On 12/10/2025 4:58 PM, wij wrote:
On Wed, 2025-12-10 at 16:43 -0600, polcott wrote:
When the halting problem requires a halt decider
to report on the behavior of a Turing machine
this is always a category error.
The corrected halting problem requires a Turing
machine decider to report in the behavior that
its finite string input specifies.
If you honestly admit you are solving POO Problem, everything is fine.
*It has take me 21 years to boil it down to this*
When the halting problem requires a halt decider
to report on the behavior of a Turing machine this
is always a category error.
The corrected halting problem requires a Turing
machine decider to report in the behavior that
its finite string input specifies.
Just an external observation:
A lot of tech innovations in software optimization area get discarded
from the very beginning because people who work on them perceive the
halting problem as a dogma. As result, certain practical things (in code analysis) are not even tried because it's assumed that they are bound by
the halting problem.
In practice, however, the halting problem is rarely a limitation. And
even when one hits it, they can safely discard a particular analysis
branch by marking it as inconclusive.
Halting problem for sure can be better framed to not sound as a dogma,
at least. In practice, algorithmic inconclusiveness has 0.001
probability, not a 100% guarantee as many engineers perceive it.
On 12/11/2025 12:03 AM, polcott wrote:
On 12/10/2025 4:58 PM, wij wrote:
On Wed, 2025-12-10 at 16:43 -0600, polcott wrote:
When the halting problem requires a halt decider
to report on the behavior of a Turing machine
this is always a category error.
The corrected halting problem requires a Turing
machine decider to report in the behavior that
its finite string input specifies.
If you honestly admit you are solving POO Problem, everything is fine.
*It has take me 21 years to boil it down to this*
When the halting problem requires a halt decider
to report on the behavior of a Turing machine this
is always a category error.
The corrected halting problem requires a Turing
machine decider to report in the behavior that
its finite string input specifies.
Just an external observation:
A lot of tech innovations in software optimization area get discarded
from the very beginning because people who work on them perceive the
halting problem as a dogma. As result, certain practical things (in code analysis) are not even tried because it's assumed that they are bound by
the halting problem.
In practice, however, the halting problem is rarely a limitation. And
even when one hits it, they can safely discard a particular analysis
branch by marking it as inconclusive.
Halting problem for sure can be better framed to not sound as a dogma,
at least. In practice, algorithmic inconclusiveness has 0.001
probability, not a 100% guarantee as many engineers perceive it.
On 12/11/2025 12:03 AM, polcott wrote:
On 12/10/2025 4:58 PM, wij wrote:
On Wed, 2025-12-10 at 16:43 -0600, polcott wrote:
When the halting problem requires a halt decider
to report on the behavior of a Turing machine
this is always a category error.
The corrected halting problem requires a Turing
machine decider to report in the behavior that
its finite string input specifies.
If you honestly admit you are solving POO Problem, everything is fine.
*It has take me 21 years to boil it down to this*
When the halting problem requires a halt decider
to report on the behavior of a Turing machine this
is always a category error.
The corrected halting problem requires a Turing
machine decider to report in the behavior that
its finite string input specifies.
Just an external observation:
A lot of tech innovations in software optimization area get discarded
from the very beginning because people who work on them perceive the
halting problem as a dogma.
On 06/01/2026 02:24, Oleksiy Gapotchenko wrote:
Just an external observation:
A lot of tech innovations in software optimization area get discarded
from the very beginning because people who work on them perceive the
halting problem as a dogma.
It is a dogma in the same sense as 2 * 3 = 6 is a dogma: a provably
true sentence of a certain theory.
On 1/5/26 4:24 PM, Oleksiy Gapotchenko wrote:
Just an external observation:
A lot of tech innovations in software optimization area get discarded
from the very beginning because people who work on them perceive the
halting problem as a dogma. As result, certain practical things (in
code analysis) are not even tried because it's assumed that they are
bound by the halting problem.
In practice, however, the halting problem is rarely a limitation. And
even when one hits it, they can safely discard a particular analysis
branch by marking it as inconclusive.
Halting problem for sure can be better framed to not sound as a dogma,
at least. In practice, algorithmic inconclusiveness has 0.001
probability, not a 100% guarantee as many engineers perceive it.
god it's been such a mind-fuck to unpack the halting problem,
but the halting problem does not mean that no algorithm exists for any
given machine, just that a "general" decider does not exist for all
machiens ...
heck it must be certain that for any given machine there must exist a partial decider that can decide on it ... because otherwise a paradox
would have to address all possible partial deciders in a computable
fashion and that runs up against it's own limit to classical computing. therefore some true decider must exist for any given machine that
exists ... we just can't funnel the knowledge thru a general interface.
i think the actual problem is the TM computing is not sufficient to
describe all computable relationships. TM computing is considered the gold-standard for what is computable, but we haven't actually proved that.
the CT-thesis is a thesis, not a proof. we've been treating it as a
law ... but we never actually justified that it should be law. this
whole time we've been discarding things like a general halting decidable because TM computing can be used to create paradoxes in regards to it,
but maybe the problem is that TM computing is not sufficient to describe
a general halting decider, not that a general halting decider is
impossible.
that's my new attack vector on the consensus understanding: the CT
thesis. i am to describe a general algo that *we* can obviously compute using deterministic steps, but such algo cannot be funneled thru a
general interface because TM computing will read and paradox it.
On 12/11/2025 12:03 AM, polcott wrote:
On 12/10/2025 4:58 PM, wij wrote:
On Wed, 2025-12-10 at 16:43 -0600, polcott wrote:
When the halting problem requires a halt decider
to report on the behavior of a Turing machine
this is always a category error.
The corrected halting problem requires a Turing
machine decider to report in the behavior that
its finite string input specifies.
If you honestly admit you are solving POO Problem, everything is fine. >>>>
*It has take me 21 years to boil it down to this*
When the halting problem requires a halt decider
to report on the behavior of a Turing machine this
is always a category error.
The corrected halting problem requires a Turing
machine decider to report in the behavior that
its finite string input specifies.
On 1/6/2026 1:47 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/5/26 4:24 PM, Oleksiy Gapotchenko wrote:
Just an external observation:
A lot of tech innovations in software optimization area get discarded
from the very beginning because people who work on them perceive the
halting problem as a dogma. As result, certain practical things (in
code analysis) are not even tried because it's assumed that they are
bound by the halting problem.
In practice, however, the halting problem is rarely a limitation. And
even when one hits it, they can safely discard a particular analysis
branch by marking it as inconclusive.
Halting problem for sure can be better framed to not sound as a
dogma, at least. In practice, algorithmic inconclusiveness has 0.001
probability, not a 100% guarantee as many engineers perceive it.
god it's been such a mind-fuck to unpack the halting problem,
but the halting problem does not mean that no algorithm exists for any
given machine, just that a "general" decider does not exist for all
machiens ...
heck it must be certain that for any given machine there must exist a
partial decider that can decide on it ... because otherwise a paradox
would have to address all possible partial deciders in a computable
fashion and that runs up against it's own limit to classical
computing. therefore some true decider must exist for any given
machine that exists ... we just can't funnel the knowledge thru a
general interface.
For every H there is a D such that D does the opposite
of whatever H reports. In this case use H1 on this D.
i think the actual problem is the TM computing is not sufficient to
describe all computable relationships. TM computing is considered the
gold-standard for what is computable, but we haven't actually proved
that.
the CT-thesis is a thesis, not a proof. we've been treating it as a
law ... but we never actually justified that it should be law. this
whole time we've been discarding things like a general halting
decidable because TM computing can be used to create paradoxes in
regards to it, but maybe the problem is that TM computing is not
sufficient to describe a general halting decider, not that a general
halting decider is impossible.
that's my new attack vector on the consensus understanding: the CT
thesis. i am to describe a general algo that *we* can obviously
compute using deterministic steps, but such algo cannot be funneled
thru a general interface because TM computing will read and paradox it.
On 12/11/2025 12:03 AM, polcott wrote:
On 12/10/2025 4:58 PM, wij wrote:
On Wed, 2025-12-10 at 16:43 -0600, polcott wrote:
When the halting problem requires a halt decider
to report on the behavior of a Turing machine
this is always a category error.
The corrected halting problem requires a Turing
machine decider to report in the behavior that
its finite string input specifies.
If you honestly admit you are solving POO Problem, everything is fine. >>>>>
*It has take me 21 years to boil it down to this*
When the halting problem requires a halt decider
to report on the behavior of a Turing machine this
is always a category error.
The corrected halting problem requires a Turing
machine decider to report in the behavior that
its finite string input specifies.
On 1/6/26 5:26 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2026 1:47 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/5/26 4:24 PM, Oleksiy Gapotchenko wrote:
Just an external observation:
A lot of tech innovations in software optimization area get
discarded from the very beginning because people who work on them
perceive the halting problem as a dogma. As result, certain
practical things (in code analysis) are not even tried because it's
assumed that they are bound by the halting problem.
In practice, however, the halting problem is rarely a limitation.
And even when one hits it, they can safely discard a particular
analysis branch by marking it as inconclusive.
Halting problem for sure can be better framed to not sound as a
dogma, at least. In practice, algorithmic inconclusiveness has 0.001
probability, not a 100% guarantee as many engineers perceive it.
god it's been such a mind-fuck to unpack the halting problem,
but the halting problem does not mean that no algorithm exists for
any given machine, just that a "general" decider does not exist for
all machiens ...
heck it must be certain that for any given machine there must exist a
partial decider that can decide on it ... because otherwise a paradox
would have to address all possible partial deciders in a computable
fashion and that runs up against it's own limit to classical
computing. therefore some true decider must exist for any given
machine that exists ... we just can't funnel the knowledge thru a
general interface.
For every H there is a D such that D does the opposite
of whatever H reports. In this case use H1 on this D.
yes, the inability to correctly resolve halting thru a singular
interface is a flaw of TM computing, not an inherent algorithmic limit
On 1/6/2026 9:03 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/6/26 5:26 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2026 1:47 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/5/26 4:24 PM, Oleksiy Gapotchenko wrote:
Just an external observation:god it's been such a mind-fuck to unpack the halting problem,
A lot of tech innovations in software optimization area get
discarded from the very beginning because people who work on them
perceive the halting problem as a dogma. As result, certain
practical things (in code analysis) are not even tried because it's >>>>> assumed that they are bound by the halting problem.
In practice, however, the halting problem is rarely a limitation.
And even when one hits it, they can safely discard a particular
analysis branch by marking it as inconclusive.
Halting problem for sure can be better framed to not sound as a
dogma, at least. In practice, algorithmic inconclusiveness has
0.001 probability, not a 100% guarantee as many engineers perceive it. >>>>
but the halting problem does not mean that no algorithm exists for
any given machine, just that a "general" decider does not exist for
all machiens ...
heck it must be certain that for any given machine there must exist
a partial decider that can decide on it ... because otherwise a
paradox would have to address all possible partial deciders in a
computable fashion and that runs up against it's own limit to
classical computing. therefore some true decider must exist for any
given machine that exists ... we just can't funnel the knowledge
thru a general interface.
For every H there is a D such that D does the opposite
of whatever H reports. In this case use H1 on this D.
yes, the inability to correctly resolve halting thru a singular
interface is a flaw of TM computing, not an inherent algorithmic limit
No it is not that.
After spending 20,000 hours on this over 20 years
equivalent to ten full time years.
*if undecidability is correct then truth itself is broken*
*if undecidability is correct then truth itself is broken*
*if undecidability is correct then truth itself is broken*
*if undecidability is correct then truth itself is broken*
The simplest 100% correct resolution to the
actual definition of the Halting Problem
(that includes the counter-example input)
Is that (in the case of the counter-example input)
The halting problem asks a yes/no question
that has no correct yes/no answer.
*The HP asks an incorrect question*
*The HP asks an incorrect question*
*The HP asks an incorrect question*
*The HP asks an incorrect question*
We can only get to your idea of a different
interface when we change the definition of
that Halting Problem. The original problem
itself is simply incorrect.
*I proved the HP input is the same as the Liar Paradox back in 2004*
*I proved the HP input is the same as the Liar Paradox back in 2004*
*I proved the HP input is the same as the Liar Paradox back in 2004*
*I proved the HP input is the same as the Liar Paradox back in 2004*
function LoopIfYouSayItHalts (bool YouSayItHalts):
if YouSayItHalts () then
while true do {}
else
return false;
Does this program Halt?
(Your (YES or NO) answer is to be considered
translated to Boolean as the function's input
parameter)
Please ONLY PROVIDE CORRECT ANSWERS!
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.logic/c/Hs78nMN6QZE/m/ID2rxwo__yQJ
On 1/6/26 8:33 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2026 9:03 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/6/26 5:26 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2026 1:47 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/5/26 4:24 PM, Oleksiy Gapotchenko wrote:
Just an external observation:
A lot of tech innovations in software optimization area get
discarded from the very beginning because people who work on them >>>>>> perceive the halting problem as a dogma. As result, certain
practical things (in code analysis) are not even tried because
it's assumed that they are bound by the halting problem.
In practice, however, the halting problem is rarely a limitation. >>>>>> And even when one hits it, they can safely discard a particular
analysis branch by marking it as inconclusive.
Halting problem for sure can be better framed to not sound as a
dogma, at least. In practice, algorithmic inconclusiveness has
0.001 probability, not a 100% guarantee as many engineers perceive >>>>>> it.
god it's been such a mind-fuck to unpack the halting problem,
but the halting problem does not mean that no algorithm exists for
any given machine, just that a "general" decider does not exist for >>>>> all machiens ...
heck it must be certain that for any given machine there must exist >>>>> a partial decider that can decide on it ... because otherwise a
paradox would have to address all possible partial deciders in a
computable fashion and that runs up against it's own limit to
classical computing. therefore some true decider must exist for any >>>>> given machine that exists ... we just can't funnel the knowledge
thru a general interface.
For every H there is a D such that D does the opposite
of whatever H reports. In this case use H1 on this D.
yes, the inability to correctly resolve halting thru a singular
interface is a flaw of TM computing, not an inherent algorithmic limit
No it is not that.
After spending 20,000 hours on this over 20 years
equivalent to ten full time years.
*if undecidability is correct then truth itself is broken*
*if undecidability is correct then truth itself is broken*
*if undecidability is correct then truth itself is broken*
*if undecidability is correct then truth itself is broken*
The simplest 100% correct resolution to the
actual definition of the Halting Problem
(that includes the counter-example input)
Is that (in the case of the counter-example input)
The halting problem asks a yes/no question
that has no correct yes/no answer.
i love how you agree with the consensus position but think u don't
*The HP asks an incorrect question*
*The HP asks an incorrect question*
*The HP asks an incorrect question*
*The HP asks an incorrect question*
We can only get to your idea of a different
interface when we change the definition of
that Halting Problem. The original problem
itself is simply incorrect.
the question's a fine expectation
TMs can't represent the answer tho, and that's the real problem
i think the actual problem is the TM computing is not sufficient to
describe all computable relationships.
On 1/6/2026 7:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 06/01/2026 02:24, Oleksiy Gapotchenko wrote:
Just an external observation:
A lot of tech innovations in software optimization area get discarded
from the very beginning because people who work on them perceive the
halting problem as a dogma.
It is a dogma in the same sense as 2 * 3 = 6 is a dogma: a provably
true sentence of a certain theory.
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which
asserts its own unprovability. 15 … (Gödel 1931:40-41)
Gödel, Kurt 1931.
On Formally Undecidable Propositions of
Principia Mathematica And Related Systems
F ⊢ G_F ↔ ¬Prov_F (⌜G_F⌝)
"F proves that: G_F is equivalent to
Gödel_Number(G_F) is not provable in F" https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/#FirIncTheCom
Stripping away the inessential baggage using a formal
language with its own self-reference operator and
provability operator (thus outside of arithmetic)
G := (F ⊬ G) // G asserts its own unprovability in F
A proof of G in F would be a sequence of inference
steps in F that prove that they themselves do not exist.
On 06/01/2026 16:02, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2026 7:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 06/01/2026 02:24, Oleksiy Gapotchenko wrote:
Just an external observation:
A lot of tech innovations in software optimization area get
discarded from the very beginning because people who work on them
perceive the halting problem as a dogma.
It is a dogma in the same sense as 2 * 3 = 6 is a dogma: a provably
true sentence of a certain theory.
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which
asserts its own unprovability. 15 … (Gödel 1931:40-41)
Gödel, Kurt 1931.
On Formally Undecidable Propositions of
Principia Mathematica And Related Systems
F ⊢ G_F ↔ ¬Prov_F (⌜G_F⌝)
"F proves that: G_F is equivalent to
Gödel_Number(G_F) is not provable in F"
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/#FirIncTheCom
Stripping away the inessential baggage using a formal
language with its own self-reference operator and
provability operator (thus outside of arithmetic)
G := (F ⊬ G) // G asserts its own unprovability in F
A proof of G in F would be a sequence of inference
steps in F that prove that they themselves do not exist.
From the way G is constructed it can be meta-proven that either
G is true and unprovable in F (which means that F is incomplete)
or G is false and provable in F (which means that F is inconsistent).
On 1/7/2026 6:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 06/01/2026 16:02, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2026 7:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 06/01/2026 02:24, Oleksiy Gapotchenko wrote:
Just an external observation:
A lot of tech innovations in software optimization area get
discarded from the very beginning because people who work on them
perceive the halting problem as a dogma.
It is a dogma in the same sense as 2 * 3 = 6 is a dogma: a provably
true sentence of a certain theory.
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which
asserts its own unprovability. 15 … (Gödel 1931:40-41)
Gödel, Kurt 1931.
On Formally Undecidable Propositions of
Principia Mathematica And Related Systems
F ⊢ G_F ↔ ¬Prov_F (⌜G_F⌝)
"F proves that: G_F is equivalent to
Gödel_Number(G_F) is not provable in F"
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/#FirIncTheCom
Stripping away the inessential baggage using a formal
language with its own self-reference operator and
provability operator (thus outside of arithmetic)
G := (F ⊬ G) // G asserts its own unprovability in F
A proof of G in F would be a sequence of inference
steps in F that prove that they themselves do not exist.
From the way G is constructed it can be meta-proven that either
Did you hear me stutter ?
A proof of G in F would be a sequence of inference
steps in F that prove that they themselves do not exist.
On 07/01/2026 15:06, olcott wrote:
On 1/7/2026 6:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 06/01/2026 16:02, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2026 7:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 06/01/2026 02:24, Oleksiy Gapotchenko wrote:
Just an external observation:
A lot of tech innovations in software optimization area get
discarded from the very beginning because people who work on them >>>>>> perceive the halting problem as a dogma.
It is a dogma in the same sense as 2 * 3 = 6 is a dogma: a provably
true sentence of a certain theory.
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which
asserts its own unprovability. 15 … (Gödel 1931:40-41)
Gödel, Kurt 1931.
On Formally Undecidable Propositions of
Principia Mathematica And Related Systems
F ⊢ G_F ↔ ¬Prov_F (⌜G_F⌝)
"F proves that: G_F is equivalent to
Gödel_Number(G_F) is not provable in F"
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/#FirIncTheCom >>>>
Stripping away the inessential baggage using a formal
language with its own self-reference operator and
provability operator (thus outside of arithmetic)
G := (F ⊬ G) // G asserts its own unprovability in F
A proof of G in F would be a sequence of inference
steps in F that prove that they themselves do not exist.
From the way G is constructed it can be meta-proven that either
Did you hear me stutter ?
A proof of G in F would be a sequence of inference
steps in F that prove that they themselves do not exist.
An F where such sequence really exists then in that F both G and
the negation of G are provable.
In an F where such sequnénce does not exist G is unprovable by
definition. However it is meta-provable frome the way it is
constructed and therefore true in every interpretation where
the natural numbers contained in F have their standard properties.
On 1/8/2026 4:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 07/01/2026 15:06, olcott wrote:G := (F ⊬ G) // G asserts its own unprovability in F
On 1/7/2026 6:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 06/01/2026 16:02, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2026 7:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 06/01/2026 02:24, Oleksiy Gapotchenko wrote:
Just an external observation:
A lot of tech innovations in software optimization area get
discarded from the very beginning because people who work on them >>>>>>> perceive the halting problem as a dogma.
It is a dogma in the same sense as 2 * 3 = 6 is a dogma: a provably >>>>>> true sentence of a certain theory.
...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which
asserts its own unprovability. 15 … (Gödel 1931:40-41)
Gödel, Kurt 1931.
On Formally Undecidable Propositions of
Principia Mathematica And Related Systems
F ⊢ G_F ↔ ¬Prov_F (⌜G_F⌝)
"F proves that: G_F is equivalent to
Gödel_Number(G_F) is not provable in F"
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/#FirIncTheCom >>>>>
Stripping away the inessential baggage using a formal
language with its own self-reference operator and
provability operator (thus outside of arithmetic)
G := (F ⊬ G) // G asserts its own unprovability in F
A proof of G in F would be a sequence of inference
steps in F that prove that they themselves do not exist.
From the way G is constructed it can be meta-proven that either
Did you hear me stutter ?
A proof of G in F would be a sequence of inference
steps in F that prove that they themselves do not exist.
An F where such sequence really exists then in that F both G and
the negation of G are provable.
A proof of G in F would be a sequence of inference
steps in F that prove that they themselves do not exist.
Does not exist because is contradicts itself.
On 1/6/26 5:26 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2026 1:47 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/5/26 4:24 PM, Oleksiy Gapotchenko wrote:
Just an external observation:
A lot of tech innovations in software optimization area get
discarded from the very beginning because people who work on them
perceive the halting problem as a dogma. As result, certain
practical things (in code analysis) are not even tried because it's
assumed that they are bound by the halting problem.
In practice, however, the halting problem is rarely a limitation.
