider it isn't a
matter of being "truthful", it is just doing what it was programmed >>>>> to do.
It becomes a matter of correctness, not truthfulness.
It is the creator of the algoritm to which truthfulness is applied, >>>>> and claiming that it will give the right answer when it doesn't
shows that his claim wasn't truthful.
there's no "correct" answer to a pathological question of halts(und)
on this line:
und = () -> halts(und) && loop_forever()
Which isn't a computation if your symbology means that halts is taken
from the context that the symbol und is used in.
Sorry, you are just showing you don't know the meaning of the words.
and the resolution is just to give a non-answer, so i split the
decider into two halves and made false a non-answer. it cannot be a
contradiction because it doesn't give information /in that moment/
about und() to contradict.
But since you are starting with the same category error of Olcott,
you get the same nonsense he does.
The category for the input to a Halt Decider is the representation of
a Computation.
By DEFINITION, this has a FULLY defined algorithm, and thus NOT a
closure.
If you want to try to define your own theory of computation that uses
a broader defintion, go ahead, the problem is you will find you can
do litle with it, and that the semantic paradox you are complaining
about is totally due to you altered definition of a computation.
right why do u keep asserting ur existential fuckup is more correct
than a working decider on the matter???
Because it doesn't give the right answer per the original problem.
If you want to be clear that you aren't working on that problem, or even working under that system, go ahead, just make sure you fully define
what you are doing and try to show where it is useful.
yes this does mean maybe /false/ could be returned everywhere, but
that's not fucking interesting ... nor does it give /effective
computability/ in regards to the halting question.
Since your input is a category error for the actual Computation
Theory as classical defined, your results don't apply.
classic computing theory doesn't have a halt decider defined tho ... u
only have a halting function, not a decider. the decider is
*disproven* and therefore cannot be defined as per consensus theory.
u fucking retard.
u keep asserting SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T EVEN EXIST is somehow more
correct than SOMETHING THAT CAN EXIST
The DEFINITION of a Halting Decider exists.
The fact that the definiton is not realizable, proves the theory.
To call something a Halt Decider that doesn't meet the definition, is
just a lie, making the person making the claim just a liar.
We can easily DEFINE things that don't exist.>
which is the point of the context-dependent decider. halts() is
required to return /true/ only whereever both /possible/ and /
truthful/ to do so.
So, if you want to try to talk about this, you first need to try to
develop a basic theory about context dependent Computations, to see
if it can actually be useful for anything.
i fucking already did. u just aren't reading cause ur too busy trying
to show off how big a fucking retard u can be.
No you haven't, unless you consider your claim that is the equivalent of defining that 1 == 2 is a definition.
DESCRIBING what you want to do is NOT the same as DEFINING how to do it.
On 10/31/25 8:57 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/31/25 9:17 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
you seem to not actually understand what a Turing machine is, even
a set of state transitions:
(curState, symbolAtHead) -> (command, nextState)
where command are the system transformations HEAD_LEFT or HEAD_RIGHT
or WRITE_SYMBOL.
Nope, because they always write a "new symbol" (which might be the same)
again, let me fucking quote turing at you again. because ur a narrow
minded fool arguing way outside his league:
/A machine can be constructed to compute the sequence 010101... The
machine is to have the four m-configurations "b" , "c" , "f" , "e" and
is capable of printing "0" and "1". The behavior of the machine is
described in the following table in which "R" means "the machine moves
so that it scans the square immediately on the right of the one it was
scanning previously". Similarly for "L". "E" means "the scanned symbol
is erased" and "P" stands for "prints". This table (and all succeeding
tables of the same kind) is to be understood to mean that for a
configuration described in the first two columns the operations in the
third column are carried out successively, and the machine then goes
over into the m-configuration described in the last column. When the
second column is left blank, it is understood that the behavior of the
third and fourth columns applies for any symbol and for no symbol. The
machine starts in the m-configuration b with a blank tape:/
Configuration Behavior
m-config symbol operations final-m-config
b None P0,R c
c None R e
e None P1,R f
f None R b
[Tur36]
turing's first example ever had states that both just *just* shifted
the head as well as states that wrote with a shift. turing didn't even
require a particular symbol at head (doing so just makes accept any)
turing went further too:
/If (contrary to the description in §1) we allow the letters L, R to
appear more than once in the operations column we can simplify the
table considerably./
Configuration Behavior
m-config symbol operations final-m-config
b None P0 b
b 0 R,R,P1 b
b 1 R,R,P0 b
[Tur36]
turing was intelligent enough to "break" his own rule in his 2nd
example to produce a more succinct definition ... succinctness is
something u know fuck all about. turing uses this in the rest of paper
and composes states the commit 10 or more operations at once. wow,
first paper on computing and we're already batching operations.
seriously richard, you would literally be a guy arguing turing himself
was wrong because he doesn't fit some asinine overly-narrow definition
of computing you seem have grasped onto ... why are you being so
fucking stupid about everything???
mabye u need to back the fuck off a bit with gishgallop, eh???. look
at how much it takes to refute one line of ur chronic bullshit???
Ok, so why do you think this structure can do what you want?
Again, it seems you can parrot the words, and manipulate them, but you
still don't understand the deeper level that there is no way that a
Turing Machine can have your new instruction added without breaking its fundamental property.
As an analogy, you show you can drive a car, and claim that shows that
you have enough understand of a car to talk about how to Turbo-Boost it
to get 10,000 miles to the gallon.