And even when one hits it, they can safely discard a particular
analysis branch by marking it as inconclusive.
Halting problem for sure can be better framed to not sound as a
dogma, at least. In practice, algorithmic inconclusiveness has 0.001
probability, not a 100% guarantee as many engineers perceive it.
god it's been such a mind-fuck to unpack the halting problem,
but the halting problem does not mean that no algorithm exists for
any given machine, just that a "general" decider does not exist for
all machiens ...
heck it must be certain that for any given machine there must exist a
partial decider that can decide on it ... because otherwise a paradox
would have to address all possible partial deciders in a computable
fashion and that runs up against it's own limit to classical
computing. therefore some true decider must exist for any given
machine that exists ... we just can't funnel the knowledge thru a
general interface.
For every H there is a D such that D does the opposite
of whatever H reports. In this case use H1 on this D.
yes, the inability to correctly resolve halting thru a singular
interface is a flaw of TM computing, not an inherent algorithmic limit
i think the actual problem is the TM computing is not sufficient to
describe all computable relationships. TM computing is considered the
gold-standard for what is computable, but we haven't actually proved
that.
the CT-thesis is a thesis, not a proof. we've been treating it as a
law ... but we never actually justified that it should be law. this
whole time we've been discarding things like a general halting
decidable because TM computing can be used to create paradoxes in
regards to it, but maybe the problem is that TM computing is not
sufficient to describe a general halting decider, not that a general
halting decider is impossible.
that's my new attack vector on the consensus understanding: the CT
thesis. i am to describe a general algo that *we* can obviously
compute using deterministic steps, but such algo cannot be funneled
thru a general interface because TM computing will read and paradox it.
On 12/11/2025 12:03 AM, polcott wrote:
On 12/10/2025 4:58 PM, wij wrote:
On Wed, 2025-12-10 at 16:43 -0600, polcott wrote:
When the halting problem requires a halt decider
to report on the behavior of a Turing machine
this is always a category error.
The corrected halting problem requires a Turing
machine decider to report in the behavior that
its finite string input specifies.
If you honestly admit you are solving POO Problem, everything is
fine.
*It has take me 21 years to boil it down to this*
When the halting problem requires a halt decider
to report on the behavior of a Turing machine this
is always a category error.
The corrected halting problem requires a Turing
machine decider to report in the behavior that
its finite string input specifies.
On 1/6/2026 9:03 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/6/26 5:26 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2026 1:47 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/5/26 4:24 PM, Oleksiy Gapotchenko wrote:
Just an external observation:god it's been such a mind-fuck to unpack the halting problem,
A lot of tech innovations in software optimization area get
discarded from the very beginning because people who work on them
perceive the halting problem as a dogma. As result, certain
practical things (in code analysis) are not even tried because it's >>>>> assumed that they are bound by the halting problem.
In practice, however, the halting problem is rarely a limitation.
And even when one hits it, they can safely discard a particular
analysis branch by marking it as inconclusive.
Halting problem for sure can be better framed to not sound as a
dogma, at least. In practice, algorithmic inconclusiveness has
0.001 probability, not a 100% guarantee as many engineers perceive it. >>>>
but the halting problem does not mean that no algorithm exists for
any given machine, just that a "general" decider does not exist for
all machiens ...
heck it must be certain that for any given machine there must exist
a partial decider that can decide on it ... because otherwise a
paradox would have to address all possible partial deciders in a
computable fashion and that runs up against it's own limit to
classical computing. therefore some true decider must exist for any
given machine that exists ... we just can't funnel the knowledge
thru a general interface.
For every H there is a D such that D does the opposite
of whatever H reports. In this case use H1 on this D.
yes, the inability to correctly resolve halting thru a singular
interface is a flaw of TM computing, not an inherent algorithmic limit
No it is not that.
After spending 20,000 hours on this over 20 years
equivalent to ten full time years.
*if undecidability is correct then truth itself is broken*
*if undecidability is correct then truth itself is broken*
*if undecidability is correct then truth itself is broken*
*if undecidability is correct then truth itself is broken*
The simplest 100% correct resolution to the
actual definition of the Halting Problem
(that includes the counter-example input)
Is that (in the case of the counter-example input)
The halting problem asks a yes/no question
that has no correct yes/no answer.
*The HP asks an incorrect question*
*The HP asks an incorrect question*
*The HP asks an incorrect question*
*The HP asks an incorrect question*
We can only get to your idea of a different
interface when we change the definition of
that Halting Problem. The original problem
itself is simply incorrect.
*I proved the HP input is the same as the Liar Paradox back in 2004*
*I proved the HP input is the same as the Liar Paradox back in 2004*
*I proved the HP input is the same as the Liar Paradox back in 2004*
*I proved the HP input is the same as the Liar Paradox back in 2004*
function LoopIfYouSayItHalts (bool YouSayItHalts):
if YouSayItHalts () then
while true do {}
else
return false;
Does this program Halt?
(Your (YES or NO) answer is to be considered
translated to Boolean as the function's input
parameter)
Please ONLY PROVIDE CORRECT ANSWERS!
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.logic/c/Hs78nMN6QZE/m/ID2rxwo__yQJ
On 1/6/26 10:03 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/6/26 5:26 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2026 1:47 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/5/26 4:24 PM, Oleksiy Gapotchenko wrote:
Just an external observation:god it's been such a mind-fuck to unpack the halting problem,
A lot of tech innovations in software optimization area get
discarded from the very beginning because people who work on them
perceive the halting problem as a dogma. As result, certain
practical things (in code analysis) are not even tried because it's >>>>> assumed that they are bound by the halting problem.
In practice, however, the halting problem is rarely a limitation.
And even when one hits it, they can safely discard a particular
analysis branch by marking it as inconclusive.
Halting problem for sure can be better framed to not sound as a
dogma, at least. In practice, algorithmic inconclusiveness has
0.001 probability, not a 100% guarantee as many engineers perceive it. >>>>
but the halting problem does not mean that no algorithm exists for
any given machine, just that a "general" decider does not exist for
all machiens ...
heck it must be certain that for any given machine there must exist
a partial decider that can decide on it ... because otherwise a
paradox would have to address all possible partial deciders in a
computable fashion and that runs up against it's own limit to
classical computing. therefore some true decider must exist for any
given machine that exists ... we just can't funnel the knowledge
thru a general interface.
For every H there is a D such that D does the opposite
of whatever H reports. In this case use H1 on this D.
yes, the inability to correctly resolve halting thru a singular
interface is a flaw of TM computing, not an inherent algorithmic limit
Nope, because the proof doesn't actually need to talk about HOW the
decider actually made its decision, and thus not limited to Turing
Machines.
All it needs is that the decider be limited by the rules of a computation.
All the arguements against the proof seem to begin with the error that
the decider can be changed after the fact and such change changes the
input to match, but that breaks the fundamental property of
computations, that they are fixed algorithms
The proof shows that the SPECIFIC decider that the input was made from
will get the wrong answer, and we can make such an input for ANY
specific decider, and thus no decider can get all answers correct.
That the input HAS a correct answer (just the opposite of what that
specific decider gives) shows that there IS a correct answer, so there
is nothing wrong about the question of its halting, and thus a non-
answer like "its behavior is contrary" is valid.
Everyone trying to make the arguements just shows they don't understand
the basics of what a computation is.
On 1/12/26 4:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/26 10:03 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/6/26 5:26 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2026 1:47 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/5/26 4:24 PM, Oleksiy Gapotchenko wrote:
Just an external observation:
A lot of tech innovations in software optimization area get
discarded from the very beginning because people who work on them >>>>>> perceive the halting problem as a dogma. As result, certain
practical things (in code analysis) are not even tried because
it's assumed that they are bound by the halting problem.
In practice, however, the halting problem is rarely a limitation. >>>>>> And even when one hits it, they can safely discard a particular
analysis branch by marking it as inconclusive.
Halting problem for sure can be better framed to not sound as a
dogma, at least. In practice, algorithmic inconclusiveness has
0.001 probability, not a 100% guarantee as many engineers perceive >>>>>> it.
god it's been such a mind-fuck to unpack the halting problem,
but the halting problem does not mean that no algorithm exists for
any given machine, just that a "general" decider does not exist for >>>>> all machiens ...
heck it must be certain that for any given machine there must exist >>>>> a partial decider that can decide on it ... because otherwise a
paradox would have to address all possible partial deciders in a
computable fashion and that runs up against it's own limit to
classical computing. therefore some true decider must exist for any >>>>> given machine that exists ... we just can't funnel the knowledge
thru a general interface.
For every H there is a D such that D does the opposite
of whatever H reports. In this case use H1 on this D.
yes, the inability to correctly resolve halting thru a singular
interface is a flaw of TM computing, not an inherent algorithmic limit
Nope, because the proof doesn't actually need to talk about HOW the
decider actually made its decision, and thus not limited to Turing
Machines.
All it needs is that the decider be limited by the rules of a
computation.
All the arguements against the proof seem to begin with the error that
the decider can be changed after the fact and such change changes the
input to match, but that breaks the fundamental property of
computations, that they are fixed algorithms
The proof shows that the SPECIFIC decider that the input was made from
will get the wrong answer, and we can make such an input for ANY
specific decider, and thus no decider can get all answers correct.
That the input HAS a correct answer (just the opposite of what that
specific decider gives) shows that there IS a correct answer, so there
is nothing wrong about the question of its halting, and thus a non-
answer like "its behavior is contrary" is valid.
Everyone trying to make the arguements just shows they don't
understand the basics of what a computation is.
missed ya dick!
given that deciders are inherently part of the execution path they are deciding on ... ofc deciders can modify their behavior based on an input which they are included within, like they can modify their behavior
based on the properties of the input.
this is how partial deciders can intelligently block on responding to
input that cannot be answered thru their particular interface.
i'm not aware of any method that can prove a partial decider can't be
more efficient that brute force, because again, they can block when encountering a paradox specific to their interface.
furthermore this doesn't disprove a general algorithm backing the
partial deciders, all the general algorithm needs is a "self" input
which identifies the particular interface it's computing for. this
general algo for partial deciders will have three outputs: HALTS, LOOPS,
and PARADOX. when partial deciders receive PARADOX back from their algo
run they will then just loop forever to never respond.
yes i'm aware "interfaces" are complete descriptions of a partial
decider, and that's what i mean by passing in a self. the partial
decider must have a quine that allows it to recognize itself, and it
passes this into the general algo.
"but i can loop over all partial deciders to produce a paradox" ... uhh
no you can't? traditional computing cannot iterate over all functionally equivalent machines, so it certainly can't iterate over all almost functionally equivalent machines, so you cannot claim to produce a
general paradox for the general algo as such a computation is outside
the scope of classical computing limits.
i await to see how you purposefully misunderstand this
On 1/12/26 5:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/12/26 4:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/26 10:03 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/6/26 5:26 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2026 1:47 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/5/26 4:24 PM, Oleksiy Gapotchenko wrote:
Just an external observation:
A lot of tech innovations in software optimization area get
discarded from the very beginning because people who work on them >>>>>>> perceive the halting problem as a dogma. As result, certain
practical things (in code analysis) are not even tried because
it's assumed that they are bound by the halting problem.
In practice, however, the halting problem is rarely a limitation. >>>>>>> And even when one hits it, they can safely discard a particular >>>>>>> analysis branch by marking it as inconclusive.
Halting problem for sure can be better framed to not sound as a >>>>>>> dogma, at least. In practice, algorithmic inconclusiveness has
0.001 probability, not a 100% guarantee as many engineers
perceive it.
god it's been such a mind-fuck to unpack the halting problem,
but the halting problem does not mean that no algorithm exists for >>>>>> any given machine, just that a "general" decider does not exist
for all machiens ...
heck it must be certain that for any given machine there must
exist a partial decider that can decide on it ... because
otherwise a paradox would have to address all possible partial
deciders in a computable fashion and that runs up against it's own >>>>>> limit to classical computing. therefore some true decider must
exist for any given machine that exists ... we just can't funnel
the knowledge thru a general interface.
For every H there is a D such that D does the opposite
of whatever H reports. In this case use H1 on this D.
yes, the inability to correctly resolve halting thru a singular
interface is a flaw of TM computing, not an inherent algorithmic limit >>>>
Nope, because the proof doesn't actually need to talk about HOW the
decider actually made its decision, and thus not limited to Turing
Machines.
All it needs is that the decider be limited by the rules of a
computation.
All the arguements against the proof seem to begin with the error
that the decider can be changed after the fact and such change
changes the input to match, but that breaks the fundamental property
of computations, that they are fixed algorithms
The proof shows that the SPECIFIC decider that the input was made
from will get the wrong answer, and we can make such an input for ANY
specific decider, and thus no decider can get all answers correct.
That the input HAS a correct answer (just the opposite of what that
specific decider gives) shows that there IS a correct answer, so
there is nothing wrong about the question of its halting, and thus a
non- answer like "its behavior is contrary" is valid.
Everyone trying to make the arguements just shows they don't
understand the basics of what a computation is.
missed ya dick!
given that deciders are inherently part of the execution path they are
deciding on ... ofc deciders can modify their behavior based on an
input which they are included within, like they can modify their
behavior based on the properties of the input.
No, that behavior had to always have been in them, and thus seen by the "pathological" input.
this is how partial deciders can intelligently block on responding to
input that cannot be answered thru their particular interface.
i'm not aware of any method that can prove a partial decider can't be
more efficient that brute force, because again, they can block when
encountering a paradox specific to their interface.
How does "brute force" determine non-halting?
And nothing in the theory disagrees with partial halt deciders existing, they just can NEVER give an answer to the pathological program based on them, as if they give an answer, it will be wrong.
furthermore this doesn't disprove a general algorithm backing the
partial deciders, all the general algorithm needs is a "self" input
which identifies the particular interface it's computing for. this
general algo for partial deciders will have three outputs: HALTS,
LOOPS, and PARADOX. when partial deciders receive PARADOX back from
their algo run they will then just loop forever to never respond.
Sure it does.
The problem is it doesn't get a "self" input, and by its nature. it
can't determine if the input is just using a computational equivalent of itself that doesn't match its idea of what it looks like.
This FACT just breaks you concept, as you just assume you can detect
what is proven to be undetectable in full generality.
And, even if it CAN detect that the input is using a copy of itself,
that doesn't help it as it still can't get the right answer, and the
pathological input based on your general algorithm effectively uses
copies of all the algorithms it enumerates, so NONE of them can give the right answer.
yes i'm aware "interfaces" are complete descriptions of a partial
decider, and that's what i mean by passing in a self. the partial
decider must have a quine that allows it to recognize itself, and it
passes this into the general algo.
Nope, an "Interface" is NOT a complete description of ANY machine, so
you are just showing you are fundamentally incorrect in your basis.
You can't "run" and "interface", only an actual program that implements it.
"but i can loop over all partial deciders to produce a paradox" ...
uhh no you can't? traditional computing cannot iterate over all
functionally equivalent machines, so it certainly can't iterate over
all almost functionally equivalent machines, so you cannot claim to
produce a general paradox for the general algo as such a computation
is outside the scope of classical computing limits.
So, you just admitting you can't use an emumerated list of partial
deciders to get the answer.
The pathological program doesn't need to enumerate the deciders, it just needs to user what you make your final decider, which can only partially enumerate the partial deciders.
i await to see how you purposefully misunderstand this
It seems you are the one that doesn't understand.
Programs can't CHANGE there behavior, they HAVE specific behavior that depends on the input, and ALWAYS have that behavior for that input.
The definition of a computation means it can't squirrel away the fact
that it was once used on this particular input, and needs to do
something different, which is what is needed to CHANGE their behavior.
On 1/12/26 7:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
The problem is it doesn't get a "self" input, and by its nature. it
i'm defining the algo, so i say it does
On 1/12/26 7:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/12/26 5:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/12/26 4:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/26 10:03 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/6/26 5:26 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2026 1:47 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/5/26 4:24 PM, Oleksiy Gapotchenko wrote:
Just an external observation:
A lot of tech innovations in software optimization area get
discarded from the very beginning because people who work on
them perceive the halting problem as a dogma. As result, certain >>>>>>>> practical things (in code analysis) are not even tried because >>>>>>>> it's assumed that they are bound by the halting problem.
In practice, however, the halting problem is rarely a
limitation. And even when one hits it, they can safely discard a >>>>>>>> particular analysis branch by marking it as inconclusive.
Halting problem for sure can be better framed to not sound as a >>>>>>>> dogma, at least. In practice, algorithmic inconclusiveness has >>>>>>>> 0.001 probability, not a 100% guarantee as many engineers
perceive it.
god it's been such a mind-fuck to unpack the halting problem,
but the halting problem does not mean that no algorithm exists
for any given machine, just that a "general" decider does not
exist for all machiens ...
heck it must be certain that for any given machine there must
exist a partial decider that can decide on it ... because
otherwise a paradox would have to address all possible partial
deciders in a computable fashion and that runs up against it's
own limit to classical computing. therefore some true decider
must exist for any given machine that exists ... we just can't
funnel the knowledge thru a general interface.
For every H there is a D such that D does the opposite
of whatever H reports. In this case use H1 on this D.
yes, the inability to correctly resolve halting thru a singular
interface is a flaw of TM computing, not an inherent algorithmic limit >>>>>
Nope, because the proof doesn't actually need to talk about HOW the
decider actually made its decision, and thus not limited to Turing
Machines.
All it needs is that the decider be limited by the rules of a
computation.
All the arguements against the proof seem to begin with the error
that the decider can be changed after the fact and such change
changes the input to match, but that breaks the fundamental property
of computations, that they are fixed algorithms
The proof shows that the SPECIFIC decider that the input was made
from will get the wrong answer, and we can make such an input for
ANY specific decider, and thus no decider can get all answers correct. >>>>
That the input HAS a correct answer (just the opposite of what that
specific decider gives) shows that there IS a correct answer, so
there is nothing wrong about the question of its halting, and thus a
non- answer like "its behavior is contrary" is valid.
Everyone trying to make the arguements just shows they don't
understand the basics of what a computation is.
missed ya dick!
given that deciders are inherently part of the execution path they
are deciding on ... ofc deciders can modify their behavior based on
an input which they are included within, like they can modify their
behavior based on the properties of the input.
No, that behavior had to always have been in them, and thus seen by
the "pathological" input.
this is how partial deciders can intelligently block on responding to
input that cannot be answered thru their particular interface.
i'm not aware of any method that can prove a partial decider can't be
more efficient that brute force, because again, they can block when
encountering a paradox specific to their interface.
How does "brute force" determine non-halting?
well it does for the halting computations (bounded time, bounded space),
and proper infinite loops (unbounded time, bounded space),
just not runaway infinite computation (unbounded time, unbounded space)
And nothing in the theory disagrees with partial halt deciders
existing, they just can NEVER give an answer to the pathological
program based on them, as if they give an answer, it will be wrong.
which means: for any given machine, there is a decider out there that
must decide correctly on it. so, for any given machine there is a method that does correctly decide on it without ever given any wrong answers to
any other machine (tho it may not give answers at times).
as a man, i'm not subject to having my output read and contradicted like turing machine deciders are. i'm not subject to having to block
indefinitely because some input is pathological to me. and because some method must exist that can correct decide on any given input... i can
know that method for any given input, and therefor i can decide on any
given input.
this is why i'm really starting to think the ct-thesis is cooked. you
say i can't do that because turing machines can't do that ... but
where's the proof that turing machine encompass all of computing? why am
i limited by the absolute nonsense that is turing machines producing pathological input to themselves?
because turing machines *are* the fundamentals of computation??? but
again: that's just an assumption. we never proved it, yet here you are treating it like unquestionable law.
that's the flaw bro, one we've been sitting on for almost a century. i
don't even have a proof to deconstruct, it's literally just an
assumption, so all i need to do is construct the scenarios where
something is obviously generally computable, but that computation cannot
be generally expressed thru a turing machine computation input/ouput specification.
furthermore this doesn't disprove a general algorithm backing the
partial deciders, all the general algorithm needs is a "self" input
which identifies the particular interface it's computing for. this
general algo for partial deciders will have three outputs: HALTS,
LOOPS, and PARADOX. when partial deciders receive PARADOX back from
their algo run they will then just loop forever to never respond.
Sure it does.
The problem is it doesn't get a "self" input, and by its nature. it
i'm defining the algo, so i say it does
can't determine if the input is just using a computational equivalent
of itself that doesn't match its idea of what it looks like.
This FACT just breaks you concept, as you just assume you can detect
what is proven to be undetectable in full generality.
using the very paradox i'm trying to solve, so that's begging the
question. it's really kinda sad how much begging the question is going
on in the fundamental theory of computing
And, even if it CAN detect that the input is using a copy of itself,
that doesn't help it as it still can't get the right answer, and the
it's general algo to the partial deciders - all it needs to do is either
it returns PARADOX in which case the partial decider decides to loop(),
or maybe we can just extract that functionality into the general partial algo itself...
pathological input based on your general algorithm effectively uses
copies of all the algorithms it enumerates, so NONE of them can give
the right answer.
yes i'm aware "interfaces" are complete descriptions of a partial
decider, and that's what i mean by passing in a self. the partial
decider must have a quine that allows it to recognize itself, and it
passes this into the general algo.
Nope, an "Interface" is NOT a complete description of ANY machine, so
you are just showing you are fundamentally incorrect in your basis.
You can't "run" and "interface", only an actual program that
implements it.
sure, but all the partial decider do is construct a self-reference using
a quine and pass that along with the input to a common backing
algorithm. all valid partial deciders will need accurate quines in order
to ascertain where their output feedbacks into affect the prediction
they are making.
and yes the partial deciders do contain full descriptions of the common backing algo, but they still really do just act as an interface to that common algo
they act like an exposed API/interface into the common algo
"but i can loop over all partial deciders to produce a paradox" ...
uhh no you can't? traditional computing cannot iterate over all
functionally equivalent machines, so it certainly can't iterate over
all almost functionally equivalent machines, so you cannot claim to
produce a general paradox for the general algo as such a computation
is outside the scope of classical computing limits.
So, you just admitting you can't use an emumerated list of partial
deciders to get the answer.
which is fine, it's just not necessary
The pathological program doesn't need to enumerate the deciders, it
just needs to user what you make your final decider, which can only
partially enumerate the partial deciders.
it would in order to break the general algo across all self's. the self
acts as the fixed point of reference to which the decision is made ...
and while no fixed point can decide on all input, for any given input
there is a fixed point of self that can decide on that input. and this
can be encapsulated into a general algorithm that encapsulated a general procedure even if any given fixed point of self is not general.
therefore a general algo exists, even if any particular fixed point of decision making is contradicted.
dear god, why is computing theory is such a shit show? cause we've been almost blindly following what the forefathers of computing said?
i await to see how you purposefully misunderstand this
It seems you are the one that doesn't understand.
Programs can't CHANGE there behavior, they HAVE specific behavior that
depends on the input, and ALWAYS have that behavior for that input.
The definition of a computation means it can't squirrel away the fact
that it was once used on this particular input, and needs to do
something different, which is what is needed to CHANGE their behavior.
i'm aware, i'm not really sure why ur reapting that
and i await ur further purposeful misunderstanding
On 1/12/26 11:21 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/12/26 7:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/12/26 5:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/12/26 4:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/26 10:03 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/6/26 5:26 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2026 1:47 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/5/26 4:24 PM, Oleksiy Gapotchenko wrote:
Just an external observation:
A lot of tech innovations in software optimization area get >>>>>>>>> discarded from the very beginning because people who work on >>>>>>>>> them perceive the halting problem as a dogma. As result,
certain practical things (in code analysis) are not even tried >>>>>>>>> because it's assumed that they are bound by the halting problem. >>>>>>>>>
In practice, however, the halting problem is rarely a
limitation. And even when one hits it, they can safely discard >>>>>>>>> a particular analysis branch by marking it as inconclusive.
Halting problem for sure can be better framed to not sound as a >>>>>>>>> dogma, at least. In practice, algorithmic inconclusiveness has >>>>>>>>> 0.001 probability, not a 100% guarantee as many engineers
perceive it.
god it's been such a mind-fuck to unpack the halting problem,
but the halting problem does not mean that no algorithm exists >>>>>>>> for any given machine, just that a "general" decider does not >>>>>>>> exist for all machiens ...
heck it must be certain that for any given machine there must >>>>>>>> exist a partial decider that can decide on it ... because
otherwise a paradox would have to address all possible partial >>>>>>>> deciders in a computable fashion and that runs up against it's >>>>>>>> own limit to classical computing. therefore some true decider >>>>>>>> must exist for any given machine that exists ... we just can't >>>>>>>> funnel the knowledge thru a general interface.
For every H there is a D such that D does the opposite
of whatever H reports. In this case use H1 on this D.
yes, the inability to correctly resolve halting thru a singular
interface is a flaw of TM computing, not an inherent algorithmic
limit
Nope, because the proof doesn't actually need to talk about HOW the >>>>> decider actually made its decision, and thus not limited to Turing
Machines.
All it needs is that the decider be limited by the rules of a
computation.
All the arguements against the proof seem to begin with the error
that the decider can be changed after the fact and such change
changes the input to match, but that breaks the fundamental
property of computations, that they are fixed algorithms
The proof shows that the SPECIFIC decider that the input was made
from will get the wrong answer, and we can make such an input for
ANY specific decider, and thus no decider can get all answers correct. >>>>>
That the input HAS a correct answer (just the opposite of what that >>>>> specific decider gives) shows that there IS a correct answer, so
there is nothing wrong about the question of its halting, and thus
a non- answer like "its behavior is contrary" is valid.
Everyone trying to make the arguements just shows they don't
understand the basics of what a computation is.
missed ya dick!
given that deciders are inherently part of the execution path they
are deciding on ... ofc deciders can modify their behavior based on
an input which they are included within, like they can modify their
behavior based on the properties of the input.
No, that behavior had to always have been in them, and thus seen by
the "pathological" input.
this is how partial deciders can intelligently block on responding
to input that cannot be answered thru their particular interface.
i'm not aware of any method that can prove a partial decider can't
be more efficient that brute force, because again, they can block
when encountering a paradox specific to their interface.
How does "brute force" determine non-halting?
well it does for the halting computations (bounded time, bounded space),
and proper infinite loops (unbounded time, bounded space),
just not runaway infinite computation (unbounded time, unbounded space)
Which exist and is a form of non-halting.
Yes, Non-Turing Complete systems, with bounded space, are Halt Decidable
with simple deciders as long as the decider is allowed to be
sufficiently bigger than the program it is deciding on. That has been
known for a long time, but isn't an exception to the Halting Problem, as
it doesn't meet the basic requirements.
And nothing in the theory disagrees with partial halt deciders
existing, they just can NEVER give an answer to the pathological
program based on them, as if they give an answer, it will be wrong.
which means: for any given machine, there is a decider out there that
must decide correctly on it. so, for any given machine there is a
method that does correctly decide on it without ever given any wrong
answers to any other machine (tho it may not give answers at times).
So? Of course there is a decider that gets it right, as one of the
deciders AlwaysSayHalts or AlwaysSaysNonhalting will be right, we just
don't know.
And, even if there is an always correct partial decider that gets it
right, it can't be part of that enumerable set, so we don't know to use it.
as a man, i'm not subject to having my output read and contradicted
like turing machine deciders are. i'm not subject to having to block
indefinitely because some input is pathological to me. and because
some method must exist that can correct decide on any given input... i
can know that method for any given input, and therefor i can decide on
any given input.
As a man, you are not bound by the rules of computations, so aren't
eligable to be entered as a solution for a computation problem.
So, all you are stating is you are too stupid to understand the nature
of the problem.
And, you CAN'T claim to know the mathod for any given input, as there
are an infinite number of inputs, but only finite knowledge.
I guess you have fallen for the Olcott trap of convinsing yourself that
you are God.
this is why i'm really starting to think the ct-thesis is cooked. you
say i can't do that because turing machines can't do that ... but
where's the proof that turing machine encompass all of computing? why
am i limited by the absolute nonsense that is turing machines
producing pathological input to themselves?
But the problem goes back to the fact that you are just showing you
don't understand what a computation is.
Yes, there is no "Proof" that Turing Machines encompass all of
computing, that is why CT is just a thesis and not a theorem. It has
shown itself to be correct for everything we have tried so far.
because turing machines *are* the fundamentals of computation??? but
again: that's just an assumption. we never proved it, yet here you are
treating it like unquestionable law.
that's the flaw bro, one we've been sitting on for almost a century. i
don't even have a proof to deconstruct, it's literally just an
assumption, so all i need to do is construct the scenarios where
something is obviously generally computable, but that computation
cannot be generally expressed thru a turing machine computation input/
ouput specification.
No, the problem is you don't understand what computating is, and thus,
just like Zeno, think you have come up with a paradox.
It SEEMS (to you) that this should be computable, but it turns out it
isn't.
The halting problem proof can be generalized to ANY computation
platform, and shown to be true.
furthermore this doesn't disprove a general algorithm backing the
partial deciders, all the general algorithm needs is a "self" input
which identifies the particular interface it's computing for. this
general algo for partial deciders will have three outputs: HALTS,
LOOPS, and PARADOX. when partial deciders receive PARADOX back from
their algo run they will then just loop forever to never respond.
Sure it does.
The problem is it doesn't get a "self" input, and by its nature. it
i'm defining the algo, so i say it does
Sorry, but you don't get to do that.
And the problem is that even being given a sample "self" input, doesn't
mean it can detect the other "self" that exists in the paradox input.
Or that doing so helps it get the right answer.
What ever answer you algorithm gives, will be wrong.
There is a right answer, just the opposite of the one the algorithm gives.
That doesn't make the name for that behavior "Paradox", it will still be
one of "Halting" or "Non-Halting", so the third answer can't be correct.
can't determine if the input is just using a computational equivalent
of itself that doesn't match its idea of what it looks like.
This FACT just breaks you concept, as you just assume you can detect
what is proven to be undetectable in full generality.
using the very paradox i'm trying to solve, so that's begging the
question. it's really kinda sad how much begging the question is going
on in the fundamental theory of computing
No. you algorithm begs the question by assuming you can compute
something uncomputable.
I guess your problem is you don't understand what an actual ALGORITHM is.
And, even if it CAN detect that the input is using a copy of itself,
that doesn't help it as it still can't get the right answer, and the
it's general algo to the partial deciders - all it needs to do is
either it returns PARADOX in which case the partial decider decides to
loop(), or maybe we can just extract that functionality into the
general partial algo itself...
But the "Halting Behavior" of the input isn't "PARADOX", so that can't
be a correct answer.
You don't seem to understand that LYING is just LYING and incorrect.
It seems that the result of your description is that ALL your partial deciders are going to just loop forever, and thus your claim that one of them will answer is just a lie.
pathological input based on your general algorithm effectively uses
copies of all the algorithms it enumerates, so NONE of them can give
the right answer.
yes i'm aware "interfaces" are complete descriptions of a partial
decider, and that's what i mean by passing in a self. the partial
decider must have a quine that allows it to recognize itself, and it
passes this into the general algo.
Nope, an "Interface" is NOT a complete description of ANY machine, so
you are just showing you are fundamentally incorrect in your basis.
You can't "run" and "interface", only an actual program that
implements it.
sure, but all the partial decider do is construct a self-reference
using a quine and pass that along with the input to a common backing
algorithm. all valid partial deciders will need accurate quines in
order to ascertain where their output feedbacks into affect the
prediction they are making.
But that is the problem, since the input uses the machine that is enumerating all those deciders, everyone (if they can detect themselves) will detect themselves and fail to answer.
and yes the partial deciders do contain full descriptions of the
common backing algo, but they still really do just act as an interface
to that common algo
they act like an exposed API/interface into the common algo
and thus the paradox input has the code to act counter to that common algorithm, and it can NEVER give the right answer.
"but i can loop over all partial deciders to produce a paradox" ...
uhh no you can't? traditional computing cannot iterate over all
functionally equivalent machines, so it certainly can't iterate over
all almost functionally equivalent machines, so you cannot claim to
produce a general paradox for the general algo as such a computation
is outside the scope of classical computing limits.
So, you just admitting you can't use an emumerated list of partial
deciders to get the answer.
which is fine, it's just not necessary
So, you are just admitting that your claim is based on needing to
compute the uncomputable, in other words, is just a lie.
Your enumerable set of partial deciders will just never give an answer,
and thus you can't say that some partial decider can answer for every possible input.
The pathological program doesn't need to enumerate the deciders, it
just needs to user what you make your final decider, which can only
partially enumerate the partial deciders.
it would in order to break the general algo across all self's. the
self acts as the fixed point of reference to which the decision is
made ... and while no fixed point can decide on all input, for any
given input there is a fixed point of self that can decide on that
input. and this can be encapsulated into a general algorithm that
encapsulated a general procedure even if any given fixed point of self
is not general.
No it doesn't, it uses the fact that your outer enumerator does it.
Your logic is based on LIES that you assume you can do it. But,
therefore a general algo exists, even if any particular fixed point of
decision making is contradicted.
Nope. Again, you logic is based on the fallacy of assuming the conclusion.
dear god, why is computing theory is such a shit show? cause we've
been almost blindly following what the forefathers of computing said?
No, YOU are the shit show because you don't understand that truth
exsits, but isn't always knowable. There ARE limits to what is
computable, as problem space grows faster than solution space.
--
i await to see how you purposefully misunderstand this
It seems you are the one that doesn't understand.
Programs can't CHANGE there behavior, they HAVE specific behavior
that depends on the input, and ALWAYS have that behavior for that input. >>>
The definition of a computation means it can't squirrel away the fact
that it was once used on this particular input, and needs to do
something different, which is what is needed to CHANGE their behavior.
i'm aware, i'm not really sure why ur reapting that
and i await ur further purposeful misunderstanding
Because you keep on trying to think of ways to get around that limitation.
And algorithm does what the algorithm does, and can't change itself.
IF what the algorithm does is just give the wrong answer to a problem,
we can't say that the right answer doesn't exist just because a
DIFFERENT problem based on a DIFFERENT algorithm gives a different answer.
No machine has "Paradoxical" halting behavior as its specific behavior.
It might be described as contrary to a given instance of a general algorithm, but all that shows was that algorithm was WRONG, as it still
had specific behavior as to its actual behavior.
On 1/13/26 4:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/12/26 11:21 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/12/26 7:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/12/26 5:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/12/26 4:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/26 10:03 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/6/26 5:26 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2026 1:47 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/5/26 4:24 PM, Oleksiy Gapotchenko wrote:
Just an external observation:
A lot of tech innovations in software optimization area get >>>>>>>>>> discarded from the very beginning because people who work on >>>>>>>>>> them perceive the halting problem as a dogma. As result,
certain practical things (in code analysis) are not even tried >>>>>>>>>> because it's assumed that they are bound by the halting problem. >>>>>>>>>>
In practice, however, the halting problem is rarely a
limitation. And even when one hits it, they can safely discard >>>>>>>>>> a particular analysis branch by marking it as inconclusive. >>>>>>>>>>
Halting problem for sure can be better framed to not sound as >>>>>>>>>> a dogma, at least. In practice, algorithmic inconclusiveness >>>>>>>>>> has 0.001 probability, not a 100% guarantee as many engineers >>>>>>>>>> perceive it.
god it's been such a mind-fuck to unpack the halting problem, >>>>>>>>>
but the halting problem does not mean that no algorithm exists >>>>>>>>> for any given machine, just that a "general" decider does not >>>>>>>>> exist for all machiens ...
heck it must be certain that for any given machine there must >>>>>>>>> exist a partial decider that can decide on it ... because
otherwise a paradox would have to address all possible partial >>>>>>>>> deciders in a computable fashion and that runs up against it's >>>>>>>>> own limit to classical computing. therefore some true decider >>>>>>>>> must exist for any given machine that exists ... we just can't >>>>>>>>> funnel the knowledge thru a general interface.
For every H there is a D such that D does the opposite
of whatever H reports. In this case use H1 on this D.
yes, the inability to correctly resolve halting thru a singular >>>>>>> interface is a flaw of TM computing, not an inherent algorithmic >>>>>>> limit
Nope, because the proof doesn't actually need to talk about HOW
the decider actually made its decision, and thus not limited to
Turing Machines.
All it needs is that the decider be limited by the rules of a
computation.
All the arguements against the proof seem to begin with the error >>>>>> that the decider can be changed after the fact and such change
changes the input to match, but that breaks the fundamental
property of computations, that they are fixed algorithms
The proof shows that the SPECIFIC decider that the input was made >>>>>> from will get the wrong answer, and we can make such an input for >>>>>> ANY specific decider, and thus no decider can get all answers
correct.
That the input HAS a correct answer (just the opposite of what
that specific decider gives) shows that there IS a correct answer, >>>>>> so there is nothing wrong about the question of its halting, and
thus a non- answer like "its behavior is contrary" is valid.
Everyone trying to make the arguements just shows they don't
understand the basics of what a computation is.
missed ya dick!
given that deciders are inherently part of the execution path they
are deciding on ... ofc deciders can modify their behavior based on >>>>> an input which they are included within, like they can modify their >>>>> behavior based on the properties of the input.
No, that behavior had to always have been in them, and thus seen by
the "pathological" input.
this is how partial deciders can intelligently block on responding
to input that cannot be answered thru their particular interface.
i'm not aware of any method that can prove a partial decider can't
be more efficient that brute force, because again, they can block
when encountering a paradox specific to their interface.
How does "brute force" determine non-halting?
well it does for the halting computations (bounded time, bounded space), >>>
and proper infinite loops (unbounded time, bounded space),
just not runaway infinite computation (unbounded time, unbounded space)
Which exist and is a form of non-halting.
Yes, Non-Turing Complete systems, with bounded space, are Halt Decidable
infinite loops in turing complete system are also fully enumerable just
like halting machines are. they will always result in repeat
configurations, and this is decidable within an unbounded amount of time using brute force.
with simple deciders as long as the decider is allowed to be
sufficiently bigger than the program it is deciding on. That has been
known for a long time, but isn't an exception to the Halting Problem,
as it doesn't meet the basic requirements.
And nothing in the theory disagrees with partial halt deciders
existing, they just can NEVER give an answer to the pathological
program based on them, as if they give an answer, it will be wrong.
which means: for any given machine, there is a decider out there that
must decide correctly on it. so, for any given machine there is a
method that does correctly decide on it without ever given any wrong
answers to any other machine (tho it may not give answers at times).
So? Of course there is a decider that gets it right, as one of the
deciders AlwaysSayHalts or AlwaysSaysNonhalting will be right, we just
don't know.
those are not valid partial deciders, why are you still bringing up red herrings?
And, even if there is an always correct partial decider that gets it
right, it can't be part of that enumerable set, so we don't know to
use it.
and where's the proof i must enumerate all partial deciders in order to
know it for any given machine???
as a man, i'm not subject to having my output read and contradicted
like turing machine deciders are. i'm not subject to having to block
indefinitely because some input is pathological to me. and because
some method must exist that can correct decide on any given input...
i can know that method for any given input, and therefor i can decide
on any given input.
As a man, you are not bound by the rules of computations, so aren't
eligable to be entered as a solution for a computation problem.
why am i not bound by the rules of computation when performing valid computation?
So, all you are stating is you are too stupid to understand the nature
of the problem.
And, you CAN'T claim to know the mathod for any given input, as there
are an infinite number of inputs, but only finite knowledge.
or i can algorithmically determine the correct method upon receiving the input ...
I guess you have fallen for the Olcott trap of convinsing yourself
that you are God.
this is why i'm really starting to think the ct-thesis is cooked. you
say i can't do that because turing machines can't do that ... but
where's the proof that turing machine encompass all of computing? why
am i limited by the absolute nonsense that is turing machines
producing pathological input to themselves?
But the problem goes back to the fact that you are just showing you
don't understand what a computation is.
red herrings and now gaslighting
Yes, there is no "Proof" that Turing Machines encompass all of
computing, that is why CT is just a thesis and not a theorem. It has
shown itself to be correct for everything we have tried so far.
there we go, u don't have proof yet u keep asserting it's a law because
a bandwagon has convinced u
because turing machines *are* the fundamentals of computation??? but
again: that's just an assumption. we never proved it, yet here you
are treating it like unquestionable law.
that's the flaw bro, one we've been sitting on for almost a century.
i don't even have a proof to deconstruct, it's literally just an
assumption, so all i need to do is construct the scenarios where
something is obviously generally computable, but that computation
cannot be generally expressed thru a turing machine computation
input/ ouput specification.
No, the problem is you don't understand what computating is, and thus,
just like Zeno, think you have come up with a paradox.
It SEEMS (to you) that this should be computable, but it turns out it
isn't.
heck it even is computable, just not from a fixed point of reference
The halting problem proof can be generalized to ANY computation
platform, and shown to be true.
furthermore this doesn't disprove a general algorithm backing the
partial deciders, all the general algorithm needs is a "self" input >>>>> which identifies the particular interface it's computing for. this
general algo for partial deciders will have three outputs: HALTS,
LOOPS, and PARADOX. when partial deciders receive PARADOX back from >>>>> their algo run they will then just loop forever to never respond.
Sure it does.
The problem is it doesn't get a "self" input, and by its nature. it
i'm defining the algo, so i say it does
Sorry, but you don't get to do that.
And the problem is that even being given a sample "self" input,
doesn't mean it can detect the other "self" that exists in the paradox
input.
again circular logic
Or that doing so helps it get the right answer.
What ever answer you algorithm gives, will be wrong.
There is a right answer, just the opposite of the one the algorithm
gives.
That doesn't make the name for that behavior "Paradox", it will still
be one of "Halting" or "Non-Halting", so the third answer can't be
correct.
can't determine if the input is just using a computational
equivalent of itself that doesn't match its idea of what it looks like. >>>>
This FACT just breaks you concept, as you just assume you can detect
what is proven to be undetectable in full generality.
using the very paradox i'm trying to solve, so that's begging the
question. it's really kinda sad how much begging the question is
going on in the fundamental theory of computing
No. you algorithm begs the question by assuming you can compute
something uncomputable.
i'm showing how it being computable can co-exist with pathological
input. i realize ur not honest enough of a person to acknowledge what my actual argument is, but that's because if u started acknowledge i'm
right about things ur haunted house of cards goes tumbling down
I guess your problem is you don't understand what an actual ALGORITHM is.
gaslighting again, why u must argue like a child?
And, even if it CAN detect that the input is using a copy of itself,
that doesn't help it as it still can't get the right answer, and the
it's general algo to the partial deciders - all it needs to do is
either it returns PARADOX in which case the partial decider decides
to loop(), or maybe we can just extract that functionality into the
general partial algo itself...
But the "Halting Behavior" of the input isn't "PARADOX", so that can't
be a correct answer.
it's correct from the fixed point of the decision, or we can just block.
You don't seem to understand that LYING is just LYING and incorrect.
unfortunately turing machines are not powerful enough of a computation paradigm to fit the pigeonhole fallacy ur now making
this is a problem with assuming the CT-thesis is correct.
It seems that the result of your description is that ALL your partial
deciders are going to just loop forever, and thus your claim that one
of them will answer is just a lie.
no
pathological input based on your general algorithm effectively uses
copies of all the algorithms it enumerates, so NONE of them can give
the right answer.
yes i'm aware "interfaces" are complete descriptions of a partial
decider, and that's what i mean by passing in a self. the partial
decider must have a quine that allows it to recognize itself, and
it passes this into the general algo.