We can easily show how a machine as described by Turing can do the
things it does within the physical model of the person with an
instruction book to follow mechanically following the instructions,
reading data from a pile of papers, and writing results on said pile.
In this model, the instruciton book is the state transition table of the machine, and the pile of papers is the tape.
Once the person starts, how does he do your new instruction, without breaking the semantics of the procedure.
On 10/31/25 7:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/31/2025 8:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/31/25 5:17 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/31/2025 7:11 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/31/25 9:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
The non-computablity of some problem is a natural and essential
part of the system, and the only way to make a Computation System >>>>>> not have any non-comutable problem is to GREATLY limit the scope
of the system. It comes from the fact that there are is a higher
class of infinity problem we can create, then there are algorithms >>>>>> that could try to compute them, thus we CAN'T create an algorirhm >>>>>> for all, or even most, or the problems.
actually in the process of refuting turing's paper i do demonstrate >>>>> a function remaining uncomputable, and that's integral.
just because semantics can be decided upon does not refute the fact >>>>> uncomputable functions exist.
i don't have a problem with uncomputable functions, i have a
problem with semantics algorithms not existing because of semantic
paradoxes.
Yes me too. This has been the key focus of all my work
for 28 years.
the problem is polcott, no one is going to accept an algo that
doesn't give us an /effectively computable/ resolution to whether an
input machine halts or not.
so far you've just got something that's *just* computable, but it's
not /effectively computable/ in respect deciding on whether an input
machine halts or not.
The key most important point is that the halting
problem itself has simply been flat out incorrect
since its beginning.
Turing machine deciders only compute on the basis
of what is actually specified in their actual inputs.
nah see i'm proposing a way to compute thru semantic paradoxes while not invaliding the halting problem of wanting to compute whether the machine described by the input does indeed halt or not.
i don't need this messy business of trying extract the semantics of the "string that describes a machine" from the semantics of the "machine
that is described"
all you need is context dependent deciders that simple don't emit information in a semantic paradox situation. there's no "truth" possible
in such a situation, so there's no "wrong" answer richard gets so butt
hurt over.
Prior to my 2016 innovation of a simulating halt
decider (more precisely a termination analyzer)
people had to way to determine that the input does
specify an exact behavior.
It like the idiots of humanity that to this day
are trying to figure out whether the liar paradox
is true or false. "This sentence is not true"
has always been semantically incoherent.
On 10/31/25 9:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/31/25 7:40 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/31/25 12:53 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/30/2025 8:58 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/30/25 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:[...]
THE FACT WE CAN OBVIOUSLY DO THE REFLECTION AS I'VE DEFINED SEVERAL >>>>> TIMES NOW MECHANICALLY, IS WHAT JUSTIFIES RTMs THEORETICAL EXISTENCE
Code it up!
irrelevant to people who can think
The answer of the person who can't.
yeah cause polcott coding up his sure fucking convinced u guys!
do you guys have ANY fucking self-awareness???
ur just wasting my time with a red herring as u have no intention of actually trying to understand what i'm saying
On 10/31/25 9:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/31/25 8:57 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/31/25 9:17 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
you seem to not actually understand what a Turing machine is, even >>>>>a set of state transitions:
(curState, symbolAtHead) -> (command, nextState)
where command are the system transformations HEAD_LEFT or
HEAD_RIGHT or WRITE_SYMBOL.
Nope, because they always write a "new symbol" (which might be the
same)
again, let me fucking quote turing at you again. because ur a narrow
minded fool arguing way outside his league:
/A machine can be constructed to compute the sequence 010101... The
machine is to have the four m-configurations "b" , "c" , "f" , "e"
and is capable of printing "0" and "1". The behavior of the machine
is described in the following table in which "R" means "the machine
moves so that it scans the square immediately on the right of the one
it was scanning previously". Similarly for "L". "E" means "the
scanned symbol is erased" and "P" stands for "prints". This table
(and all succeeding tables of the same kind) is to be understood to
mean that for a configuration described in the first two columns the
operations in the third column are carried out successively, and the
machine then goes over into the m-configuration described in the last
column. When the second column is left blank, it is understood that
the behavior of the third and fourth columns applies for any symbol
and for no symbol. The machine starts in the m-configuration b with a
blank tape:/
Configuration Behavior
m-config symbol operations final-m-config
b None P0,R c
c None R e
e None P1,R f
f None R b
[Tur36]
turing's first example ever had states that both just *just* shifted
the head as well as states that wrote with a shift. turing didn't
even require a particular symbol at head (doing so just makes accept
any)
turing went further too:
/If (contrary to the description in §1) we allow the letters L, R to
appear more than once in the operations column we can simplify the
table considerably./
Configuration Behavior
m-config symbol operations final-m-config
b None P0 b
b 0 R,R,P1 b
b 1 R,R,P0 b
[Tur36]
turing was intelligent enough to "break" his own rule in his 2nd
example to produce a more succinct definition ... succinctness is
something u know fuck all about. turing uses this in the rest of
paper and composes states the commit 10 or more operations at once.
wow, first paper on computing and we're already batching operations.
seriously richard, you would literally be a guy arguing turing
himself was wrong because he doesn't fit some asinine overly-narrow
definition of computing you seem have grasped onto ... why are you
being so fucking stupid about everything???
mabye u need to back the fuck off a bit with gishgallop, eh???. look
at how much it takes to refute one line of ur chronic bullshit???