Nope, an "Interface" is NOT a complete description of ANY machine,
so you are just showing you are fundamentally incorrect in your basis. >>>>
You can't "run" and "interface", only an actual program that
implements it.
sure, but all the partial decider do is construct a self-reference
using a quine and pass that along with the input to a common backing
algorithm. all valid partial deciders will need accurate quines in
order to ascertain where their output feedbacks into affect the
prediction they are making.
But that is the problem, since the input uses the machine that is
enumerating all those deciders, everyone (if they can detect
themselves) will detect themselves and fail to answer.
no it's not
and yes the partial deciders do contain full descriptions of the
common backing algo, but they still really do just act as an
interface to that common algo
they act like an exposed API/interface into the common algo
and thus the paradox input has the code to act counter to that common
algorithm, and it can NEVER give the right answer.
it doesn't counter a general algo that decides across all fixed points,
the pathological input can only counter a subset of fixed points under classical limitations to computing.
"but i can loop over all partial deciders to produce a paradox" ... >>>>> uhh no you can't? traditional computing cannot iterate over all
functionally equivalent machines, so it certainly can't iterate
over all almost functionally equivalent machines, so you cannot
claim to produce a general paradox for the general algo as such a
computation is outside the scope of classical computing limits.
So, you just admitting you can't use an emumerated list of partial
deciders to get the answer.
which is fine, it's just not necessary
So, you are just admitting that your claim is based on needing to
compute the uncomputable, in other words, is just a lie.
i'm saying the total enumeration is not necessary
Your enumerable set of partial deciders will just never give an
answer, and thus you can't say that some partial decider can answer
for every possible input.
The pathological program doesn't need to enumerate the deciders, it
just needs to user what you make your final decider, which can only
partially enumerate the partial deciders.
it would in order to break the general algo across all self's. the
self acts as the fixed point of reference to which the decision is
made ... and while no fixed point can decide on all input, for any
given input there is a fixed point of self that can decide on that
input. and this can be encapsulated into a general algorithm that
encapsulated a general procedure even if any given fixed point of
self is not general.
No it doesn't, it uses the fact that your outer enumerator does it.
Your logic is based on LIES that you assume you can do it. But,
therefore a general algo exists, even if any particular fixed point
of decision making is contradicted.
Nope. Again, you logic is based on the fallacy of assuming the
conclusion.
beating up that straw man, keep up the good work!
dear god, why is computing theory is such a shit show? cause we've
been almost blindly following what the forefathers of computing said?
No, YOU are the shit show because you don't understand that truth
exsits, but isn't always knowable. There ARE limits to what is
computable, as problem space grows faster than solution space.
how many fallacies have i identified in ur arguments? like 6 just in
this one?
ur just as garbage as polcott tbh
i await to see how you purposefully misunderstand this
It seems you are the one that doesn't understand.
Programs can't CHANGE there behavior, they HAVE specific behavior
that depends on the input, and ALWAYS have that behavior for that
input.
The definition of a computation means it can't squirrel away the
fact that it was once used on this particular input, and needs to do
something different, which is what is needed to CHANGE their behavior.
i'm aware, i'm not really sure why ur reapting that
and i await ur further purposeful misunderstanding
Because you keep on trying to think of ways to get around that
limitation.
And algorithm does what the algorithm does, and can't change itself.
IF what the algorithm does is just give the wrong answer to a problem,
we can't say that the right answer doesn't exist just because a
DIFFERENT problem based on a DIFFERENT algorithm gives a different
answer.
No machine has "Paradoxical" halting behavior as its specific
behavior. It might be described as contrary to a given instance of a
general algorithm, but all that shows was that algorithm was WRONG, as
it still had specific behavior as to its actual behavior.
On 1/13/26 3:33 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/13/26 4:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/12/26 11:21 PM, dart200 wrote:infinite loops in turing complete system are also fully enumerable
On 1/12/26 7:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Which exist and is a form of non-halting.
On 1/12/26 5:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/12/26 4:06 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/6/26 10:03 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/6/26 5:26 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2026 1:47 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/5/26 4:24 PM, Oleksiy Gapotchenko wrote:
Just an external observation:
A lot of tech innovations in software optimization area get >>>>>>>>>>> discarded from the very beginning because people who work on >>>>>>>>>>> them perceive the halting problem as a dogma. As result, >>>>>>>>>>> certain practical things (in code analysis) are not even >>>>>>>>>>> tried because it's assumed that they are bound by the halting >>>>>>>>>>> problem.
In practice, however, the halting problem is rarely a
limitation. And even when one hits it, they can safely
discard a particular analysis branch by marking it as
inconclusive.
Halting problem for sure can be better framed to not sound as >>>>>>>>>>> a dogma, at least. In practice, algorithmic inconclusiveness >>>>>>>>>>> has 0.001 probability, not a 100% guarantee as many engineers >>>>>>>>>>> perceive it.
god it's been such a mind-fuck to unpack the halting problem, >>>>>>>>>>
but the halting problem does not mean that no algorithm exists >>>>>>>>>> for any given machine, just that a "general" decider does not >>>>>>>>>> exist for all machiens ...
heck it must be certain that for any given machine there must >>>>>>>>>> exist a partial decider that can decide on it ... because >>>>>>>>>> otherwise a paradox would have to address all possible partial >>>>>>>>>> deciders in a computable fashion and that runs up against it's >>>>>>>>>> own limit to classical computing. therefore some true decider >>>>>>>>>> must exist for any given machine that exists ... we just can't >>>>>>>>>> funnel the knowledge thru a general interface.
For every H there is a D such that D does the opposite
of whatever H reports. In this case use H1 on this D.
yes, the inability to correctly resolve halting thru a singular >>>>>>>> interface is a flaw of TM computing, not an inherent algorithmic >>>>>>>> limit
Nope, because the proof doesn't actually need to talk about HOW >>>>>>> the decider actually made its decision, and thus not limited to >>>>>>> Turing Machines.
All it needs is that the decider be limited by the rules of a
computation.
All the arguements against the proof seem to begin with the error >>>>>>> that the decider can be changed after the fact and such change
changes the input to match, but that breaks the fundamental
property of computations, that they are fixed algorithms
The proof shows that the SPECIFIC decider that the input was made >>>>>>> from will get the wrong answer, and we can make such an input for >>>>>>> ANY specific decider, and thus no decider can get all answers
correct.
That the input HAS a correct answer (just the opposite of what
that specific decider gives) shows that there IS a correct
answer, so there is nothing wrong about the question of its
halting, and thus a non- answer like "its behavior is contrary" >>>>>>> is valid.
Everyone trying to make the arguements just shows they don't
understand the basics of what a computation is.
missed ya dick!
given that deciders are inherently part of the execution path they >>>>>> are deciding on ... ofc deciders can modify their behavior based
on an input which they are included within, like they can modify
their behavior based on the properties of the input.
No, that behavior had to always have been in them, and thus seen by >>>>> the "pathological" input.
this is how partial deciders can intelligently block on responding >>>>>> to input that cannot be answered thru their particular interface.
i'm not aware of any method that can prove a partial decider can't >>>>>> be more efficient that brute force, because again, they can block >>>>>> when encountering a paradox specific to their interface.
How does "brute force" determine non-halting?
well it does for the halting computations (bounded time, bounded
space),
and proper infinite loops (unbounded time, bounded space),
just not runaway infinite computation (unbounded time, unbounded space) >>>
Yes, Non-Turing Complete systems, with bounded space, are Halt Decidable >>
just like halting machines are. they will always result in repeat
configurations, and this is decidable within an unbounded amount of
time using brute force.
You seem to confuse "enumerable" with effectively enumerable.
Enumerable means that via the process of the Axiom of Choice, some enumeration is possible to be found. Doing this might require having a
"God Function" to determine if a given candidate is part of the set.
Just because an infinite set is enumberable, doesn't mean that you CAN create that set in a computation.
While the looping machines are enumerable, that doesn't mean you can generate a set of all such machines.
Unless you can actually SHOW how to DECIDE on this, in countable
unbounded time, you can't claim it.
THe problem is that while N is enumerable, and N^k is enumberable, 2^N
is not.
Your problem is you can't tell when you have simulated a machine long
enough to say that it is no longer a bounded space machine, and thus "looping" is not deciable, only recognizable.
with simple deciders as long as the decider is allowed to be
sufficiently bigger than the program it is deciding on. That has been
known for a long time, but isn't an exception to the Halting Problem,
as it doesn't meet the basic requirements.
And nothing in the theory disagrees with partial halt deciders
existing, they just can NEVER give an answer to the pathological
program based on them, as if they give an answer, it will be wrong.
which means: for any given machine, there is a decider out there
that must decide correctly on it. so, for any given machine there is
a method that does correctly decide on it without ever given any
wrong answers to any other machine (tho it may not give answers at
times).
So? Of course there is a decider that gets it right, as one of the
deciders AlwaysSayHalts or AlwaysSaysNonhalting will be right, we
just don't know.
those are not valid partial deciders, why are you still bringing up
red herrings?
Because you keep on trying to assert them.
You claim that for any given machine, there must be a machine to
correctxl decide it.
If you don't mean those trivial decider, PROVE your claim. You just
assert without any proof.
Note, perhaps you are overlooking the implied requirement, we must KNOW
that it is correct for that input, otherwise we get to the trivial
variation of the above, that check if it is THIS machine, and if so one
says halting and the other says non-halting, and if it is any other
machine, just keep looping.
I hope you admit that this would not be a valid answer to you claim.
And, even if there is an always correct partial decider that gets it
right, it can't be part of that enumerable set, so we don't know to
use it.
and where's the proof i must enumerate all partial deciders in order
to know it for any given machine???
as a man, i'm not subject to having my output read and contradicted
like turing machine deciders are. i'm not subject to having to block
indefinitely because some input is pathological to me. and because
some method must exist that can correct decide on any given input...
i can know that method for any given input, and therefor i can
decide on any given input.
As a man, you are not bound by the rules of computations, so aren't
eligable to be entered as a solution for a computation problem.
why am i not bound by the rules of computation when performing valid
computation?
Because you are not fixed and deterministic. If I can't build a
computation on you, you are not a computation, as that is one of the fundamentals of a computation.
So, all you are stating is you are too stupid to understand the
nature of the problem.
And, you CAN'T claim to know the mathod for any given input, as there
are an infinite number of inputs, but only finite knowledge.
or i can algorithmically determine the correct method upon receiving
the input ...
"Get the correct answer" is not an algorithm, and resorting to it just
shows you don't know what you are talking about.
You "logic" is apparently still based on lying to yourself that you can
do it, believing that lie, and then living in your stupidity,.
If you could algorithmically determine the correct method, then the
input could have done the same algorithm to determine the method you
will uses, and then break that result.
All you are doing is showing you don't understand what algorithmic means.
I guess you have fallen for the Olcott trap of convinsing yourself
that you are God.
this is why i'm really starting to think the ct-thesis is cooked.
you say i can't do that because turing machines can't do that ...
but where's the proof that turing machine encompass all of
computing? why am i limited by the absolute nonsense that is turing
machines producing pathological input to themselves?
But the problem goes back to the fact that you are just showing you
don't understand what a computation is.
red herrings and now gaslighting
Nope, as you keep on making statements that are just incorrect about computations.
Name calling rather than showing the actual error just shows that you
are out of lies to use.
Yes, there is no "Proof" that Turing Machines encompass all of
computing, that is why CT is just a thesis and not a theorem. It has
shown itself to be correct for everything we have tried so far.
there we go, u don't have proof yet u keep asserting it's a law
because a bandwagon has convinced u
The "Halting Problem" is specifically written about Turing Machines, and thus doesn't depend on CT.
On the assumption of CT, it can be extended to all computations.
Since no no method of compuation has been found that allows us to
COMPUTE beyond what a Turing Machine can do, means as far as we know the
generalization holds.
Note, what is a "Compuation" is rigidly defined, and isn't done by
reference to a Turing Machine. This includes that an algorithm that
performs a computation is based on a series of finitely and deterministically defined operations. This means that given a specific input, that algorithm will ALWAYS produce the same results.
because turing machines *are* the fundamentals of computation??? but
again: that's just an assumption. we never proved it, yet here you
are treating it like unquestionable law.
that's the flaw bro, one we've been sitting on for almost a century.
i don't even have a proof to deconstruct, it's literally just an
assumption, so all i need to do is construct the scenarios where
something is obviously generally computable, but that computation
cannot be generally expressed thru a turing machine computation
input/ ouput specification.
No, the problem is you don't understand what computating is, and
thus, just like Zeno, think you have come up with a paradox.
It SEEMS (to you) that this should be computable, but it turns out it
isn't.
heck it even is computable, just not from a fixed point of reference
That doesn't make sense, since compuations are fixed.
All you are doing is showing you just don't fundamentally understand
what compuation is about, perhaps because you (like Olcott) think that 'algorithms' can actually 'think' or 'decide' rather than just 'compute'.
The halting problem proof can be generalized to ANY computation
platform, and shown to be true.
furthermore this doesn't disprove a general algorithm backing the >>>>>> partial deciders, all the general algorithm needs is a "self"
input which identifies the particular interface it's computing
for. this general algo for partial deciders will have three
outputs: HALTS, LOOPS, and PARADOX. when partial deciders receive >>>>>> PARADOX back from their algo run they will then just loop forever >>>>>> to never respond.
Sure it does.
The problem is it doesn't get a "self" input, and by its nature. it
i'm defining the algo, so i say it does
Sorry, but you don't get to do that.
And the problem is that even being given a sample "self" input,
doesn't mean it can detect the other "self" that exists in the
paradox input.
again circular logic
Really? Try to show it wrong.
Give the definite algorithm that can detect its functional equivalent in
the paradox input.
Or that doing so helps it get the right answer.
What ever answer you algorithm gives, will be wrong.
There is a right answer, just the opposite of the one the algorithm
gives.
That doesn't make the name for that behavior "Paradox", it will still
be one of "Halting" or "Non-Halting", so the third answer can't be
correct.
can't determine if the input is just using a computational
equivalent of itself that doesn't match its idea of what it looks
like.
This FACT just breaks you concept, as you just assume you can
detect what is proven to be undetectable in full generality.
using the very paradox i'm trying to solve, so that's begging the
question. it's really kinda sad how much begging the question is
going on in the fundamental theory of computing
No. you algorithm begs the question by assuming you can compute
something uncomputable.
i'm showing how it being computable can co-exist with pathological
input. i realize ur not honest enough of a person to acknowledge what
my actual argument is, but that's because if u started acknowledge i'm
right about things ur haunted house of cards goes tumbling down
No, you assume it is computable, and show that given that false
assumption you can show that it should be.
This is why you can't actually present your "base algorithm" because you need to keep changing it to handle the pathological input that gets to
know your algorithm.
I guess your problem is you don't understand what an actual ALGORITHM
is.
gaslighting again, why u must argue like a child?
No, it seems it is YOU that has been inhaling too much gas.
Since you clearly can't show what you claim.
And, even if it CAN detect that the input is using a copy of
itself, that doesn't help it as it still can't get the right
answer, and the
it's general algo to the partial deciders - all it needs to do is
either it returns PARADOX in which case the partial decider decides
to loop(), or maybe we can just extract that functionality into the
general partial algo itself...
But the "Halting Behavior" of the input isn't "PARADOX", so that
can't be a correct answer.
it's correct from the fixed point of the decision, or we can just block.
Nope. There is no halting behavior of "Paradox". As all machines either
halt or not.
The best you can do is not answer, but that doesn't help you, as you end
up not answering to a lot of inputs.
You don't seem to understand that LYING is just LYING and incorrect.
unfortunately turing machines are not powerful enough of a computation
paradigm to fit the pigeonhole fallacy ur now making
They are the most powerful machines we know of, so I guess you are just saying that we don't know how to actually compute.
this is a problem with assuming the CT-thesis is correct.
No, your fallacy is assuming it is incorrect, and that you have an
unknown system that is better.
You WANT there to be something better, and if you could actually create
one, the world might beat a path to your door (or try to annalate you
for breaking too many existing systems).
It was thought that Quantum Computing might do it, but so far we haven't found it able to do anything unique, just do somethings that were know
to be computable, just impractical.
It seems that the result of your description is that ALL your partial
deciders are going to just loop forever, and thus your claim that one
of them will answer is just a lie.
no
So, which of your deciders is going to answer for the unbounded space machine that has no decernable patterns in its growth?
pathological input based on your general algorithm effectively uses >>>>> copies of all the algorithms it enumerates, so NONE of them can
give the right answer.
yes i'm aware "interfaces" are complete descriptions of a partial >>>>>> decider, and that's what i mean by passing in a self. the partial >>>>>> decider must have a quine that allows it to recognize itself, and >>>>>> it passes this into the general algo.
Nope, an "Interface" is NOT a complete description of ANY machine,
so you are just showing you are fundamentally incorrect in your basis. >>>>>
You can't "run" and "interface", only an actual program that
implements it.
sure, but all the partial decider do is construct a self-reference
using a quine and pass that along with the input to a common backing
algorithm. all valid partial deciders will need accurate quines in
order to ascertain where their output feedbacks into affect the
prediction they are making.
But that is the problem, since the input uses the machine that is
enumerating all those deciders, everyone (if they can detect
themselves) will detect themselves and fail to answer.
no it's not
and yes the partial deciders do contain full descriptions of the
common backing algo, but they still really do just act as an
interface to that common algo
they act like an exposed API/interface into the common algo
and thus the paradox input has the code to act counter to that common
algorithm, and it can NEVER give the right answer.
it doesn't counter a general algo that decides across all fixed
points, the pathological input can only counter a subset of fixed
points under classical limitations to computing.
No such thing.
The problem is that the "pathological input" isn't the only input that causes problems, just a simple to show one.
There are other problems (like Busy Beaver) that are shown to be fundamentally uncomputable, and thus can be a base for making halting undecidable.
"but i can loop over all partial deciders to produce a
paradox" ... uhh no you can't? traditional computing cannot
iterate over all functionally equivalent machines, so it certainly >>>>>> can't iterate over all almost functionally equivalent machines, so >>>>>> you cannot claim to produce a general paradox for the general algo >>>>>> as such a computation is outside the scope of classical computing >>>>>> limits.
So, you just admitting you can't use an emumerated list of partial
deciders to get the answer.
which is fine, it's just not necessary
So, you are just admitting that your claim is based on needing to
compute the uncomputable, in other words, is just a lie.
i'm saying the total enumeration is not necessary
But just ASSUMING you can find the right one, IF it exists.
Maybe you can say that all machines of the given pathological structure
of the proof can be decided by some other partial decider, that is a
very different thing than that ALL machines can be decided by some
partial decider.
Your enumerable set of partial deciders will just never give an
answer, and thus you can't say that some partial decider can answer
for every possible input.
The pathological program doesn't need to enumerate the deciders, it >>>>> just needs to user what you make your final decider, which can only >>>>> partially enumerate the partial deciders.
it would in order to break the general algo across all self's. the
self acts as the fixed point of reference to which the decision is
made ... and while no fixed point can decide on all input, for any
given input there is a fixed point of self that can decide on that
input. and this can be encapsulated into a general algorithm that
encapsulated a general procedure even if any given fixed point of
self is not general.
No it doesn't, it uses the fact that your outer enumerator does it.
Your logic is based on LIES that you assume you can do it. But,
therefore a general algo exists, even if any particular fixed point
of decision making is contradicted.
Nope. Again, you logic is based on the fallacy of assuming the
conclusion.
beating up that straw man, keep up the good work!
dear god, why is computing theory is such a shit show? cause we've
been almost blindly following what the forefathers of computing said?
No, YOU are the shit show because you don't understand that truth
exsits, but isn't always knowable. There ARE limits to what is
computable, as problem space grows faster than solution space.
how many fallacies have i identified in ur arguments? like 6 just in
this one?
ur just as garbage as polcott tbh
Pot calling the kettle black.
You are still showing that you don't know what compuations actually are,
as it seems your thesis is that there must be a system more powerful
than Turing Machines, even if you have no idea how it would work,
i await to see how you purposefully misunderstand this
It seems you are the one that doesn't understand.
Programs can't CHANGE there behavior, they HAVE specific behavior
that depends on the input, and ALWAYS have that behavior for that
input.
The definition of a computation means it can't squirrel away the
fact that it was once used on this particular input, and needs to
do something different, which is what is needed to CHANGE their
behavior.
i'm aware, i'm not really sure why ur reapting that
and i await ur further purposeful misunderstanding
Because you keep on trying to think of ways to get around that
limitation.
And algorithm does what the algorithm does, and can't change itself.
IF what the algorithm does is just give the wrong answer to a
problem, we can't say that the right answer doesn't exist just
because a DIFFERENT problem based on a DIFFERENT algorithm gives a
different answer.
No machine has "Paradoxical" halting behavior as its specific
behavior. It might be described as contrary to a given instance of a
general algorithm, but all that shows was that algorithm was WRONG,
as it still had specific behavior as to its actual behavior.
bro stick a giant dildo up ur asshole u hypocritical fuckface...
when i tried to suggest improvements to the computational model, like
RTMs, u then told me i *can't* do that because muh ct-thesis, and here u
are crying about how no superior method has been found as if u'd ever
even tried to look past the ct-thesis...
On 1/15/26 7:23 AM, dart200 wrote:
bro stick a giant dildo up ur asshole u hypocritical fuckface...
when i tried to suggest improvements to the computational model, like
RTMs, u then told me i *can't* do that because muh ct-thesis, and here
u are crying about how no superior method has been found as if u'd
ever even tried to look past the ct-thesis...
No, you didn't suggest improvements to the model, you just showed you
don't knoww what that means.
You don't get to change what a "computation" is, that isn't part of the "model".
The model would be the format of the machine, and while your RTM might
be a type of machine that could be thought of, they don't do
COMPUTATIONS, as it violates the basic rules of what a compuation IS.
Computations are specific algorithms acting on just the input data.
A fundamental property needed to reach at least Turing Complete ability,
is the ability to cascade algorithms.
Your RTM break that capability, and thus become less than Turing Complete.
And, any algorithm that actually USES their capability to detect if they have been nested will become incorrect as a decider, as a decider is a machine that computes a specific mapping of its input to its output, and
if that result changes in the submachine, only one of the answers it
gives (as a stand-alone, or as the sub-machine) can be right, so you
just show that it gave a wrong answer.
This is sort of like the problem with a RASP machine architecture, sub- machines on such a platform are not necessarily computations, if they
use the machines capability to pass information not allowed by the rules
of a computation. Your RTM similarly break that property.
Remember, Computations are NOT just what some model of processing
produce, but specifically is defined based on producing a specific
mapping of input to output, so if (even as a sub-machine) a specific
input might produce different output, your architecture is NOT doing a computation.
And without that property, using what the machine could do, becomes a
pretty worthless criteria, as you can't actually talk much about it.
On 1/15/26 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/15/26 7:23 AM, dart200 wrote:
bro stick a giant dildo up ur asshole u hypocritical fuckface...
when i tried to suggest improvements to the computational model, like
RTMs, u then told me i *can't* do that because muh ct-thesis, and
here u are crying about how no superior method has been found as if
u'd ever even tried to look past the ct-thesis...
No, you didn't suggest improvements to the model, you just showed you
don't knoww what that means.
You don't get to change what a "computation" is, that isn't part of
the "model".
you honestly could have just said that cause the rest of this is just u repeating urself as if that makes it more correct
The model would be the format of the machine, and while your RTM might
be a type of machine that could be thought of, they don't do
COMPUTATIONS, as it violates the basic rules of what a compuation IS.
Computations are specific algorithms acting on just the input data.
A fundamental property needed to reach at least Turing Complete
ability, is the ability to cascade algorithms.
Your RTM break that capability, and thus become less than Turing
Complete.
i'm sorry, RTMs are literally just TMs with one added instruction that
dumps static meta-data + copies tape ... how have they *lost* power with that??? clearly they can express anything that TMs can ...
And, any algorithm that actually USES their capability to detect if
they have been nested will become incorrect as a decider, as a decider
is a machine that computes a specific mapping of its input to its
output, and if that result changes in the submachine, only one of the
answers it gives (as a stand-alone, or as the sub-machine) can be
right, so you just show that it gave a wrong answer.
u have proof that doesn't work yet you keep asserting this is the "one
true way". seems like u just enjoy shooting urself in the foot, with the only actual rational way being it's just the "one true way"
This is sort of like the problem with a RASP machine architecture,
sub- machines on such a platform are not necessarily computations, if
they use the machines capability to pass information not allowed by
the rules of a computation. Your RTM similarly break that property.
Remember, Computations are NOT just what some model of processing
produce, but specifically is defined based on producing a specific
mapping of input to output, so if (even as a sub-machine) a specific
input might produce different output, your architecture is NOT doing a
computation.
And without that property, using what the machine could do, becomes a
pretty worthless criteria, as you can't actually talk much about it.
the output is still well-defined and deterministic at runtime,
context-dependent computations are still computations. the fact TMs
don't capture them is an indication that the ct-thesis may be false
On 1/16/26 4:08 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/15/26 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/15/26 7:23 AM, dart200 wrote:
bro stick a giant dildo up ur asshole u hypocritical fuckface...
when i tried to suggest improvements to the computational model,
like RTMs, u then told me i *can't* do that because muh ct-thesis,
and here u are crying about how no superior method has been found as
if u'd ever even tried to look past the ct-thesis...
No, you didn't suggest improvements to the model, you just showed you
don't knoww what that means.
You don't get to change what a "computation" is, that isn't part of
the "model".
you honestly could have just said that cause the rest of this is just
u repeating urself as if that makes it more correct
But I HAVE said it that simply, and you rejected it as you think you get
to,
The model would be the format of the machine, and while your RTM
might be a type of machine that could be thought of, they don't do
COMPUTATIONS, as it violates the basic rules of what a compuation IS.
Computations are specific algorithms acting on just the input data.
A fundamental property needed to reach at least Turing Complete
ability, is the ability to cascade algorithms.
Your RTM break that capability, and thus become less than Turing
Complete.
i'm sorry, RTMs are literally just TMs with one added instruction that
dumps static meta-data + copies tape ... how have they *lost* power
with that??? clearly they can express anything that TMs can ...
Which means you don't understand how "TM"s work, as they don't have that sort of "instructions".
And, any algorithm that actually USES their capability to detect if
they have been nested will become incorrect as a decider, as a
decider is a machine that computes a specific mapping of its input to
its output, and if that result changes in the submachine, only one of
the answers it gives (as a stand-alone, or as the sub-machine) can be
right, so you just show that it gave a wrong answer.
u have proof that doesn't work yet you keep asserting this is the "one
true way". seems like u just enjoy shooting urself in the foot, with
the only actual rational way being it's just the "one true way"
IT IS DEFINITION. Something you don't seem to understand.
"Computation" is NOT defined by what some machine does, that is
algorithms and results. "Computation" is the mapping generated by it,
which MUST be a specific mapping of input to output.
This is sort of like the problem with a RASP machine architecture,
sub- machines on such a platform are not necessarily computations, if
they use the machines capability to pass information not allowed by
the rules of a computation. Your RTM similarly break that property.
Remember, Computations are NOT just what some model of processing
produce, but specifically is defined based on producing a specific
mapping of input to output, so if (even as a sub-machine) a specific
input might produce different output, your architecture is NOT doing
a computation.
And without that property, using what the machine could do, becomes a
pretty worthless criteria, as you can't actually talk much about it.
the output is still well-defined and deterministic at runtime,
Not from the "input" to the piece of algorithm, as it includes "hidden" state from outside that input stored elsewhere in the machine.
context-dependent computations are still computations. the fact TMs
don't capture them is an indication that the ct-thesis may be false
Nope. Not unless the "context" is made part of the "input", and if you
do that, you find that since you are trying to make it so the caller
can't just define that context, your system is less than turing complete.
Your system break to property of building a computation by the
concatination of sub-computations.
On 1/16/26 8:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/16/26 4:08 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/15/26 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/15/26 7:23 AM, dart200 wrote:
bro stick a giant dildo up ur asshole u hypocritical fuckface...
when i tried to suggest improvements to the computational model,
like RTMs, u then told me i *can't* do that because muh ct-thesis,
and here u are crying about how no superior method has been found
as if u'd ever even tried to look past the ct-thesis...
No, you didn't suggest improvements to the model, you just showed
you don't knoww what that means.
You don't get to change what a "computation" is, that isn't part of
the "model".
you honestly could have just said that cause the rest of this is just
u repeating urself as if that makes it more correct
But I HAVE said it that simply, and you rejected it as you think you
get to,
but repeating urself doesn't make it more true
The model would be the format of the machine, and while your RTM
might be a type of machine that could be thought of, they don't do
COMPUTATIONS, as it violates the basic rules of what a compuation IS.
Computations are specific algorithms acting on just the input data.
A fundamental property needed to reach at least Turing Complete
ability, is the ability to cascade algorithms.
Your RTM break that capability, and thus become less than Turing
Complete.
i'm sorry, RTMs are literally just TMs with one added instruction
that dumps static meta-data + copies tape ... how have they *lost*
power with that??? clearly they can express anything that TMs can ...
Which means you don't understand how "TM"s work, as they don't have
that sort of "instructions".
fuck dude sorry "operation" is the term turing used, i added to the list
of possible operations with RTMs, my god dude...
see how fucking unhelpful u are???
And, any algorithm that actually USES their capability to detect if
they have been nested will become incorrect as a decider, as a
decider is a machine that computes a specific mapping of its input
to its output, and if that result changes in the submachine, only
one of the answers it gives (as a stand-alone, or as the sub-
machine) can be right, so you just show that it gave a wrong answer.
u have proof that doesn't work yet you keep asserting this is the
"one true way". seems like u just enjoy shooting urself in the foot,
with the only actual rational way being it's just the "one true way"
IT IS DEFINITION. Something you don't seem to understand.
"Computation" is NOT defined by what some machine does, that is
algorithms and results. "Computation" is the mapping generated by it,
which MUST be a specific mapping of input to output.
no one has defined "computation" well enough to prove that turing
machines can compute them all,
On 1/16/2026 4:21 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/16/26 8:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/16/26 4:08 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/15/26 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/15/26 7:23 AM, dart200 wrote:
bro stick a giant dildo up ur asshole u hypocritical fuckface...
when i tried to suggest improvements to the computational model,
like RTMs, u then told me i *can't* do that because muh ct-thesis, >>>>>> and here u are crying about how no superior method has been found >>>>>> as if u'd ever even tried to look past the ct-thesis...
No, you didn't suggest improvements to the model, you just showed
you don't knoww what that means.
You don't get to change what a "computation" is, that isn't part of >>>>> the "model".
you honestly could have just said that cause the rest of this is
just u repeating urself as if that makes it more correct
But I HAVE said it that simply, and you rejected it as you think you
get to,
but repeating urself doesn't make it more true
The model would be the format of the machine, and while your RTM
might be a type of machine that could be thought of, they don't do
COMPUTATIONS, as it violates the basic rules of what a compuation IS. >>>>>
Computations are specific algorithms acting on just the input data.
A fundamental property needed to reach at least Turing Complete
ability, is the ability to cascade algorithms.
Your RTM break that capability, and thus become less than Turing
Complete.
i'm sorry, RTMs are literally just TMs with one added instruction
that dumps static meta-data + copies tape ... how have they *lost*
power with that??? clearly they can express anything that TMs can ...
Which means you don't understand how "TM"s work, as they don't have
that sort of "instructions".
fuck dude sorry "operation" is the term turing used, i added to the
list of possible operations with RTMs, my god dude...
see how fucking unhelpful u are???
And, any algorithm that actually USES their capability to detect if >>>>> they have been nested will become incorrect as a decider, as a
decider is a machine that computes a specific mapping of its input
to its output, and if that result changes in the submachine, only
one of the answers it gives (as a stand-alone, or as the sub-
machine) can be right, so you just show that it gave a wrong answer.
u have proof that doesn't work yet you keep asserting this is the
"one true way". seems like u just enjoy shooting urself in the foot,
with the only actual rational way being it's just the "one true way"
IT IS DEFINITION. Something you don't seem to understand.
"Computation" is NOT defined by what some machine does, that is
algorithms and results. "Computation" is the mapping generated by it,
which MUST be a specific mapping of input to output.
no one has defined "computation" well enough to prove that turing
machines can compute them all,
*The essence of all Computation generically defined*
Computation only applies finite string
transformation rules to finite string inputs.
Computable functions are Computations that
always stop running.
The empty string counts as a string.
On 1/16/26 8:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/16/26 4:08 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/15/26 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/15/26 7:23 AM, dart200 wrote:
bro stick a giant dildo up ur asshole u hypocritical fuckface...
when i tried to suggest improvements to the computational model,
like RTMs, u then told me i *can't* do that because muh ct-thesis,
and here u are crying about how no superior method has been found
as if u'd ever even tried to look past the ct-thesis...
No, you didn't suggest improvements to the model, you just showed
you don't knoww what that means.
You don't get to change what a "computation" is, that isn't part of
the "model".
you honestly could have just said that cause the rest of this is just
u repeating urself as if that makes it more correct
But I HAVE said it that simply, and you rejected it as you think you
get to,
but repeating urself doesn't make it more true
The model would be the format of the machine, and while your RTM
might be a type of machine that could be thought of, they don't do
COMPUTATIONS, as it violates the basic rules of what a compuation IS.
Computations are specific algorithms acting on just the input data.
A fundamental property needed to reach at least Turing Complete
ability, is the ability to cascade algorithms.
Your RTM break that capability, and thus become less than Turing
Complete.
i'm sorry, RTMs are literally just TMs with one added instruction
that dumps static meta-data + copies tape ... how have they *lost*
power with that??? clearly they can express anything that TMs can ...
Which means you don't understand how "TM"s work, as they don't have
that sort of "instructions".
fuck dude sorry "operation" is the term turing used, i added to the list
of possible operations with RTMs, my god dude...
see how fucking unhelpful u are???
And, any algorithm that actually USES their capability to detect if
they have been nested will become incorrect as a decider, as a
decider is a machine that computes a specific mapping of its input
to its output, and if that result changes in the submachine, only
one of the answers it gives (as a stand-alone, or as the sub-
machine) can be right, so you just show that it gave a wrong answer.
u have proof that doesn't work yet you keep asserting this is the
"one true way". seems like u just enjoy shooting urself in the foot,
with the only actual rational way being it's just the "one true way"
IT IS DEFINITION. Something you don't seem to understand.
"Computation" is NOT defined by what some machine does, that is
algorithms and results. "Computation" is the mapping generated by it,
which MUST be a specific mapping of input to output.
no one has defined "computation" well enough to prove that turing
machines can compute them all,
that's why it's the ct-thesis dude, not ct-law,
ur just affirming the consequent without proof.
add that to list of the growing fallacies i've pointed out in ur recent arguments, which i'm sure ur not actually tracking, as that would be far more honesty than u are capable of putting out.
This is sort of like the problem with a RASP machine architecture,
sub- machines on such a platform are not necessarily computations,
if they use the machines capability to pass information not allowed
by the rules of a computation. Your RTM similarly break that property. >>>>
Remember, Computations are NOT just what some model of processing
produce, but specifically is defined based on producing a specific
mapping of input to output, so if (even as a sub-machine) a specific
input might produce different output, your architecture is NOT doing
a computation.
And without that property, using what the machine could do, becomes
a pretty worthless criteria, as you can't actually talk much about it.
the output is still well-defined and deterministic at runtime,
Not from the "input" to the piece of algorithm, as it includes
"hidden" state from outside that input stored elsewhere in the machine.
context-dependent computations are still computations. the fact TMs
don't capture them is an indication that the ct-thesis may be false
Nope. Not unless the "context" is made part of the "input", and if you
do that, you find that since you are trying to make it so the caller
can't just define that context, your system is less than turing complete.
Your system break to property of building a computation by the
concatination of sub-computations.
...including a context-dependent sub-computation makes ur overall computation context-dependent too ... if u dont want a context-dependent computation don't include context-dependent sub-computation.
but in order to be complete and coherent, certain computations *must*
have context-awareness and are therefore context-dependent. these computations aren't generally computable by TMs because TMs lack the necessary mechanisms to grant context-awareness.
unless u can produce some actual proof of some computation that actually breaks in context-dependence, rather than just listing things u assume
are true, i won't believe u know what ur talking about
On 1/16/26 8:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/16/26 4:08 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/15/26 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/15/26 7:23 AM, dart200 wrote:
bro stick a giant dildo up ur asshole u hypocritical fuckface...
when i tried to suggest improvements to the computational model,
like RTMs, u then told me i *can't* do that because muh ct-thesis,
and here u are crying about how no superior method has been found
as if u'd ever even tried to look past the ct-thesis...
No, you didn't suggest improvements to the model, you just showed
you don't knoww what that means.
You don't get to change what a "computation" is, that isn't part of
the "model".
you honestly could have just said that cause the rest of this is just
u repeating urself as if that makes it more correct
But I HAVE said it that simply, and you rejected it as you think you
get to,
but repeating urself doesn't make it more true
The model would be the format of the machine, and while your RTM
might be a type of machine that could be thought of, they don't do
COMPUTATIONS, as it violates the basic rules of what a compuation IS.
Computations are specific algorithms acting on just the input data.
A fundamental property needed to reach at least Turing Complete
ability, is the ability to cascade algorithms.
Your RTM break that capability, and thus become less than Turing
Complete.
i'm sorry, RTMs are literally just TMs with one added instruction
that dumps static meta-data + copies tape ... how have they *lost*
power with that??? clearly they can express anything that TMs can ...
Which means you don't understand how "TM"s work, as they don't have
that sort of "instructions".
fuck dude sorry "operation" is the term turing used, i added to the list
of possible operations with RTMs, my god dude...
see how fucking unhelpful u are???
And, any algorithm that actually USES their capability to detect if
they have been nested will become incorrect as a decider, as a
decider is a machine that computes a specific mapping of its input
to its output, and if that result changes in the submachine, only
one of the answers it gives (as a stand-alone, or as the sub-
machine) can be right, so you just show that it gave a wrong answer.
u have proof that doesn't work yet you keep asserting this is the
"one true way". seems like u just enjoy shooting urself in the foot,
with the only actual rational way being it's just the "one true way"
IT IS DEFINITION. Something you don't seem to understand.
"Computation" is NOT defined by what some machine does, that is
algorithms and results. "Computation" is the mapping generated by it,
which MUST be a specific mapping of input to output.
no one has defined "computation" well enough to prove that turing
machines can compute them all,
On 1/16/26 5:21 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/16/26 8:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/16/26 4:08 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/15/26 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/15/26 7:23 AM, dart200 wrote:
bro stick a giant dildo up ur asshole u hypocritical fuckface...
when i tried to suggest improvements to the computational model,
like RTMs, u then told me i *can't* do that because muh ct-thesis, >>>>>> and here u are crying about how no superior method has been found >>>>>> as if u'd ever even tried to look past the ct-thesis...
No, you didn't suggest improvements to the model, you just showed
you don't knoww what that means.
You don't get to change what a "computation" is, that isn't part of >>>>> the "model".
you honestly could have just said that cause the rest of this is
just u repeating urself as if that makes it more correct
But I HAVE said it that simply, and you rejected it as you think you
get to,
but repeating urself doesn't make it more true
And your ignoring it doesn't make it false.
The model would be the format of the machine, and while your RTM
might be a type of machine that could be thought of, they don't do
COMPUTATIONS, as it violates the basic rules of what a compuation IS. >>>>>
Computations are specific algorithms acting on just the input data.
A fundamental property needed to reach at least Turing Complete
ability, is the ability to cascade algorithms.
Your RTM break that capability, and thus become less than Turing
Complete.
i'm sorry, RTMs are literally just TMs with one added instruction
that dumps static meta-data + copies tape ... how have they *lost*
power with that??? clearly they can express anything that TMs can ...
Which means you don't understand how "TM"s work, as they don't have
that sort of "instructions".
fuck dude sorry "operation" is the term turing used, i added to the
list of possible operations with RTMs, my god dude...
But the only "operations" that a turing machine does is write a
specified value to the tape, move the tape, and change state.
see how fucking unhelpful u are???
So, how is your "operation" of the same class as what they do?
Try to specify the tuple that your "operation" is.
And, any algorithm that actually USES their capability to detect if >>>>> they have been nested will become incorrect as a decider, as a
decider is a machine that computes a specific mapping of its input
to its output, and if that result changes in the submachine, only
one of the answers it gives (as a stand-alone, or as the sub-
machine) can be right, so you just show that it gave a wrong answer.
u have proof that doesn't work yet you keep asserting this is the
"one true way". seems like u just enjoy shooting urself in the foot,
with the only actual rational way being it's just the "one true way"
IT IS DEFINITION. Something you don't seem to understand.
"Computation" is NOT defined by what some machine does, that is
algorithms and results. "Computation" is the mapping generated by it,
which MUST be a specific mapping of input to output.
no one has defined "computation" well enough to prove that turing
machines can compute them all,
that's why it's the ct-thesis dude, not ct-law,
ur just affirming the consequent without proof.
No, the DEFINITION of a computation defines what it can be irrespective
of the actual machinery used to perform it.
It is, by definition, the algorithm computing of a given mapping.
Said maps, are BY DEFINITION mappings from the "input" to the "output".
If the machine can produce two different output from the same input, the machine can not be a computation.
add that to list of the growing fallacies i've pointed out in ur
recent arguments, which i'm sure ur not actually tracking, as that
would be far more honesty than u are capable of putting out.
So, what is the fallacy?
It seems you just assume you are allowed to change the definition,
perhaps because you never bothered to learn it.
the output is still well-defined and deterministic at runtime,
This is sort of like the problem with a RASP machine architecture,
sub- machines on such a platform are not necessarily computations,
if they use the machines capability to pass information not allowed >>>>> by the rules of a computation. Your RTM similarly break that property. >>>>>
Remember, Computations are NOT just what some model of processing
produce, but specifically is defined based on producing a specific
mapping of input to output, so if (even as a sub-machine) a
specific input might produce different output, your architecture is >>>>> NOT doing a computation.
And without that property, using what the machine could do, becomes >>>>> a pretty worthless criteria, as you can't actually talk much about it. >>>>
Not from the "input" to the piece of algorithm, as it includes
"hidden" state from outside that input stored elsewhere in the machine.
context-dependent computations are still computations. the fact TMs
don't capture them is an indication that the ct-thesis may be false
Nope. Not unless the "context" is made part of the "input", and if
you do that, you find that since you are trying to make it so the
caller can't just define that context, your system is less than
turing complete.
Your system break to property of building a computation by the
concatination of sub-computations.
...including a context-dependent sub-computation makes ur overall
computation context-dependent too ... if u dont want a context-
dependent computation don't include context-dependent sub-computation.
Which makes it not a computation.
PERIOD.
Fallacy of equivocation.
but in order to be complete and coherent, certain computations *must*
have context-awareness and are therefore context-dependent. these
computations aren't generally computable by TMs because TMs lack the
necessary mechanisms to grant context-awareness.