Ok, so why do you think this structure can do what you want?
by adding an additional operation: REFLECT
Again, it seems you can parrot the words, and manipulate them, but you
still don't understand the deeper level that there is no way that a
Turing Machine can have your new instruction added without breaking
its fundamental property.
random insult
As an analogy, you show you can drive a car, and claim that shows that
you have enough understand of a car to talk about how to Turbo-Boost
it to get 10,000 miles to the gallon.
false analogy
We can easily show how a machine as described by Turing can do the
things it does within the physical model of the person with an
instruction book to follow mechanically following the instructions,
reading data from a pile of papers, and writing results on said pile.
and that person can follow the instruction to write down the machine description on the tape when REFLECT is the command.
In this model, the instruciton book is the state transition table of
the machine, and the pile of papers is the tape.
Once the person starts, how does he do your new instruction, without
breaking the semantics of the procedure.
i'm sorry are you asking how does he write down the "instruction book"
to the tape???
BY WRITING DOWN THE SYMBOLS ON THE FUCKING TAPE YOU FUCKING MORON
WHAT IN THE FUCK IS REMOTELY UNCLEAR ABOUT THIS???
On 10/31/25 9:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/31/25 7:40 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/31/25 12:53 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 10/30/2025 8:58 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/30/25 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:[...]
THE FACT WE CAN OBVIOUSLY DO THE REFLECTION AS I'VE DEFINED SEVERAL >>>>> TIMES NOW MECHANICALLY, IS WHAT JUSTIFIES RTMs THEORETICAL EXISTENCE
Code it up!
irrelevant to people who can think
The answer of the person who can't.
yeah cause polcott coding up his sure fucking convinced u guys!
do you guys have ANY fucking self-awareness???
ur just wasting my time with a red herring as u have no intention of actually trying to understand what i'm saying
On 10/31/25 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/31/25 11:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/31/25 8:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/31/25 11:16 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/31/25 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/31/25 3:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/31/25 9:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/30/25 2:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 8:42 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/29/2025 10:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/29/25 12:24 PM, dart200 wrote:TMs with a modification, specifically adding full mechanical >>>>>>>>>>> reflection to TMs in order to produce Reflective TMs (RTMs) >>>>>>>>>>>
On 10/29/25 4:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/28/25 11:23 PM, dart200 wrote:blatant lie
On 10/28/25 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/28/25 9:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:34 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/28/2025 5:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
[...]
not my argument u fucking useless boomer
Well, how do you solve the halting problem? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
with reflection, something u lack as a useless fucking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> boomer
Which you can't say how to do, because your only answer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is to define that you can.
we haven't even gotten the point of working out the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ramifications of what i've defined,
Because you haven't actually defined what you are doing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Really, show where you have ACTUALLY fully defined your >>>>>>>>>>>> computation machine to a level you can actually analyize one. >>>>>>>>>>>>
adding full mechanical reflection just means it gets a single >>>>>>>>>>> instruction that dumps *all* this information to the tape, at >>>>>>>>>>> the head, when that instruction is called:
1) machine description
2) initial tape state
3) current instruction
4) current tape state
call it REFLECT, if u will... this information allows a >>>>>>>>>>> computation to know exactly where it is in the overall
runtime of computation, and with that it can subvert semantic >>>>>>>>>>> paradoxes like the halting problem.
you have to understand this is a *mechanical* modification to >>>>>>>>>>> turing machines, not a computational one. much like how RTMs >>>>>>>>>>> can move a head left/right, or write 0/1 to the tape ... they >>>>>>>>>>> mechanically just do this operation when the instruction is >>>>>>>>>>> called.
*these mechanics are (relatively) simple and self-
evidentially possible and therefore mathematically feasible.* >>>>>>>>>>>
BUT, let me try a step deeper, and quote turing at you from >>>>>>>>>>> his original paper on computable numbers:
/We may compare a man in the process of computing a real >>>>>>>>>>> number to a
machine which is only capable of a finite number of
conditions/ [Tur36]
THE ENTIRE JUSTIFICATION FOR TURING MACHINES RESTS SQUARELY >>>>>>>>>>> ON THE NOTION OF "CAN A MAN MECHANICALLY UNDERTAKE THESE >>>>>>>>>>> STATE TRANSITIONS"
1) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then >>>>>>>>>>> obviously he has access the full machine description, or how >>>>>>>>>>> else the fuck is he doing any of these state transitions??? >>>>>>>>>>> therefore he obviously can dump the machine description, in >>>>>>>>>>> whatever format he has it in, to the tape when REFLECT is >>>>>>>>>>> encountered.
2) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then >>>>>>>>>>> obviously he can to the side save the initial tape in a >>>>>>>>>>> "buffer" that than cannot be overwritten. with that he can >>>>>>>>>>> can obviously dump the initial tape state to the tape
whenever REFLECT is encountered.
3) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then >>>>>>>>>>> obviously he has access input of a particular transition, and >>>>>>>>>>> therefore can dump that input to the tape when REFLECT is >>>>>>>>>>> encountered, in whatever format he encounters it in.
4) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation ... he >>>>>>>>>>> can obviously duplicate the tape when REFLECT is called. or >>>>>>>>>>> more precisely he can save it into a buffer, and dump from >>>>>>>>>>> the buffer after putting 1-3 on the tape.
THAT IS THE SAME LEVEL OF FORMAT JUSTIFICATION TURING
ULTIMATELY GIVES FOR ANY COMPUTING MACHINE. SERIOUSLY READ >>>>>>>>>>> HIS FUCKING ESSAY YOU DORK
please tell me where u are confused, not how u think i'm wrong >>>>>>>>>>>
I can finally see the gist of what you are saying
and it seems to be very similar to my idea.
like i've said polcott, i consider you having a half-way
solution. u have something that's executable for sure, and that >>>>>>>>> is a definite improvement over total undecidability.
but it's not totally epistemically useful, it still doesn't / >>>>>>>>> effectively compute/ the halting function in a *general* manner. >>>>>>>>>
i'm proposing something that's both executable *and*
epistemically useful for that purpose.
the RTM i'm proposing here is just the underlying theoretical >>>>>>>>> mechanisms that can be used to produce a theoretically coherent >>>>>>>>> context-dependent decider,
which can then be used to /effectively compute/ the halting >>>>>>>>> function irrespective of semantic paradoxes ...
something that is in total a step beyond the mere executability >>>>>>>>> that you are proposing.
No, the problem you have is that you make the same error and try >>>>>>>> to redefine the question, and allow your machine to give wrong >>>>>>>> answers.
it's not a "wrong" answer if it contains no information to be
wrong about, and it's only given in a situation where there's no >>>>>>> "right" answer.
But their is a right answer for every actual D based on every
actual H.
It just isn't the answer that H gives.
how is it reasonable to expect a decider to respond truthfully to >>>>>>> a situation that would only make that truth untrue
Because deciders are just deterministic processes with a fixed
algorithm.
right, and context can be an input to the determinism
console.trace() isn't nondeterministic, it's context dependent
Note, the system DOES understand that some problems turn out to be >>>>>> uncomputable, so no decider exists that can be correct for all
inputs. Nothing wrong with that, it just means that any decider
that wants to try to claim to solve it will be wrong for some input. >>>>>>
The key point here is the question can't be asked until after a
decider steps up to make the claim, as the prove-it-wrong input is >>>>>> different for every possible decider, and thus, by the time the
question can be asked, the deciders result for that input was
already determined by its algorithm. For the decider it isn't a
matter of being "truthful", it is just doing what it was
programmed to do.
It becomes a matter of correctness, not truthfulness.
It is the creator of the algoritm to which truthfulness is
applied, and claiming that it will give the right answer when it
doesn't shows that his claim wasn't truthful.
there's no "correct" answer to a pathological question of
halts(und) on this line:
und = () -> halts(und) && loop_forever()
Which isn't a computation if your symbology means that halts is
taken from the context that the symbol und is used in.
Sorry, you are just showing you don't know the meaning of the words.
and the resolution is just to give a non-answer, so i split the
decider into two halves and made false a non-answer. it cannot be a >>>>> contradiction because it doesn't give information /in that moment/
about und() to contradict.
But since you are starting with the same category error of Olcott,
you get the same nonsense he does.
The category for the input to a Halt Decider is the representation
of a Computation.
By DEFINITION, this has a FULLY defined algorithm, and thus NOT a
closure.
If you want to try to define your own theory of computation that
uses a broader defintion, go ahead, the problem is you will find you
can do litle with it, and that the semantic paradox you are
complaining about is totally due to you altered definition of a
computation.
right why do u keep asserting ur existential fuckup is more correct
than a working decider on the matter???
Because it doesn't give the right answer per the original problem.
it gives you the right answer in all the places that the information of
that answer is actually usable, and it does so generally.
you are holding onto some notion of wanting a "right" answer where no
right answer can exist, and that's just bizarre because with that desire
u lose the ability to generally get a "right" answer in first place.
ur throwing the fucking baby out with the bathwater dude,
it's fucking stupid
If you want to be clear that you aren't working on that problem, or
even working under that system, go ahead, just make sure you fully
define what you are doing and try to show where it is useful.
i'm not building a separate form of computing, i'm upgrading what we have
yes this does mean maybe /false/ could be returned everywhere, but
that's not fucking interesting ... nor does it give /effective
computability/ in regards to the halting question.
Since your input is a category error for the actual Computation
Theory as classical defined, your results don't apply.
classic computing theory doesn't have a halt decider defined tho ...
u only have a halting function, not a decider. the decider is
*disproven* and therefore cannot be defined as per consensus theory.
u fucking retard.
u keep asserting SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T EVEN EXIST is somehow more
correct than SOMETHING THAT CAN EXIST
The DEFINITION of a Halting Decider exists.
The fact that the definiton is not realizable, proves the theory.
To call something a Halt Decider that doesn't meet the definition, is
just a lie, making the person making the claim just a liar.
just like there's more than one way to ask the same question, there's
more than one way to define a halting decider, which is the interface
into an algorithm, not the algorithm itself.
the one i'm proposing can actually generally exist, unlike the classical definition.
it's really that simple.
ur special pleading is just so mindnumbingly boring. i DEFINED my
We can easily DEFINE things that don't exist.>
which is the point of the context-dependent decider. halts() is
required to return /true/ only whereever both /possible/ and /
truthful/ to do so.
So, if you want to try to talk about this, you first need to try to
develop a basic theory about context dependent Computations, to see
if it can actually be useful for anything.
i fucking already did. u just aren't reading cause ur too busy trying
to show off how big a fucking retard u can be.