In other words, you require some computations to not be actual
computations.
unless u can produce some actual proof of some computation that
actually breaks in context-dependence, rather than just listing things
u assume are true, i won't believe u know what ur talking about
The definition.
A computation produces the well defined result based on the INPUT.
Your context, being not part of the input, can't change the well-defined result.
Should 1 + 2 become 4 on Thursdays? of it asked of a gingerbread man?
All you are doing is saying you disagree with the definition.
Go ahead, try to define an alternate version of Computation Theory where
the result can depend on things that aren't part of the actual input to
the machine, and see what you can show that is useful.
The problem becomes that you can't really say anything about what you
will get, since you don't know what the "hidden" factors are.
On 1/16/26 3:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/16/26 5:21 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/16/26 8:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/16/26 4:08 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/15/26 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/15/26 7:23 AM, dart200 wrote:
bro stick a giant dildo up ur asshole u hypocritical fuckface... >>>>>>>No, you didn't suggest improvements to the model, you just showed >>>>>> you don't knoww what that means.
when i tried to suggest improvements to the computational model, >>>>>>> like RTMs, u then told me i *can't* do that because muh ct-
thesis, and here u are crying about how no superior method has
been found as if u'd ever even tried to look past the ct-thesis... >>>>>>
You don't get to change what a "computation" is, that isn't part
of the "model".
you honestly could have just said that cause the rest of this is
just u repeating urself as if that makes it more correct
But I HAVE said it that simply, and you rejected it as you think you
get to,
but repeating urself doesn't make it more true
And your ignoring it doesn't make it false.
Which means you don't understand how "TM"s work, as they don't have
The model would be the format of the machine, and while your RTM
might be a type of machine that could be thought of, they don't do >>>>>> COMPUTATIONS, as it violates the basic rules of what a compuation IS. >>>>>>
Computations are specific algorithms acting on just the input data. >>>>>>
A fundamental property needed to reach at least Turing Complete
ability, is the ability to cascade algorithms.
Your RTM break that capability, and thus become less than Turing
Complete.
i'm sorry, RTMs are literally just TMs with one added instruction
that dumps static meta-data + copies tape ... how have they *lost*
power with that??? clearly they can express anything that TMs can ... >>>>
that sort of "instructions".
fuck dude sorry "operation" is the term turing used, i added to the
list of possible operations with RTMs, my god dude...
But the only "operations" that a turing machine does is write a
specified value to the tape, move the tape, and change state.
yes RTMs are an extension of TMs, please do pay attention
see how fucking unhelpful u are???
So, how is your "operation" of the same class as what they do?
cause it's just as mechanically feasible. mechanical feasibility to self-evident just like with the other rules of turing machines.
Try to specify the tuple that your "operation" is.
idk what you mean by this, REFLECT is just another operation like
HEAD_LEFT, HEAD_RIGHT, or WRITE_<symbol>, the. transition table has a
list of transition functions:
cur_state, head_symbol -> action, nxt_state
and REFLECT goes into the action slot specifying the action that should
be taking to transition the tape to the next step.
u have proof that doesn't work yet you keep asserting this is the
And, any algorithm that actually USES their capability to detect
if they have been nested will become incorrect as a decider, as a >>>>>> decider is a machine that computes a specific mapping of its input >>>>>> to its output, and if that result changes in the submachine, only >>>>>> one of the answers it gives (as a stand-alone, or as the sub-
machine) can be right, so you just show that it gave a wrong answer. >>>>>
"one true way". seems like u just enjoy shooting urself in the
foot, with the only actual rational way being it's just the "one
true way"
IT IS DEFINITION. Something you don't seem to understand.
"Computation" is NOT defined by what some machine does, that is
algorithms and results. "Computation" is the mapping generated by
it, which MUST be a specific mapping of input to output.
no one has defined "computation" well enough to prove that turing
machines can compute them all,
that's why it's the ct-thesis dude, not ct-law,
ur just affirming the consequent without proof.
No, the DEFINITION of a computation defines what it can be
irrespective of the actual machinery used to perform it.
It is, by definition, the algorithm computing of a given mapping.
Said maps, are BY DEFINITION mappings from the "input" to the "output".
If the machine can produce two different output from the same input,
the machine can not be a computation.
a context-dependent computation is computing a mapping that isn't
directly specified by the formal input params. it's computing a mapping of:
(context, input) -> output
or more generally just
context -> output
since the formal input is just a specific part of the context. and the reason we got stuck on the halting problem of a fucking century is
ignoring that context matters.
add that to list of the growing fallacies i've pointed out in ur
recent arguments, which i'm sure ur not actually tracking, as that
would be far more honesty than u are capable of putting out.
So, what is the fallacy?
AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT
It seems you just assume you are allowed to change the definition,
perhaps because you never bothered to learn it.
This is sort of like the problem with a RASP machine architecture, >>>>>> sub- machines on such a platform are not necessarily computations, >>>>>> if they use the machines capability to pass information not
allowed by the rules of a computation. Your RTM similarly break
that property.
Remember, Computations are NOT just what some model of processing >>>>>> produce, but specifically is defined based on producing a specific >>>>>> mapping of input to output, so if (even as a sub-machine) a
specific input might produce different output, your architecture
is NOT doing a computation.
And without that property, using what the machine could do,
becomes a pretty worthless criteria, as you can't actually talk
much about it.
the output is still well-defined and deterministic at runtime,
Not from the "input" to the piece of algorithm, as it includes
"hidden" state from outside that input stored elsewhere in the machine. >>>>
context-dependent computations are still computations. the fact TMs >>>>> don't capture them is an indication that the ct-thesis may be false
Nope. Not unless the "context" is made part of the "input", and if
you do that, you find that since you are trying to make it so the
caller can't just define that context, your system is less than
turing complete.
Your system break to property of building a computation by the
concatination of sub-computations.
...including a context-dependent sub-computation makes ur overall
computation context-dependent too ... if u dont want a context-
dependent computation don't include context-dependent sub-computation.
Which makes it not a computation.
PERIOD.
Fallacy of equivocation.
i'm not shifting meaning dude. i'm directly claiming it's a distinct
type of computation that has been ignored by the theory of computing
thus far
nice try tho
but in order to be complete and coherent, certain computations *must*
have context-awareness and are therefore context-dependent. these
computations aren't generally computable by TMs because TMs lack the
necessary mechanisms to grant context-awareness.
In other words, you require some computations to not be actual
computations.
unless u can produce some actual proof of some computation that
actually breaks in context-dependence, rather than just listing
things u assume are true, i won't believe u know what ur talking about
The definition.
A computation produces the well defined result based on the INPUT.
context-dependent computation simply expands it's input to include the entire computing context, not just the formal parameters. it's still
well defined and it grants us access to meta computation that is not as expressible in TM computing.
ct-thesis is cooked dude
Your context, being not part of the input, can't change the well-
defined result.
Should 1 + 2 become 4 on Thursdays? of it asked of a gingerbread man?
ur overgeneralizing. just become some computation is context-dependent doesn't mean all computation is context-dependent.
another fallacy.
All you are doing is saying you disagree with the definition.
Go ahead, try to define an alternate version of Computation Theory
where the result can depend on things that aren't part of the actual
input to the machine, and see what you can show that is useful.
The problem becomes that you can't really say anything about what you
will get, since you don't know what the "hidden" factors are.
??? i was very clear multiple times over what the "hidden" input was. there's nothing random about it, context-dependent computation is just
as well-defend and deterministic as context-independent computation
On 1/16/26 7:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/16/26 3:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/16/26 5:21 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/16/26 8:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/16/26 4:08 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/15/26 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/15/26 7:23 AM, dart200 wrote:
bro stick a giant dildo up ur asshole u hypocritical fuckface... >>>>>>>>No, you didn't suggest improvements to the model, you just showed >>>>>>> you don't knoww what that means.
when i tried to suggest improvements to the computational model, >>>>>>>> like RTMs, u then told me i *can't* do that because muh ct-
thesis, and here u are crying about how no superior method has >>>>>>>> been found as if u'd ever even tried to look past the ct-thesis... >>>>>>>
You don't get to change what a "computation" is, that isn't part >>>>>>> of the "model".
you honestly could have just said that cause the rest of this is
just u repeating urself as if that makes it more correct
But I HAVE said it that simply, and you rejected it as you think
you get to,
but repeating urself doesn't make it more true
And your ignoring it doesn't make it false.
Which means you don't understand how "TM"s work, as they don't have >>>>> that sort of "instructions".
The model would be the format of the machine, and while your RTM >>>>>>> might be a type of machine that could be thought of, they don't >>>>>>> do COMPUTATIONS, as it violates the basic rules of what a
compuation IS.
Computations are specific algorithms acting on just the input data. >>>>>>>
A fundamental property needed to reach at least Turing Complete >>>>>>> ability, is the ability to cascade algorithms.
Your RTM break that capability, and thus become less than Turing >>>>>>> Complete.
i'm sorry, RTMs are literally just TMs with one added instruction >>>>>> that dumps static meta-data + copies tape ... how have they *lost* >>>>>> power with that??? clearly they can express anything that TMs can ... >>>>>
fuck dude sorry "operation" is the term turing used, i added to the
list of possible operations with RTMs, my god dude...
But the only "operations" that a turing machine does is write a
specified value to the tape, move the tape, and change state.
yes RTMs are an extension of TMs, please do pay attention
Nope, because they don't have the actual form of a TM.
Their operations isn't by the basic principles of a TM.
I think your problem is you don't actually know how a TM works, and thus this is meaningless.
Please try to show how you would actually DEFINE in a system similar to
how you would define a regular TM one of your RTMS.
Not just hand-waving arguement, and actually encoded RTM that looks like just an extension of some TM that has been encoded, and an explaination
of how such a hardware platform could be constructed.
see how fucking unhelpful u are???
So, how is your "operation" of the same class as what they do?
cause it's just as mechanically feasible. mechanical feasibility to
self-evident just like with the other rules of turing machines.
No, it is trying to put a hyper-cube into a flat plane drawing of a square.
It seems you are just showing that you don't understand what you are actually talking about, but are trying to baffle people with your
bullshit hopeing they won't notice your ignorance.
Try to specify the tuple that your "operation" is.
idk what you mean by this, REFLECT is just another operation like
HEAD_LEFT, HEAD_RIGHT, or WRITE_<symbol>, the. transition table has a
list of transition functions:
So, it is a "tape motion". and how do you move the tape a "reflect"?
cur_state, head_symbol -> action, nxt_state
and REFLECT goes into the action slot specifying the action that
should be taking to transition the tape to the next step.
That isn't an "action" slot, in classic representation it is a binary
field for tape motion direction.
And, any algorithm that actually USES their capability to detect >>>>>>> if they have been nested will become incorrect as a decider, as a >>>>>>> decider is a machine that computes a specific mapping of its
input to its output, and if that result changes in the
submachine, only one of the answers it gives (as a stand-alone, >>>>>>> or as the sub- machine) can be right, so you just show that it
gave a wrong answer.
u have proof that doesn't work yet you keep asserting this is the >>>>>> "one true way". seems like u just enjoy shooting urself in the
foot, with the only actual rational way being it's just the "one
true way"
IT IS DEFINITION. Something you don't seem to understand.
"Computation" is NOT defined by what some machine does, that is
algorithms and results. "Computation" is the mapping generated by
it, which MUST be a specific mapping of input to output.
no one has defined "computation" well enough to prove that turing
machines can compute them all,
that's why it's the ct-thesis dude, not ct-law,
ur just affirming the consequent without proof.
No, the DEFINITION of a computation defines what it can be
irrespective of the actual machinery used to perform it.
It is, by definition, the algorithm computing of a given mapping.
Said maps, are BY DEFINITION mappings from the "input" to the "output".
If the machine can produce two different output from the same input,
the machine can not be a computation.
a context-dependent computation is computing a mapping that isn't
directly specified by the formal input params. it's computing a
mapping of:
(context, input) -> output
WHich means that you are calling context as part of your input.
But you alse say that you can't set it, so you
or more generally just
context -> output
since the formal input is just a specific part of the context. and the
reason we got stuck on the halting problem of a fucking century is
ignoring that context matters.
And thus you system no longer has composition, as you have defined that
the context wasn't changable by the "caller" of a sub-computation.
This makes your system strictly LESS powerful than a Turing Machine.
add that to list of the growing fallacies i've pointed out in ur
recent arguments, which i'm sure ur not actually tracking, as that
would be far more honesty than u are capable of putting out.
So, what is the fallacy?
AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT
Where did I do that.
I stated the DEFINITION of the term, something it seems you are just aferming you don't understand.
It seems you just assume you are allowed to change the definition,
perhaps because you never bothered to learn it.
This is sort of like the problem with a RASP machine
architecture, sub- machines on such a platform are not
necessarily computations, if they use the machines capability to >>>>>>> pass information not allowed by the rules of a computation. Your >>>>>>> RTM similarly break that property.
Remember, Computations are NOT just what some model of processing >>>>>>> produce, but specifically is defined based on producing a
specific mapping of input to output, so if (even as a sub-
machine) a specific input might produce different output, your
architecture is NOT doing a computation.
And without that property, using what the machine could do,
becomes a pretty worthless criteria, as you can't actually talk >>>>>>> much about it.
the output is still well-defined and deterministic at runtime,
Not from the "input" to the piece of algorithm, as it includes
"hidden" state from outside that input stored elsewhere in the
machine.
context-dependent computations are still computations. the fact
TMs don't capture them is an indication that the ct-thesis may be >>>>>> false
Nope. Not unless the "context" is made part of the "input", and if
you do that, you find that since you are trying to make it so the
caller can't just define that context, your system is less than
turing complete.
Your system break to property of building a computation by the
concatination of sub-computations.
...including a context-dependent sub-computation makes ur overall
computation context-dependent too ... if u dont want a context-
dependent computation don't include context-dependent sub-computation.
Which makes it not a computation.
PERIOD.
Fallacy of equivocation.
i'm not shifting meaning dude. i'm directly claiming it's a distinct
type of computation that has been ignored by the theory of computing
thus far
nice try tho
But you don't actually do that, as you then claim to be in the same
field to solve a problem specified in the field.
As I said, if you want to try to define a new field based on a new definition of what a computation is, go ahead.
You need to work out your formal definition.
Show how the system actually works out.
Show what it can show.
And show why anyone would want to use it.
but in order to be complete and coherent, certain computations
*must* have context-awareness and are therefore context-dependent.
these computations aren't generally computable by TMs because TMs
lack the necessary mechanisms to grant context-awareness.
In other words, you require some computations to not be actual
computations.
unless u can produce some actual proof of some computation that
actually breaks in context-dependence, rather than just listing
things u assume are true, i won't believe u know what ur talking about >>>>
The definition.
A computation produces the well defined result based on the INPUT.
context-dependent computation simply expands it's input to include the
entire computing context, not just the formal parameters. it's still
well defined and it grants us access to meta computation that is not
as expressible in TM computing.
ct-thesis is cooked dude
Nope, because you are just putting yourself outside the field it is
written about.
You can't change the definition of a computation, and still talk about things as if you were in the same system.
That just shows you are smoking some bad weed.
Your context, being not part of the input, can't change the well-
defined result.
Should 1 + 2 become 4 on Thursdays? of it asked of a gingerbread man?
ur overgeneralizing. just become some computation is context-dependent
doesn't mean all computation is context-dependent.
another fallacy.
Right, but nothing that actually is a computation can be context-dependent.
All you are doing is saying you disagree with the definition.
Go ahead, try to define an alternate version of Computation Theory
where the result can depend on things that aren't part of the actual
input to the machine, and see what you can show that is useful.
The problem becomes that you can't really say anything about what you
will get, since you don't know what the "hidden" factors are.
??? i was very clear multiple times over what the "hidden" input was.
there's nothing random about it, context-dependent computation is just
as well-defend and deterministic as context-independent computation
The problem is that when you look at the computation itself (that might
be imbedded into a larger computation) you don't know which of the
infinite contexts it might be within.
Thus, what you can say about that "computation" is very limited.
You don't seem to understand that a key point of the theory is about
being able to build complicate things from simpler pieces.
It comes out of how logic works, we build complicated theories based on simpler theories and the axioms. If those simplere things were "context dependent" it makes it much harder for them to specifiy what they
actually do in all contexts, and to then use them in all contexts.
the only "operations" that a turing machine does is write a specified
value to the tape, move the tape, and change state.
On 1/16/26 7:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/16/26 7:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/16/26 3:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/16/26 5:21 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/16/26 8:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/16/26 4:08 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/15/26 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/15/26 7:23 AM, dart200 wrote:
bro stick a giant dildo up ur asshole u hypocritical fuckface... >>>>>>>>>
when i tried to suggest improvements to the computational
model, like RTMs, u then told me i *can't* do that because muh >>>>>>>>> ct- thesis, and here u are crying about how no superior method >>>>>>>>> has been found as if u'd ever even tried to look past the ct- >>>>>>>>> thesis...
No, you didn't suggest improvements to the model, you just
showed you don't knoww what that means.
You don't get to change what a "computation" is, that isn't part >>>>>>>> of the "model".
you honestly could have just said that cause the rest of this is >>>>>>> just u repeating urself as if that makes it more correct
But I HAVE said it that simply, and you rejected it as you think
you get to,
but repeating urself doesn't make it more true
And your ignoring it doesn't make it false.
The model would be the format of the machine, and while your RTM >>>>>>>> might be a type of machine that could be thought of, they don't >>>>>>>> do COMPUTATIONS, as it violates the basic rules of what a
compuation IS.
Computations are specific algorithms acting on just the input data. >>>>>>>>
A fundamental property needed to reach at least Turing Complete >>>>>>>> ability, is the ability to cascade algorithms.
Your RTM break that capability, and thus become less than Turing >>>>>>>> Complete.
i'm sorry, RTMs are literally just TMs with one added instruction >>>>>>> that dumps static meta-data + copies tape ... how have they
*lost* power with that??? clearly they can express anything that >>>>>>> TMs can ...
Which means you don't understand how "TM"s work, as they don't
have that sort of "instructions".
fuck dude sorry "operation" is the term turing used, i added to the >>>>> list of possible operations with RTMs, my god dude...
But the only "operations" that a turing machine does is write a
specified value to the tape, move the tape, and change state.
yes RTMs are an extension of TMs, please do pay attention
Nope, because they don't have the actual form of a TM.
Their operations isn't by the basic principles of a TM.
I think your problem is you don't actually know how a TM works, and
thus this is meaningless.
Please try to show how you would actually DEFINE in a system similar
to how you would define a regular TM one of your RTMS.
RTMs can run TM machine_descriptions directly without modification
because REFLECT is just an operation that need not be used in the computation
Not just hand-waving arguement, and actually encoded RTM that looks
like just an extension of some TM that has been encoded, and an
explaination of how such a hardware platform could be constructed.
see how fucking unhelpful u are???
So, how is your "operation" of the same class as what they do?
cause it's just as mechanically feasible. mechanical feasibility to
self-evident just like with the other rules of turing machines.
No, it is trying to put a hyper-cube into a flat plane drawing of a
square.
It seems you are just showing that you don't understand what you are
actually talking about, but are trying to baffle people with your
bullshit hopeing they won't notice your ignorance.
or u just don't understand what i mean by RTM,
maybe ur just too old for me teach any new tricks...
Try to specify the tuple that your "operation" is.
idk what you mean by this, REFLECT is just another operation like
HEAD_LEFT, HEAD_RIGHT, or WRITE_<symbol>, the. transition table has a
list of transition functions:
So, it is a "tape motion". and how do you move the tape a "reflect"?
it's a tape operation like all the rest of the operations
cur_state, head_symbol -> action, nxt_state
and REFLECT goes into the action slot specifying the action that
should be taking to transition the tape to the next step.
That isn't an "action" slot, in classic representation it is a binary
field for tape motion direction.
richard, please do actually read turing's paper one of these days. i've already posted at you his first machine description in text, and now
i'll post it in image form:
https://imgur.com/a/pzhHTMb
do let me know when ur done with retardedly quibbling over syntax so we
can actually get around to discussing semantics one of these days,
god i wish i had someone like turing to discuss this with, but so far ur
the only still responding to any depth.
And, any algorithm that actually USES their capability to detect >>>>>>>> if they have been nested will become incorrect as a decider, as >>>>>>>> a decider is a machine that computes a specific mapping of its >>>>>>>> input to its output, and if that result changes in the
submachine, only one of the answers it gives (as a stand-alone, >>>>>>>> or as the sub- machine) can be right, so you just show that it >>>>>>>> gave a wrong answer.
u have proof that doesn't work yet you keep asserting this is the >>>>>>> "one true way". seems like u just enjoy shooting urself in the
foot, with the only actual rational way being it's just the "one >>>>>>> true way"
IT IS DEFINITION. Something you don't seem to understand.
"Computation" is NOT defined by what some machine does, that is
algorithms and results. "Computation" is the mapping generated by >>>>>> it, which MUST be a specific mapping of input to output.
no one has defined "computation" well enough to prove that turing
machines can compute them all,
that's why it's the ct-thesis dude, not ct-law,
ur just affirming the consequent without proof.
No, the DEFINITION of a computation defines what it can be
irrespective of the actual machinery used to perform it.
It is, by definition, the algorithm computing of a given mapping.
Said maps, are BY DEFINITION mappings from the "input" to the "output". >>>>
If the machine can produce two different output from the same input,
the machine can not be a computation.
a context-dependent computation is computing a mapping that isn't
directly specified by the formal input params. it's computing a
mapping of:
(context, input) -> output
WHich means that you are calling context as part of your input.
But you alse say that you can't set it, so you
the context comes from REFLECT
or more generally just
context -> output
since the formal input is just a specific part of the context. and
the reason we got stuck on the halting problem of a fucking century
is ignoring that context matters.
And thus you system no longer has composition, as you have defined
that the context wasn't changable by the "caller" of a sub-computation.
This makes your system strictly LESS powerful than a Turing Machine.
no it doesn't because using context is an optional feature, not a requirement for RTM machine descriptions. like i said RTMs can run TMs directly so they include all TM computations as well.
add that to list of the growing fallacies i've pointed out in ur
recent arguments, which i'm sure ur not actually tracking, as that
would be far more honesty than u are capable of putting out.
So, what is the fallacy?
AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT
Where did I do that.
I stated the DEFINITION of the term, something it seems you are just
aferming you don't understand.
what makes that definition right beyond you repeating yourself?
sometimes we get definitions wrong dude.
it's pretty crazy i can produce a machine (even if u haven't understood
it yet) that produces a consistent deterministic result that is "not a computation".
not sure what the fuck it's doing if it's not a computation
It seems you just assume you are allowed to change the definition,
perhaps because you never bothered to learn it.
Which makes it not a computation.
This is sort of like the problem with a RASP machine
architecture, sub- machines on such a platform are not
necessarily computations, if they use the machines capability to >>>>>>>> pass information not allowed by the rules of a computation. Your >>>>>>>> RTM similarly break that property.
Remember, Computations are NOT just what some model of
processing produce, but specifically is defined based on
producing a specific mapping of input to output, so if (even as >>>>>>>> a sub- machine) a specific input might produce different output, >>>>>>>> your architecture is NOT doing a computation.
And without that property, using what the machine could do,
becomes a pretty worthless criteria, as you can't actually talk >>>>>>>> much about it.
the output is still well-defined and deterministic at runtime,
Not from the "input" to the piece of algorithm, as it includes
"hidden" state from outside that input stored elsewhere in the
machine.
context-dependent computations are still computations. the fact >>>>>>> TMs don't capture them is an indication that the ct-thesis may be >>>>>>> false
Nope. Not unless the "context" is made part of the "input", and if >>>>>> you do that, you find that since you are trying to make it so the >>>>>> caller can't just define that context, your system is less than
turing complete.
Your system break to property of building a computation by the
concatination of sub-computations.
...including a context-dependent sub-computation makes ur overall
computation context-dependent too ... if u dont want a context-
dependent computation don't include context-dependent sub-computation. >>>>
PERIOD.
Fallacy of equivocation.
i'm not shifting meaning dude. i'm directly claiming it's a distinct
type of computation that has been ignored by the theory of computing
thus far
nice try tho
But you don't actually do that, as you then claim to be in the same
field to solve a problem specified in the field.
As I said, if you want to try to define a new field based on a new
definition of what a computation is, go ahead.
it's not a new field, it's a mild extension of turing machines, with one
new operation.
You need to work out your formal definition.
Show how the system actually works out.
Show what it can show.
And show why anyone would want to use it.
but in order to be complete and coherent, certain computations
*must* have context-awareness and are therefore context-dependent.
these computations aren't generally computable by TMs because TMs
lack the necessary mechanisms to grant context-awareness.
In other words, you require some computations to not be actual
computations.
unless u can produce some actual proof of some computation that
actually breaks in context-dependence, rather than just listing
things u assume are true, i won't believe u know what ur talking about >>>>>
The definition.
A computation produces the well defined result based on the INPUT.
context-dependent computation simply expands it's input to include
the entire computing context, not just the formal parameters. it's
still well defined and it grants us access to meta computation that
is not as expressible in TM computing.
ct-thesis is cooked dude
Nope, because you are just putting yourself outside the field it is
written about.
You can't change the definition of a computation, and still talk about
things as if you were in the same system.
That just shows you are smoking some bad weed.
Your context, being not part of the input, can't change the well-
defined result.
Should 1 + 2 become 4 on Thursdays? of it asked of a gingerbread man?
ur overgeneralizing. just become some computation is context-
dependent doesn't mean all computation is context-dependent.
another fallacy.
Right, but nothing that actually is a computation can be context-
dependent.
ur just arguing in circles with this.
All you are doing is saying you disagree with the definition.
Go ahead, try to define an alternate version of Computation Theory
where the result can depend on things that aren't part of the actual
input to the machine, and see what you can show that is useful.
The problem becomes that you can't really say anything about what
you will get, since you don't know what the "hidden" factors are.
??? i was very clear multiple times over what the "hidden" input was.
there's nothing random about it, context-dependent computation is
just as well-defend and deterministic as context-independent computation >>>
The problem is that when you look at the computation itself (that
might be imbedded into a larger computation) you don't know which of
the infinite contexts it might be within.
depth is not infinite for any given step,
AND THAT'S WHERE REFLECT COMES IN: IT DUMPS THE FULL MACHINE DESCRIPTION
OF THE RUNNING MACHINE, THE CURRENT STATE NUMBER, AND A FULL COPY OF THE TAPE ...
all the info required to compute all configurations between the
beginning and the current step of the computation, which can allow it to compute anything that is "knowable" about where it is in the computation
at time of the REFLECT operation...
the problem is ur literally not reading what i'm writing to an
appreciable degree of comprehension, being too focused on isolated
responses that lack overall *contextual* awareness of the conversation...
Thus, what you can say about that "computation" is very limited.
You don't seem to understand that a key point of the theory is about
being able to build complicate things from simpler pieces.
It comes out of how logic works, we build complicated theories based
on simpler theories and the axioms. If those simplere things were
"context dependent" it makes it much harder for them to specifiy what
they actually do in all contexts, and to then use them in all contexts.
i'm sorry context-dependent computation aren't as simple
if the simplest theory was always correct we'd still be using newtonian gravity for everything
On 16/01/2026 23:21, Richard Damon wrote:
the only "operations" that a turing machine does is write a specified
value to the tape, move the tape, and change state.
And arbitrarily long sequences of those. It says so in his 1936 paper.
On 16/01/2026 23:21, Richard Damon wrote:
the only "operations" that a turing machine does is write a specified
value to the tape, move the tape, and change state.
And arbitrarily long sequences of those. It says so in his 1936 paper.
On 1/17/26 4:17 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 16/01/2026 23:21, Richard Damon wrote:
the only "operations" that a turing machine does is write a specified
value to the tape, move the tape, and change state.
And arbitrarily long sequences of those. It says so in his 1936 paper.
turing was like: "yeah, it's supposed to be only one operation per state transition... but that's inefficient to write, including several is equivalent, so we're doing that!"
LOL, i can imagine rick telling off turing for not conforming to mUh dEfInITiOnS...
On 1/17/26 2:23 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/16/26 7:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/16/26 7:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/16/26 3:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/16/26 5:21 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/16/26 8:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/16/26 4:08 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/15/26 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/15/26 7:23 AM, dart200 wrote:
bro stick a giant dildo up ur asshole u hypocritical fuckface... >>>>>>>>>>
when i tried to suggest improvements to the computational >>>>>>>>>> model, like RTMs, u then told me i *can't* do that because muh >>>>>>>>>> ct- thesis, and here u are crying about how no superior method >>>>>>>>>> has been found as if u'd ever even tried to look past the ct- >>>>>>>>>> thesis...
No, you didn't suggest improvements to the model, you just
showed you don't knoww what that means.
You don't get to change what a "computation" is, that isn't >>>>>>>>> part of the "model".
you honestly could have just said that cause the rest of this is >>>>>>>> just u repeating urself as if that makes it more correct
But I HAVE said it that simply, and you rejected it as you think >>>>>>> you get to,
but repeating urself doesn't make it more true
And your ignoring it doesn't make it false.
The model would be the format of the machine, and while your >>>>>>>>> RTM might be a type of machine that could be thought of, they >>>>>>>>> don't do COMPUTATIONS, as it violates the basic rules of what a >>>>>>>>> compuation IS.
Computations are specific algorithms acting on just the input >>>>>>>>> data.
A fundamental property needed to reach at least Turing Complete >>>>>>>>> ability, is the ability to cascade algorithms.
Your RTM break that capability, and thus become less than
Turing Complete.
i'm sorry, RTMs are literally just TMs with one added
instruction that dumps static meta-data + copies tape ... how >>>>>>>> have they *lost* power with that??? clearly they can express
anything that TMs can ...
Which means you don't understand how "TM"s work, as they don't
have that sort of "instructions".
fuck dude sorry "operation" is the term turing used, i added to
the list of possible operations with RTMs, my god dude...
But the only "operations" that a turing machine does is write a
specified value to the tape, move the tape, and change state.
yes RTMs are an extension of TMs, please do pay attention
Nope, because they don't have the actual form of a TM.
Their operations isn't by the basic principles of a TM.
I think your problem is you don't actually know how a TM works, and
thus this is meaningless.
Please try to show how you would actually DEFINE in a system similar
to how you would define a regular TM one of your RTMS.
RTMs can run TM machine_descriptions directly without modification
because REFLECT is just an operation that need not be used in the
computation
So, you admit you can't do it, or are just too stupid to understand what
it means to DEFINE something.
Not just hand-waving arguement, and actually encoded RTM that looks
like just an extension of some TM that has been encoded, and an
explaination of how such a hardware platform could be constructed.
see how fucking unhelpful u are???
So, how is your "operation" of the same class as what they do?
cause it's just as mechanically feasible. mechanical feasibility to
self-evident just like with the other rules of turing machines.
No, it is trying to put a hyper-cube into a flat plane drawing of a
square.
It seems you are just showing that you don't understand what you are
actually talking about, but are trying to baffle people with your
bullshit hopeing they won't notice your ignorance.
or u just don't understand what i mean by RTM,
I think understand what you are trying to do. But your problem is you don't seem to understand it well enough to actually define it.
maybe ur just too old for me teach any new tricks...
I doubt that. I think it is more that you are too ignorant of the field
to understand your issues.
Try to specify the tuple that your "operation" is.
idk what you mean by this, REFLECT is just another operation like
HEAD_LEFT, HEAD_RIGHT, or WRITE_<symbol>, the. transition table has
a list of transition functions:
So, it is a "tape motion". and how do you move the tape a "reflect"?
it's a tape operation like all the rest of the operations
No, it isn't. WHich way is "Reflect"
The closest that can means is flip the tape end to end.
Your problem is you don't seem to understand the need to specify in
precise detail what that instruction does.
cur_state, head_symbol -> action, nxt_state
and REFLECT goes into the action slot specifying the action that
should be taking to transition the tape to the next step.
That isn't an "action" slot, in classic representation it is a binary
field for tape motion direction.
richard, please do actually read turing's paper one of these days.
i've already posted at you his first machine description in text, and
now i'll post it in image form:
https://imgur.com/a/pzhHTMb
So, And did you read the descriptions of what those operations were.
Have you looked at how the description evolved over time as it was refined.
do let me know when ur done with retardedly quibbling over syntax so
we can actually get around to discussing semantics one of these days,
When you actually DEFINE what you mean by your "Reflect" instruction, as
an actually implementable operation.
god i wish i had someone like turing to discuss this with, but so far
ur the only still responding to any depth.
I don't think it would help.
And, any algorithm that actually USES their capability to
detect if they have been nested will become incorrect as a
decider, as a decider is a machine that computes a specific >>>>>>>>> mapping of its input to its output, and if that result changes >>>>>>>>> in the submachine, only one of the answers it gives (as a
stand-alone, or as the sub- machine) can be right, so you just >>>>>>>>> show that it gave a wrong answer.
u have proof that doesn't work yet you keep asserting this is >>>>>>>> the "one true way". seems like u just enjoy shooting urself in >>>>>>>> the foot, with the only actual rational way being it's just the >>>>>>>> "one true way"
IT IS DEFINITION. Something you don't seem to understand.
"Computation" is NOT defined by what some machine does, that is >>>>>>> algorithms and results. "Computation" is the mapping generated by >>>>>>> it, which MUST be a specific mapping of input to output.
no one has defined "computation" well enough to prove that turing >>>>>> machines can compute them all,
that's why it's the ct-thesis dude, not ct-law,
ur just affirming the consequent without proof.
No, the DEFINITION of a computation defines what it can be
irrespective of the actual machinery used to perform it.
It is, by definition, the algorithm computing of a given mapping.
Said maps, are BY DEFINITION mappings from the "input" to the
"output".
If the machine can produce two different output from the same
input, the machine can not be a computation.
a context-dependent computation is computing a mapping that isn't
directly specified by the formal input params. it's computing a
mapping of:
(context, input) -> output
WHich means that you are calling context as part of your input.
But you alse say that you can't set it, so you
the context comes from REFLECT
So, "Reflect" makes up the context? How does it know what to do?
or more generally just
context -> output
since the formal input is just a specific part of the context. and
the reason we got stuck on the halting problem of a fucking century
is ignoring that context matters.
And thus you system no longer has composition, as you have defined
that the context wasn't changable by the "caller" of a sub-computation.
This makes your system strictly LESS powerful than a Turing Machine.
no it doesn't because using context is an optional feature, not a
requirement for RTM machine descriptions. like i said RTMs can run TMs
directly so they include all TM computations as well.
You don't seem to understand, that the fact that the sub-computation
COULD use the reflect operation means that you can't control its input.
Thus, perhaps the better way to say it is the computations able to be
done with machines that actually use your feature, are less-than Turng Complete.
There is nothing that you RTMs can do that a TM can't do, except to
define handcuffs for themselves.
The USE of your extention weakens the machine,
add that to list of the growing fallacies i've pointed out in ur
recent arguments, which i'm sure ur not actually tracking, as that >>>>>> would be far more honesty than u are capable of putting out.
So, what is the fallacy?
AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT
Where did I do that.
I stated the DEFINITION of the term, something it seems you are just
aferming you don't understand.
what makes that definition right beyond you repeating yourself?
sometimes we get definitions wrong dude.
Because it IS the definition.
I guess you don't understand the rules of logic.
it's pretty crazy i can produce a machine (even if u haven't
understood it yet) that produces a consistent deterministic result
that is "not a computation".
Because you get that result only by equivocating on your definitions.
If the context is part of the inpt to make the output determistic from
the input, then they fail to be usable as sub-computations as we can't control that context part of the input.
When we look at just the controllable input for a sub-computation, the output is NOT a deterministic function of that inut.
not sure what the fuck it's doing if it's not a computation
Its using hidden inputs that the caller can't control.
Showing that you really don't understand what you are talking about.
It seems you just assume you are allowed to change the definition,
perhaps because you never bothered to learn it.
This is sort of like the problem with a RASP machine
architecture, sub- machines on such a platform are not
necessarily computations, if they use the machines capability >>>>>>>>> to pass information not allowed by the rules of a computation. >>>>>>>>> Your RTM similarly break that property.
Remember, Computations are NOT just what some model of
processing produce, but specifically is defined based on
producing a specific mapping of input to output, so if (even as >>>>>>>>> a sub- machine) a specific input might produce different
output, your architecture is NOT doing a computation.
And without that property, using what the machine could do, >>>>>>>>> becomes a pretty worthless criteria, as you can't actually talk >>>>>>>>> much about it.
the output is still well-defined and deterministic at runtime,
Not from the "input" to the piece of algorithm, as it includes
"hidden" state from outside that input stored elsewhere in the
machine.
context-dependent computations are still computations. the fact >>>>>>>> TMs don't capture them is an indication that the ct-thesis may >>>>>>>> be false
Nope. Not unless the "context" is made part of the "input", and >>>>>>> if you do that, you find that since you are trying to make it so >>>>>>> the caller can't just define that context, your system is less
than turing complete.
Your system break to property of building a computation by the
concatination of sub-computations.
...including a context-dependent sub-computation makes ur overall >>>>>> computation context-dependent too ... if u dont want a context-
dependent computation don't include context-dependent sub-
computation.
Which makes it not a computation.
PERIOD.
Fallacy of equivocation.
i'm not shifting meaning dude. i'm directly claiming it's a distinct
type of computation that has been ignored by the theory of computing
thus far
nice try tho
But you don't actually do that, as you then claim to be in the same
field to solve a problem specified in the field.
As I said, if you want to try to define a new field based on a new
definition of what a computation is, go ahead.
it's not a new field, it's a mild extension of turing machines, with
one new operation.
No, it is, as you are changing essential core defintions.
That is like saying that spherical geometery is the same field as plane geometry, we just added a small extension.
You need to work out your formal definition.
Show how the system actually works out.
Show what it can show.
And show why anyone would want to use it.
but in order to be complete and coherent, certain computations
*must* have context-awareness and are therefore context-dependent. >>>>>> these computations aren't generally computable by TMs because TMs >>>>>> lack the necessary mechanisms to grant context-awareness.
In other words, you require some computations to not be actual
computations.
unless u can produce some actual proof of some computation that
actually breaks in context-dependence, rather than just listing
things u assume are true, i won't believe u know what ur talking
about
The definition.
A computation produces the well defined result based on the INPUT.
context-dependent computation simply expands it's input to include
the entire computing context, not just the formal parameters. it's
still well defined and it grants us access to meta computation that
is not as expressible in TM computing.
ct-thesis is cooked dude
Nope, because you are just putting yourself outside the field it is
written about.
You can't change the definition of a computation, and still talk
about things as if you were in the same system.
That just shows you are smoking some bad weed.
ur overgeneralizing. just become some computation is context-
Your context, being not part of the input, can't change the well-
defined result.
Should 1 + 2 become 4 on Thursdays? of it asked of a gingerbread man? >>>>
dependent doesn't mean all computation is context-dependent.
another fallacy.
Right, but nothing that actually is a computation can be context-
dependent.
ur just arguing in circles with this.
No, you are just lying to yourself to try to disagree with the definition.
All you are doing is saying you disagree with the definition.
Go ahead, try to define an alternate version of Computation Theory
where the result can depend on things that aren't part of the
actual input to the machine, and see what you can show that is useful. >>>>>
The problem becomes that you can't really say anything about what
you will get, since you don't know what the "hidden" factors are.
??? i was very clear multiple times over what the "hidden" input
was. there's nothing random about it, context-dependent computation
is just as well-defend and deterministic as context-independent
computation
The problem is that when you look at the computation itself (that
might be imbedded into a larger computation) you don't know which of
the infinite contexts it might be within.
depth is not infinite for any given step,
I didn't say infinite depth, I said from infinite contexts.
AND THAT'S WHERE REFLECT COMES IN: IT DUMPS THE FULL MACHINE
DESCRIPTION OF THE RUNNING MACHINE, THE CURRENT STATE NUMBER, AND A
FULL COPY OF THE TAPE ...
And WHICH machine description does it dump? The problem is the machine description isn't unique.
all the info required to compute all configurations between the
beginning and the current step of the computation, which can allow it
to compute anything that is "knowable" about where it is in the
computation at time of the REFLECT operation...
And where did it store that information?
Remember, the starting tape was unbounded in length (but finite).
The machine itself is bounded in size, plus the unbounded tape.
the problem is ur literally not reading what i'm writing to an
appreciable degree of comprehension, being too focused on isolated
responses that lack overall *contextual* awareness of the conversation...
No, you are ignoring the requirements to implement what you desire.
Thus, what you can say about that "computation" is very limited.
You don't seem to understand that a key point of the theory is about
being able to build complicate things from simpler pieces.
It comes out of how logic works, we build complicated theories based
on simpler theories and the axioms. If those simplere things were
"context dependent" it makes it much harder for them to specifiy what
they actually do in all contexts, and to then use them in all contexts.
i'm sorry context-dependent computation aren't as simple
Which is why you need to actually FULLY DEFINE them, and admit it is a
new field.
--
if the simplest theory was always correct we'd still be using
newtonian gravity for everything
You can't change a thing and it still be the same thing.
I guess that truth is something you don't understand
On 1/17/26 4:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/17/26 2:23 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/16/26 7:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/16/26 7:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/16/26 3:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/16/26 5:21 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/16/26 8:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/16/26 4:08 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/15/26 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/15/26 7:23 AM, dart200 wrote:
bro stick a giant dildo up ur asshole u hypocritical fuckface... >>>>>>>>>>>
when i tried to suggest improvements to the computational >>>>>>>>>>> model, like RTMs, u then told me i *can't* do that because >>>>>>>>>>> muh ct- thesis, and here u are crying about how no superior >>>>>>>>>>> method has been found as if u'd ever even tried to look past >>>>>>>>>>> the ct- thesis...
No, you didn't suggest improvements to the model, you just >>>>>>>>>> showed you don't knoww what that means.
You don't get to change what a "computation" is, that isn't >>>>>>>>>> part of the "model".
you honestly could have just said that cause the rest of this >>>>>>>>> is just u repeating urself as if that makes it more correct
But I HAVE said it that simply, and you rejected it as you think >>>>>>>> you get to,
but repeating urself doesn't make it more true
And your ignoring it doesn't make it false.
The model would be the format of the machine, and while your >>>>>>>>>> RTM might be a type of machine that could be thought of, they >>>>>>>>>> don't do COMPUTATIONS, as it violates the basic rules of what >>>>>>>>>> a compuation IS.
Computations are specific algorithms acting on just the input >>>>>>>>>> data.
A fundamental property needed to reach at least Turing
Complete ability, is the ability to cascade algorithms.
Your RTM break that capability, and thus become less than >>>>>>>>>> Turing Complete.
i'm sorry, RTMs are literally just TMs with one added
instruction that dumps static meta-data + copies tape ... how >>>>>>>>> have they *lost* power with that??? clearly they can express >>>>>>>>> anything that TMs can ...
Which means you don't understand how "TM"s work, as they don't >>>>>>>> have that sort of "instructions".
fuck dude sorry "operation" is the term turing used, i added to >>>>>>> the list of possible operations with RTMs, my god dude...
But the only "operations" that a turing machine does is write a
specified value to the tape, move the tape, and change state.
yes RTMs are an extension of TMs, please do pay attention
Nope, because they don't have the actual form of a TM.