No you haven't, unless you consider your claim that is the equivalent
of defining that 1 == 2 is a definition.
DESCRIBING what you want to do is NOT the same as DEFINING how to do it.
mechanics in MORE detail that turing did his, and yet u arbitrarily
reject it as "describing" which seems like a made up distinction here.
sometimes i really do feel like just buying a gun a shooting myself,
cause i really am stuck on a planet of fucking idiots.
y must u endlessly torture me so with ur fucking idiocracy?
On 10/31/25 9:20 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-11-01, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
there's no "correct" answer to a pathological question of halts(und) on
this line:
und = () -> halts(und) && loop_forever()
Yes there is; the correct answer is ¬halts(und). The logical negation
of whatever halts(und) decides.
the correct answer is to give the opposite of it's own answer???
literal nonsense, and contrary to the consensus argument that it's an undecidable problem with no executable runtime, and therefore halts() doesn't exist, so the program can't exist. the consensus is that the
answer doesn't exist.
yes this does mean maybe /false/ could be returned everywhere, but
that's not fucking interesting ... nor does it give /effective
computability/ in regards to the halting question.
which is the point of the context-dependent decider. halts() is required >>> to return /true/ only whereever both /possible/ and /truthful/ to do so. >>>
if u don't agree with this, that's fine...
but you actually need to construct a contradiction, you can't just
continually make bare assertions that it's a contradiction.
If contexts are represenable in a Turing substrate, then everything
succumbs to Turing incomputability of halting.
If contexts are not representable in Turing, then the
model-with-contexts is either effectievely computable non-Turing, or
else contexts are just imaginary, like magic oracles.
false dichotomy
like i'm even open to being wrong, but like u need to work with the
system in order to show a contradiction with the system itself, just not assume the contradiction will happen.
If they are imaginary, you only have a thought experiment.
(In which Turing-plus-contexts machines can decide Turing
halting, but so what?)
REFLECT is completely mechanically demonstrable operation with a pen and paper, i demonstrated it in a post here already, justifying it's
theoretical existence
REFLECT gives a semantic decider the ability to know it's calling
context, which gives it the ability to return a context dependent answer.
If you find some computational model with contexts which is effective,
but beyond Turing, then /that/ is the big deal; delegate the halting
cruft to others. You are important because you've done what nobody else
has done before: you found an effective method of computation that is
not Turing! So you go to conference sall over the world where you are
flocked by groupies. Fuck halting, at that point, you know?
it's a mild extension of TMs,
like i've explained to you a ton of times
already
On 11/1/25 2:18 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/31/25 9:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/31/25 11:52 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/31/25 8:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/31/25 11:16 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/31/25 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/31/25 3:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/31/25 9:18 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/30/25 2:27 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 8:42 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/29/2025 10:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/29/25 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/29/25 12:24 PM, dart200 wrote:TMs with a modification, specifically adding full mechanical >>>>>>>>>>>> reflection to TMs in order to produce Reflective TMs (RTMs) >>>>>>>>>>>>
On 10/29/25 4:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/28/25 11:23 PM, dart200 wrote:blatant lie
On 10/28/25 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 10/28/25 9:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 10/28/25 6:34 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/28/2025 5:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
[...]
not my argument u fucking useless boomer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Well, how do you solve the halting problem? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
with reflection, something u lack as a useless fucking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> boomer
Which you can't say how to do, because your only answer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is to define that you can.
we haven't even gotten the point of working out the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ramifications of what i've defined,
Because you haven't actually defined what you are doing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Really, show where you have ACTUALLY fully defined your >>>>>>>>>>>>> computation machine to a level you can actually analyize one. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
adding full mechanical reflection just means it gets a >>>>>>>>>>>> single instruction that dumps *all* this information to the >>>>>>>>>>>> tape, at the head, when that instruction is called:
1) machine description
2) initial tape state
3) current instruction
4) current tape state
call it REFLECT, if u will... this information allows a >>>>>>>>>>>> computation to know exactly where it is in the overall >>>>>>>>>>>> runtime of computation, and with that it can subvert
semantic paradoxes like the halting problem.
you have to understand this is a *mechanical* modification >>>>>>>>>>>> to turing machines, not a computational one. much like how >>>>>>>>>>>> RTMs can move a head left/right, or write 0/1 to the
tape ... they mechanically just do this operation when the >>>>>>>>>>>> instruction is called.
*these mechanics are (relatively) simple and self-
evidentially possible and therefore mathematically feasible.* >>>>>>>>>>>>
BUT, let me try a step deeper, and quote turing at you from >>>>>>>>>>>> his original paper on computable numbers:
/We may compare a man in the process of computing a real >>>>>>>>>>>> number to a
machine which is only capable of a finite number of
conditions/ [Tur36]
THE ENTIRE JUSTIFICATION FOR TURING MACHINES RESTS SQUARELY >>>>>>>>>>>> ON THE NOTION OF "CAN A MAN MECHANICALLY UNDERTAKE THESE >>>>>>>>>>>> STATE TRANSITIONS"
1) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then >>>>>>>>>>>> obviously he has access the full machine description, or how >>>>>>>>>>>> else the fuck is he doing any of these state transitions??? >>>>>>>>>>>> therefore he obviously can dump the machine description, in >>>>>>>>>>>> whatever format he has it in, to the tape when REFLECT is >>>>>>>>>>>> encountered.
2) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then >>>>>>>>>>>> obviously he can to the side save the initial tape in a >>>>>>>>>>>> "buffer" that than cannot be overwritten. with that he can >>>>>>>>>>>> can obviously dump the initial tape state to the tape >>>>>>>>>>>> whenever REFLECT is encountered.
3) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then >>>>>>>>>>>> obviously he has access input of a particular transition, >>>>>>>>>>>> and therefore can dump that input to the tape when REFLECT >>>>>>>>>>>> is encountered, in whatever format he encounters it in. >>>>>>>>>>>>
4) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation ... >>>>>>>>>>>> he can obviously duplicate the tape when REFLECT is called. >>>>>>>>>>>> or more precisely he can save it into a buffer, and dump >>>>>>>>>>>> from the buffer after putting 1-3 on the tape.
THAT IS THE SAME LEVEL OF FORMAT JUSTIFICATION TURING >>>>>>>>>>>> ULTIMATELY GIVES FOR ANY COMPUTING MACHINE. SERIOUSLY READ >>>>>>>>>>>> HIS FUCKING ESSAY YOU DORK
please tell me where u are confused, not how u think i'm wrong >>>>>>>>>>>>
I can finally see the gist of what you are saying
and it seems to be very similar to my idea.
like i've said polcott, i consider you having a half-way
solution. u have something that's executable for sure, and >>>>>>>>>> that is a definite improvement over total undecidability.
but it's not totally epistemically useful, it still doesn't / >>>>>>>>>> effectively compute/ the halting function in a *general* manner. >>>>>>>>>>
i'm proposing something that's both executable *and*
epistemically useful for that purpose.
the RTM i'm proposing here is just the underlying theoretical >>>>>>>>>> mechanisms that can be used to produce a theoretically
coherent context-dependent decider,
which can then be used to /effectively compute/ the halting >>>>>>>>>> function irrespective of semantic paradoxes ...
something that is in total a step beyond the mere
executability that you are proposing.
No, the problem you have is that you make the same error and >>>>>>>>> try to redefine the question, and allow your machine to give >>>>>>>>> wrong answers.
it's not a "wrong" answer if it contains no information to be >>>>>>>> wrong about, and it's only given in a situation where there's no >>>>>>>> "right" answer.
But their is a right answer for every actual D based on every
actual H.
It just isn't the answer that H gives.
how is it reasonable to expect a decider to respond truthfully >>>>>>>> to a situation that would only make that truth untrue
Because deciders are just deterministic processes with a fixed
algorithm.
right, and context can be an input to the determinism
console.trace() isn't nondeterministic, it's context dependent
Note, the system DOES understand that some problems turn out to >>>>>>> be uncomputable, so no decider exists that can be correct for all >>>>>>> inputs. Nothing wrong with that, it just means that any decider >>>>>>> that wants to try to claim to solve it will be wrong for some input. >>>>>>>
The key point here is the question can't be asked until after a >>>>>>> decider steps up to make the claim, as the prove-it-wrong input >>>>>>> is different for every possible decider, and thus, by the time
the question can be asked, the deciders result for that input was >>>>>>> already determined by its algorithm. For the decider it isn't a >>>>>>> matter of being "truthful", it is just doing what it was
programmed to do.
It becomes a matter of correctness, not truthfulness.
It is the creator of the algoritm to which truthfulness is
applied, and claiming that it will give the right answer when it >>>>>>> doesn't shows that his claim wasn't truthful.
there's no "correct" answer to a pathological question of
halts(und) on this line:
und = () -> halts(und) && loop_forever()
Which isn't a computation if your symbology means that halts is
taken from the context that the symbol und is used in.
Sorry, you are just showing you don't know the meaning of the words. >>>>>
and the resolution is just to give a non-answer, so i split the
decider into two halves and made false a non-answer. it cannot be >>>>>> a contradiction because it doesn't give information /in that
moment/ about und() to contradict.
But since you are starting with the same category error of Olcott,
you get the same nonsense he does.
The category for the input to a Halt Decider is the representation
of a Computation.
By DEFINITION, this has a FULLY defined algorithm, and thus NOT a
closure.
If you want to try to define your own theory of computation that
uses a broader defintion, go ahead, the problem is you will find
you can do litle with it, and that the semantic paradox you are
complaining about is totally due to you altered definition of a
computation.
right why do u keep asserting ur existential fuckup is more correct
than a working decider on the matter???
Because it doesn't give the right answer per the original problem.
it gives you the right answer in all the places that the information
of that answer is actually usable, and it does so generally.
In other words, your logic says it is ok to be wrong in some cases, if
you can give a "good excuse" why it is ok to be wrong there.
All that does is destroy the meaning of "Correct".
you are holding onto some notion of wanting a "right" answer where no
right answer can exist, and that's just bizarre because with that
desire u lose the ability to generally get a "right" answer in first
place.
Because it *DOES* have a proper definition.
ALWAYS means ALWAYS, not just where I want it.
ur throwing the fucking baby out with the bathwater dude,
it's fucking stupid
Nope, because for actual problems like Busy Beaver, which again asks
about for results from ALL possible machihes with specific criteria,
that pattern might just coencidentally occur.
If you want to be clear that you aren't working on that problem, or
even working under that system, go ahead, just make sure you fully
define what you are doing and try to show where it is useful.
i'm not building a separate form of computing, i'm upgrading what we have
In other words, you are admitting you are lying.
It is a VIOLATION of the meaning of the words to change the meaning of
the word as already used.
You "upgrade" a system by adding new ideas without removing or changing
any of the old.
If you need to remove or change something, you have a new system. DEFINITION.
Again, all you are doing is admitting that you system is based on you claiming the right to lie about what you are doing, by ignoring the
rules of the system.
yes this does mean maybe /false/ could be returned everywhere, but >>>>>> that's not fucking interesting ... nor does it give /effective
computability/ in regards to the halting question.
Since your input is a category error for the actual Computation
Theory as classical defined, your results don't apply.
classic computing theory doesn't have a halt decider defined tho ...
u only have a halting function, not a decider. the decider is
*disproven* and therefore cannot be defined as per consensus theory.
u fucking retard.
u keep asserting SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T EVEN EXIST is somehow more
correct than SOMETHING THAT CAN EXIST
The DEFINITION of a Halting Decider exists.
The fact that the definiton is not realizable, proves the theory.
To call something a Halt Decider that doesn't meet the definition, is
just a lie, making the person making the claim just a liar.
just like there's more than one way to ask the same question, there's
more than one way to define a halting decider, which is the interface
into an algorithm, not the algorithm itself.
Right, but if they are semantically different, it isn't the same question.
the one i'm proposing can actually generally exist, unlike the
classical definition.
But only is a Computation System that is broken, because programs don't reliable produce the same answer when run.
Once you allow things to lie, you have destroyed the concept of truth.
it's really that simple.
Yes, allowing lying seems simple until you need to count on something.
ur special pleading is just so mindnumbingly boring. i DEFINED my
We can easily DEFINE things that don't exist.>
which is the point of the context-dependent decider. halts() is
required to return /true/ only whereever both /possible/ and /
truthful/ to do so.
So, if you want to try to talk about this, you first need to try to >>>>> develop a basic theory about context dependent Computations, to see >>>>> if it can actually be useful for anything.
i fucking already did. u just aren't reading cause ur too busy
trying to show off how big a fucking retard u can be.
No you haven't, unless you consider your claim that is the equivalent
of defining that 1 == 2 is a definition.
DESCRIBING what you want to do is NOT the same as DEFINING how to do it. >>>
mechanics in MORE detail that turing did his, and yet u arbitrarily
reject it as "describing" which seems like a made up distinction here.
NO YOU HAVEN'T.
You have PRESUMED an ability on the machine that can not actually be implemented on it without breaking it.
Your "Definition" is the equivalent of defining that for this work, I
will consider 1 to be equal to 2.
sometimes i really do feel like just buying a gun a shooting myself,
cause i really am stuck on a planet of fucking idiots.
y must u endlessly torture me so with ur fucking idiocracy?
I could say the same to you. Why are you so stuck on insisting on things that are not.
Computations, as defined, can't change their answers for the same input. PERIOD.
To insist they can is just to admit you are just a lunatic.
On 2025-11-01, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 10/31/25 9:20 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-11-01, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
there's no "correct" answer to a pathological question of halts(und) on >>>> this line:
und = () -> halts(und) && loop_forever()
Yes there is; the correct answer is ¬halts(und). The logical negation
of whatever halts(und) decides.
the correct answer is to give the opposite of it's own answer???
The correct answer isn't /to give/ anything; it just /is/
E.g. halts(und) returns false, then und is terminating and so
the correct answer is true.
literal nonsense, and contrary to the consensus argument that it's an
undecidable problem with no executable runtime, and therefore halts()
doesn't exist, so the program can't exist. the consensus is that the
answer doesn't exist.
What doesn't exist is a total halting decider.
und can exist with halts as a partial decider, which gives an
an incorrect answer for halts(und).
Because for no possible halts can there be an und such that halts(und)
is correct, no halts can be total.
Stop insisting that halts is a the total halting decider which cannot
exist, allowing it to be a partial halting decider which cannot be
total, and the apparent paradox goes away. und then exists and has a
defnite halting status, which is opposite to whatever that partial
decider says.
yes this does mean maybe /false/ could be returned everywhere, but
that's not fucking interesting ... nor does it give /effective
computability/ in regards to the halting question.
which is the point of the context-dependent decider. halts() is required >>>> to return /true/ only whereever both /possible/ and /truthful/ to do so. >>>>
if u don't agree with this, that's fine...
but you actually need to construct a contradiction, you can't just
continually make bare assertions that it's a contradiction.
If contexts are represenable in a Turing substrate, then everything
succumbs to Turing incomputability of halting.
If contexts are not representable in Turing, then the
model-with-contexts is either effectievely computable non-Turing, or
else contexts are just imaginary, like magic oracles.
false dichotomy
Well, trichotomy, by my count.
- contexts are Turing (1)
- contexts are not Turing:
- somehow effectively computable (2)
- not computable (3)
What possibility have I unintentionally left out?
like i'm even open to being wrong, but like u need to work with the
system in order to show a contradiction with the system itself, just not
assume the contradiction will happen.
If they are imaginary, you only have a thought experiment.
(In which Turing-plus-contexts machines can decide Turing
halting, but so what?)
REFLECT is completely mechanically demonstrable operation with a pen and
paper, i demonstrated it in a post here already, justifying it's
theoretical existence
OK, that points to it being embeddable in Turing
computation. Which then points to undecidabiity.
REFLECT gives a semantic decider the ability to know it's calling
context, which gives it the ability to return a context dependent answer.
If you find some computational model with contexts which is effective,
but beyond Turing, then /that/ is the big deal; delegate the halting
cruft to others. You are important because you've done what nobody else
has done before: you found an effective method of computation that is
not Turing! So you go to conference sall over the world where you are
flocked by groupies. Fuck halting, at that point, you know?
it's a mild extension of TMs,
If it is mechanically demonstrable with pen and paper, then it isn't
an extension of TM.
like i've explained to you a ton of times
already
I mostly don't follow those threads.
I remember that your extension tries to make halting decidable by
implement security measures with regard to access and manipulaton of
context, so that it cannot be reified and turned into a function
argument.
Halting is about functions, and your idea is to have syntactic
limitations which create a sandbox that prevents the treatment of all
the moving parts as pure functions with no context.
In the system, programs are not able to explore questions like what does
this function calculate with this explicit argument, under this specific context.
I think that very limitation itself then makes halting
practically undecidable within the system.
Functions can depend on their context. That context can make some
instances of them halting and others not, even with all the explicit arguments being the same. Thus we cannot ask whether a function halts;
it has to be, does it halt /in what calling context/.
You have it so that the H(D) within the diagnoal case D is in a
different context from a H(D) invocation elsewhere which makes them different, excusing why they might produce different values.
But that situation means programs can't calculate the halting of
anything, due to every calculation being polluted by context that
they can't pin down.
On 11/1/25 9:37 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-11-01, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
On 10/31/25 9:20 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
On 2025-11-01, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
there's no "correct" answer to a pathological question of halts(und) on >>>>> this line:
und = () -> halts(und) && loop_forever()
Yes there is; the correct answer is ¬halts(und). The logical negation >>>> of whatever halts(und) decides.
the correct answer is to give the opposite of it's own answer???
The correct answer isn't /to give/ anything; it just /is/
halts() is a total decider, ur now just ignoring what i defined()
Stop insisting that halts is a the total halting decider which cannot
exist, allowing it to be a partial halting decider which cannot be
total, and the apparent paradox goes away. und then exists and has a
defnite halting status, which is opposite to whatever that partial
decider says.
great now ur arguing polcott is right.
the problem with a set of partial deciders is that the resolution isn't /effectively computable/. with "partial" deciders then the question
becomes which partial decider is correct: u've just kicked the can down
the road
yes this does mean maybe /false/ could be returned everywhere, but
that's not fucking interesting ... nor does it give /effective
computability/ in regards to the halting question.
which is the point of the context-dependent decider. halts() is required >>>>> to return /true/ only whereever both /possible/ and /truthful/ to do so. >>>>>
if u don't agree with this, that's fine...
but you actually need to construct a contradiction, you can't just
continually make bare assertions that it's a contradiction.
If contexts are represenable in a Turing substrate, then everything
succumbs to Turing incomputability of halting.
If contexts are not representable in Turing, then the
model-with-contexts is either effectievely computable non-Turing, or
else contexts are just imaginary, like magic oracles.
false dichotomy
Well, trichotomy, by my count.
- contexts are Turing (1)
- contexts are not Turing:
- somehow effectively computable (2)
- not computable (3)
What possibility have I unintentionally left out?
like i'm even open to being wrong, but like u need to work with the
system in order to show a contradiction with the system itself, just not >>> assume the contradiction will happen.
If they are imaginary, you only have a thought experiment.
(In which Turing-plus-contexts machines can decide Turing
halting, but so what?)
REFLECT is completely mechanically demonstrable operation with a pen and >>> paper, i demonstrated it in a post here already, justifying it's
theoretical existence
OK, that points to it being embeddable in Turing
computation. Which then points to undecidabiity.
or ur just assuming a false dichotomy
the TM limitation is mechanical, not computational. classical theory
only supposes about computational limitations, there's no notion of mechanical limitation.
but the mechanical, not computational, limitation means:
- TMs can simulate RTMs
- RTMs don't fix the problems with TMs
- it doesn't matter that they don't because RTMs can compute
everything TMs do + have increased power
what i'm doing is trivializing TMs undecidability, not resolving it. but this overall resolves the halting problem by providing a mechanical improvement that can allow theory to escape limitations stemming from
the liar's paradox being encoded into machines
REFLECT gives a semantic decider the ability to know it's calling
context, which gives it the ability to return a context dependent answer. >>>
If you find some computational model with contexts which is effective, >>>> but beyond Turing, then /that/ is the big deal; delegate the halting
cruft to others. You are important because you've done what nobody else >>>> has done before: you found an effective method of computation that is
not Turing! So you go to conference sall over the world where you are
flocked by groupies. Fuck halting, at that point, you know?
it's a mild extension of TMs,
If it is mechanically demonstrable with pen and paper, then it isn't
an extension of TM.
no idea what u mean here, TMs are likewise also demonstrable with a pen
and paper, and that was turing's original justification for their feasibility
Functions can depend on their context. That context can make some
instances of them halting and others not, even with all the explicit
arguments being the same. Thus we cannot ask whether a function halts;
it has to be, does it halt /in what calling context/.
only if it involves a REFLECT command, otherwise it's not possible to be dependent on context.
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,075 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 90:35:12 |
| Calls: | 13,798 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 186,989 |
| D/L today: |
5,332 files (1,536M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,438,212 |