Their operations isn't by the basic principles of a TM.
I think your problem is you don't actually know how a TM works, and
thus this is meaningless.
Please try to show how you would actually DEFINE in a system similar
to how you would define a regular TM one of your RTMS.
RTMs can run TM machine_descriptions directly without modification
because REFLECT is just an operation that need not be used in the
computation
So, you admit you can't do it, or are just too stupid to understand
what it means to DEFINE something.
take the TM definition and add REFLECT to it's set of possible operations.
regurgitation a TM definition to do that is not interesting to me, i'm
sure a gpt can help u out with that.
Not just hand-waving arguement, and actually encoded RTM that looks
like just an extension of some TM that has been encoded, and an
explaination of how such a hardware platform could be constructed.
see how fucking unhelpful u are???
So, how is your "operation" of the same class as what they do?
cause it's just as mechanically feasible. mechanical feasibility to >>>>> self-evident just like with the other rules of turing machines.
No, it is trying to put a hyper-cube into a flat plane drawing of a
square.
It seems you are just showing that you don't understand what you are
actually talking about, but are trying to baffle people with your
bullshit hopeing they won't notice your ignorance.
or u just don't understand what i mean by RTM,
I think understand what you are trying to do. But your problem is you
don't seem to understand it well enough to actually define it.
maybe ur just too old for me teach any new tricks...
I doubt that. I think it is more that you are too ignorant of the
field to understand your issues.
Try to specify the tuple that your "operation" is.
idk what you mean by this, REFLECT is just another operation like
HEAD_LEFT, HEAD_RIGHT, or WRITE_<symbol>, the. transition table has >>>>> a list of transition functions:
So, it is a "tape motion". and how do you move the tape a "reflect"?
it's a tape operation like all the rest of the operations
No, it isn't. WHich way is "Reflect"
The closest that can means is flip the tape end to end.
Your problem is you don't seem to understand the need to specify in
precise detail what that instruction does.
i've described what REFLECT does several times to you by now, clearly u aren't paying attention so idk why one more time would make a difference:
REFLECT will cause a bunch of machine meta-information to be written to
the tape, starting at the head, overwriting anything its path. at the
end of the operation, the head will still be in the same position as at
the start of the operation. the information written to tape will include
3 components:
- machine description
- current state transition
- current tape (the tape state before command runs)
cur_state, head_symbol -> action, nxt_state
and REFLECT goes into the action slot specifying the action that
should be taking to transition the tape to the next step.
That isn't an "action" slot, in classic representation it is a
binary field for tape motion direction.
richard, please do actually read turing's paper one of these days.
i've already posted at you his first machine description in text, and
now i'll post it in image form:
https://imgur.com/a/pzhHTMb
So, And did you read the descriptions of what those operations were.
Have you looked at how the description evolved over time as it was
refined.
do let me know when ur done with retardedly quibbling over syntax so
we can actually get around to discussing semantics one of these days,
When you actually DEFINE what you mean by your "Reflect" instruction,
as an actually implementable operation.
god i wish i had someone like turing to discuss this with, but so far
ur the only still responding to any depth.
I don't think it would help.
agree to disagree dick
And, any algorithm that actually USES their capability to >>>>>>>>>> detect if they have been nested will become incorrect as a >>>>>>>>>> decider, as a decider is a machine that computes a specific >>>>>>>>>> mapping of its input to its output, and if that result changes >>>>>>>>>> in the submachine, only one of the answers it gives (as a >>>>>>>>>> stand-alone, or as the sub- machine) can be right, so you just >>>>>>>>>> show that it gave a wrong answer.
u have proof that doesn't work yet you keep asserting this is >>>>>>>>> the "one true way". seems like u just enjoy shooting urself in >>>>>>>>> the foot, with the only actual rational way being it's just the >>>>>>>>> "one true way"
IT IS DEFINITION. Something you don't seem to understand.
"Computation" is NOT defined by what some machine does, that is >>>>>>>> algorithms and results. "Computation" is the mapping generated >>>>>>>> by it, which MUST be a specific mapping of input to output.
no one has defined "computation" well enough to prove that turing >>>>>>> machines can compute them all,
that's why it's the ct-thesis dude, not ct-law,
ur just affirming the consequent without proof.
No, the DEFINITION of a computation defines what it can be
irrespective of the actual machinery used to perform it.
It is, by definition, the algorithm computing of a given mapping.
Said maps, are BY DEFINITION mappings from the "input" to the
"output".
If the machine can produce two different output from the same
input, the machine can not be a computation.
a context-dependent computation is computing a mapping that isn't
directly specified by the formal input params. it's computing a
mapping of:
(context, input) -> output
WHich means that you are calling context as part of your input.
But you alse say that you can't set it, so you
the context comes from REFLECT
So, "Reflect" makes up the context? How does it know what to do?
not answering to red herrings from someone who isn't paying attention in
the slightest
or more generally just
context -> output
since the formal input is just a specific part of the context. and
the reason we got stuck on the halting problem of a fucking century >>>>> is ignoring that context matters.
And thus you system no longer has composition, as you have defined
that the context wasn't changable by the "caller" of a sub-computation. >>>>
This makes your system strictly LESS powerful than a Turing Machine.
no it doesn't because using context is an optional feature, not a
requirement for RTM machine descriptions. like i said RTMs can run
TMs directly so they include all TM computations as well.
You don't seem to understand, that the fact that the sub-computation
COULD use the reflect operation means that you can't control its input.
machines are well defined at the start the machine, so whether it does
or does not utilize REFLECT is knowable before the machine runs u moron
Thus, perhaps the better way to say it is the computations able to be
done with machines that actually use your feature, are less-than Turng
Complete.
There is nothing that you RTMs can do that a TM can't do, except to
define handcuffs for themselves.
The USE of your extention weakens the machine,
So, what is the fallacy?
add that to list of the growing fallacies i've pointed out in ur >>>>>>> recent arguments, which i'm sure ur not actually tracking, as
that would be far more honesty than u are capable of putting out. >>>>>>
AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT
Where did I do that.
I stated the DEFINITION of the term, something it seems you are just
aferming you don't understand.
what makes that definition right beyond you repeating yourself?
sometimes we get definitions wrong dude.
Because it IS the definition.
not an argument
I guess you don't understand the rules of logic.
also not an argument
it's pretty crazy i can produce a machine (even if u haven't
understood it yet) that produces a consistent deterministic result
that is "not a computation".
Because you get that result only by equivocating on your definitions.
If the context is part of the inpt to make the output determistic from
the input, then they fail to be usable as sub-computations as we can't
control that context part of the input.
When we look at just the controllable input for a sub-computation, the
output is NOT a deterministic function of that inut.
not sure what the fuck it's doing if it's not a computation
Its using hidden inputs that the caller can't control.
which we do all the time in normal programming, something which
apparently u think the tHeOrY oF CoMpUtInG fails to encapsulate
pretty crazy we do a bunch "non-computating" in the normal act of programming computers
Showing that you really don't understand what you are talking about.
It seems you just assume you are allowed to change the definition, >>>>>> perhaps because you never bothered to learn it.
Not from the "input" to the piece of algorithm, as it includes >>>>>>>> "hidden" state from outside that input stored elsewhere in the >>>>>>>> machine.
This is sort of like the problem with a RASP machine
architecture, sub- machines on such a platform are not
necessarily computations, if they use the machines capability >>>>>>>>>> to pass information not allowed by the rules of a computation. >>>>>>>>>> Your RTM similarly break that property.
Remember, Computations are NOT just what some model of
processing produce, but specifically is defined based on
producing a specific mapping of input to output, so if (even >>>>>>>>>> as a sub- machine) a specific input might produce different >>>>>>>>>> output, your architecture is NOT doing a computation.
And without that property, using what the machine could do, >>>>>>>>>> becomes a pretty worthless criteria, as you can't actually >>>>>>>>>> talk much about it.
the output is still well-defined and deterministic at runtime, >>>>>>>>
context-dependent computations are still computations. the fact >>>>>>>>> TMs don't capture them is an indication that the ct-thesis may >>>>>>>>> be false
Nope. Not unless the "context" is made part of the "input", and >>>>>>>> if you do that, you find that since you are trying to make it so >>>>>>>> the caller can't just define that context, your system is less >>>>>>>> than turing complete.
Your system break to property of building a computation by the >>>>>>>> concatination of sub-computations.
...including a context-dependent sub-computation makes ur overall >>>>>>> computation context-dependent too ... if u dont want a context- >>>>>>> dependent computation don't include context-dependent sub-
computation.
Which makes it not a computation.
PERIOD.
Fallacy of equivocation.
i'm not shifting meaning dude. i'm directly claiming it's a
distinct type of computation that has been ignored by the theory of >>>>> computing thus far
nice try tho
But you don't actually do that, as you then claim to be in the same
field to solve a problem specified in the field.
As I said, if you want to try to define a new field based on a new
definition of what a computation is, go ahead.
it's not a new field, it's a mild extension of turing machines, with
one new operation.
No, it is, as you are changing essential core defintions.
That is like saying that spherical geometery is the same field as
plane geometry, we just added a small extension.
what the did the nut say when it was all grown up???
You need to work out your formal definition.
Show how the system actually works out.
Show what it can show.
And show why anyone would want to use it.
but in order to be complete and coherent, certain computations
*must* have context-awareness and are therefore context-
dependent. these computations aren't generally computable by TMs >>>>>>> because TMs lack the necessary mechanisms to grant context-
awareness.
In other words, you require some computations to not be actual
computations.
unless u can produce some actual proof of some computation that >>>>>>> actually breaks in context-dependence, rather than just listing >>>>>>> things u assume are true, i won't believe u know what ur talking >>>>>>> about
The definition.
A computation produces the well defined result based on the INPUT.
context-dependent computation simply expands it's input to include
the entire computing context, not just the formal parameters. it's
still well defined and it grants us access to meta computation that >>>>> is not as expressible in TM computing.
ct-thesis is cooked dude
Nope, because you are just putting yourself outside the field it is
written about.
You can't change the definition of a computation, and still talk
about things as if you were in the same system.
That just shows you are smoking some bad weed.
ur overgeneralizing. just become some computation is context-
Your context, being not part of the input, can't change the well- >>>>>> defined result.
Should 1 + 2 become 4 on Thursdays? of it asked of a gingerbread man? >>>>>
dependent doesn't mean all computation is context-dependent.
another fallacy.
Right, but nothing that actually is a computation can be context-
dependent.
ur just arguing in circles with this.
No, you are just lying to yourself to try to disagree with the
definition.
All you are doing is saying you disagree with the definition.
Go ahead, try to define an alternate version of Computation Theory >>>>>> where the result can depend on things that aren't part of the
actual input to the machine, and see what you can show that is
useful.
The problem becomes that you can't really say anything about what >>>>>> you will get, since you don't know what the "hidden" factors are.
??? i was very clear multiple times over what the "hidden" input
was. there's nothing random about it, context-dependent computation >>>>> is just as well-defend and deterministic as context-independent
computation
The problem is that when you look at the computation itself (that
might be imbedded into a larger computation) you don't know which of
the infinite contexts it might be within.
depth is not infinite for any given step,
I didn't say infinite depth, I said from infinite contexts.
AND THAT'S WHERE REFLECT COMES IN: IT DUMPS THE FULL MACHINE
DESCRIPTION OF THE RUNNING MACHINE, THE CURRENT STATE NUMBER, AND A
FULL COPY OF THE TAPE ...
And WHICH machine description does it dump? The problem is the machine
description isn't unique.
all the info required to compute all configurations between the
beginning and the current step of the computation, which can allow it
to compute anything that is "knowable" about where it is in the
computation at time of the REFLECT operation...
And where did it store that information?
Remember, the starting tape was unbounded in length (but finite).
The machine itself is bounded in size, plus the unbounded tape.
the problem is ur literally not reading what i'm writing to an
appreciable degree of comprehension, being too focused on isolated
responses that lack overall *contextual* awareness of the
conversation...
No, you are ignoring the requirements to implement what you desire.
Thus, what you can say about that "computation" is very limited.
You don't seem to understand that a key point of the theory is about
being able to build complicate things from simpler pieces.
It comes out of how logic works, we build complicated theories based
on simpler theories and the axioms. If those simplere things were
"context dependent" it makes it much harder for them to specifiy
what they actually do in all contexts, and to then use them in all
contexts.
i'm sorry context-dependent computation aren't as simple
Which is why you need to actually FULLY DEFINE them, and admit it is a
new field.
well it'd be great if someone fucking helped me out there, but all i get
is a bunch adversarial dismissal cause i'm stuck on a god forsaking
planet of a fucking half-braindead clowns
if the simplest theory was always correct we'd still be using
newtonian gravity for everything
You can't change a thing and it still be the same thing.
I guess that truth is something you don't understand
On 1/17/26 10:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
Good luck starving to death when your money runs out.
I guess you don't understand the rules of logic.
also not an argument
Again, YOUR PROBLEM.
it's pretty crazy i can produce a machine (even if u haven't
understood it yet) that produces a consistent deterministic result
that is "not a computation".
Because you get that result only by equivocating on your definitions.
If the context is part of the inpt to make the output determistic
from the input, then they fail to be usable as sub-computations as we
can't control that context part of the input.
When we look at just the controllable input for a sub-computation,
the output is NOT a deterministic function of that inut.
not sure what the fuck it's doing if it's not a computation
Its using hidden inputs that the caller can't control.
which we do all the time in normal programming, something which
apparently u think the tHeOrY oF CoMpUtInG fails to encapsulate
Right, but that isn't about computations.
pretty crazy we do a bunch "non-computating" in the normal act of
programming computers
Why?
As I have said, "Computatations" is NOT about how modern computers work.
I guess you are just showing that you fundamentally don't understand the problem field you are betting your life on.
Showing that you really don't understand what you are talking about.
It seems you just assume you are allowed to change the
definition, perhaps because you never bothered to learn it.
Not from the "input" to the piece of algorithm, as it includes >>>>>>>>> "hidden" state from outside that input stored elsewhere in the >>>>>>>>> machine.
This is sort of like the problem with a RASP machine
architecture, sub- machines on such a platform are not
necessarily computations, if they use the machines capability >>>>>>>>>>> to pass information not allowed by the rules of a
computation. Your RTM similarly break that property.
Remember, Computations are NOT just what some model of
processing produce, but specifically is defined based on >>>>>>>>>>> producing a specific mapping of input to output, so if (even >>>>>>>>>>> as a sub- machine) a specific input might produce different >>>>>>>>>>> output, your architecture is NOT doing a computation.
And without that property, using what the machine could do, >>>>>>>>>>> becomes a pretty worthless criteria, as you can't actually >>>>>>>>>>> talk much about it.
the output is still well-defined and deterministic at runtime, >>>>>>>>>
context-dependent computations are still computations. the >>>>>>>>>> fact TMs don't capture them is an indication that the ct- >>>>>>>>>> thesis may be false
Nope. Not unless the "context" is made part of the "input", and >>>>>>>>> if you do that, you find that since you are trying to make it >>>>>>>>> so the caller can't just define that context, your system is >>>>>>>>> less than turing complete.
Your system break to property of building a computation by the >>>>>>>>> concatination of sub-computations.
...including a context-dependent sub-computation makes ur
overall computation context-dependent too ... if u dont want a >>>>>>>> context- dependent computation don't include context-dependent >>>>>>>> sub- computation.
Which makes it not a computation.
PERIOD.
Fallacy of equivocation.
i'm not shifting meaning dude. i'm directly claiming it's a
distinct type of computation that has been ignored by the theory
of computing thus far
nice try tho
But you don't actually do that, as you then claim to be in the same >>>>> field to solve a problem specified in the field.
As I said, if you want to try to define a new field based on a new
definition of what a computation is, go ahead.
it's not a new field, it's a mild extension of turing machines, with
one new operation.
No, it is, as you are changing essential core defintions.
That is like saying that spherical geometery is the same field as
plane geometry, we just added a small extension.
what the did the nut say when it was all grown up???
You need to work out your formal definition.
Show how the system actually works out.
Show what it can show.
And show why anyone would want to use it.
context-dependent computation simply expands it's input to include >>>>>> the entire computing context, not just the formal parameters. it's >>>>>> still well defined and it grants us access to meta computation
but in order to be complete and coherent, certain computations >>>>>>>> *must* have context-awareness and are therefore context-
dependent. these computations aren't generally computable by TMs >>>>>>>> because TMs lack the necessary mechanisms to grant context-
awareness.
In other words, you require some computations to not be actual
computations.
unless u can produce some actual proof of some computation that >>>>>>>> actually breaks in context-dependence, rather than just listing >>>>>>>> things u assume are true, i won't believe u know what ur talking >>>>>>>> about
The definition.
A computation produces the well defined result based on the INPUT. >>>>>>
that is not as expressible in TM computing.
ct-thesis is cooked dude
Nope, because you are just putting yourself outside the field it is >>>>> written about.
You can't change the definition of a computation, and still talk
about things as if you were in the same system.
That just shows you are smoking some bad weed.
Your context, being not part of the input, can't change the well- >>>>>>> defined result.
Should 1 + 2 become 4 on Thursdays? of it asked of a gingerbread >>>>>>> man?
ur overgeneralizing. just become some computation is context-
dependent doesn't mean all computation is context-dependent.
another fallacy.
Right, but nothing that actually is a computation can be context-
dependent.
ur just arguing in circles with this.
No, you are just lying to yourself to try to disagree with the
definition.
??? i was very clear multiple times over what the "hidden" input
All you are doing is saying you disagree with the definition.
Go ahead, try to define an alternate version of Computation
Theory where the result can depend on things that aren't part of >>>>>>> the actual input to the machine, and see what you can show that >>>>>>> is useful.
The problem becomes that you can't really say anything about what >>>>>>> you will get, since you don't know what the "hidden" factors are. >>>>>>
was. there's nothing random about it, context-dependent
computation is just as well-defend and deterministic as context-
independent computation
The problem is that when you look at the computation itself (that
might be imbedded into a larger computation) you don't know which
of the infinite contexts it might be within.
depth is not infinite for any given step,
I didn't say infinite depth, I said from infinite contexts.
AND THAT'S WHERE REFLECT COMES IN: IT DUMPS THE FULL MACHINE
DESCRIPTION OF THE RUNNING MACHINE, THE CURRENT STATE NUMBER, AND A
FULL COPY OF THE TAPE ...
And WHICH machine description does it dump? The problem is the
machine description isn't unique.
all the info required to compute all configurations between the
beginning and the current step of the computation, which can allow
it to compute anything that is "knowable" about where it is in the
computation at time of the REFLECT operation...
And where did it store that information?
Remember, the starting tape was unbounded in length (but finite).
The machine itself is bounded in size, plus the unbounded tape.
the problem is ur literally not reading what i'm writing to an
appreciable degree of comprehension, being too focused on isolated
responses that lack overall *contextual* awareness of the
conversation...
No, you are ignoring the requirements to implement what you desire.
Thus, what you can say about that "computation" is very limited.
You don't seem to understand that a key point of the theory is
about being able to build complicate things from simpler pieces.
It comes out of how logic works, we build complicated theories
based on simpler theories and the axioms. If those simplere things
were "context dependent" it makes it much harder for them to
specifiy what they actually do in all contexts, and to then use
them in all contexts.
i'm sorry context-dependent computation aren't as simple
Which is why you need to actually FULLY DEFINE them, and admit it is
a new field.
well it'd be great if someone fucking helped me out there, but all i
get is a bunch adversarial dismissal cause i'm stuck on a god
forsaking planet of a fucking half-braindead clowns
Help has been offered,
but you just reject it as it doesn't match your--
ideas, largely because you don't understand what you are trying to get in.
When your errors are explained, just just curse back.
I can't fix stupid.
You aren't stuck on a planet of clowns, you are the clown that doesn't understand the world.
if the simplest theory was always correct we'd still be using
newtonian gravity for everything
You can't change a thing and it still be the same thing.
I guess that truth is something you don't understand
On 1/17/26 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/17/26 10:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
Good luck starving to death when your money runs out.
one can only hope for so much sometimes 🙏
I guess you don't understand the rules of logic.
also not an argument
Again, YOUR PROBLEM.
it's pretty crazy i can produce a machine (even if u haven't
understood it yet) that produces a consistent deterministic result
that is "not a computation".
Because you get that result only by equivocating on your definitions.
If the context is part of the inpt to make the output determistic
from the input, then they fail to be usable as sub-computations as
we can't control that context part of the input.
When we look at just the controllable input for a sub-computation,
the output is NOT a deterministic function of that inut.
not sure what the fuck it's doing if it's not a computation
Its using hidden inputs that the caller can't control.
which we do all the time in normal programming, something which
apparently u think the tHeOrY oF CoMpUtInG fails to encapsulate
Right, but that isn't about computations.
pretty crazy we do a bunch "non-computating" in the normal act of
programming computers
Why?
As I have said, "Computatations" is NOT about how modern computers work.
I guess you are just showing that you fundamentally don't understand
the problem field you are betting your life on.
one would presume the fundamental theory of computing would be general enough to encapsulate everything computed by real world computers, no???
Showing that you really don't understand what you are talking about.
It seems you just assume you are allowed to change the
definition, perhaps because you never bothered to learn it.
Not from the "input" to the piece of algorithm, as it includes >>>>>>>>>> "hidden" state from outside that input stored elsewhere in the >>>>>>>>>> machine.
This is sort of like the problem with a RASP machine
architecture, sub- machines on such a platform are not >>>>>>>>>>>> necessarily computations, if they use the machines
capability to pass information not allowed by the rules of a >>>>>>>>>>>> computation. Your RTM similarly break that property.
Remember, Computations are NOT just what some model of >>>>>>>>>>>> processing produce, but specifically is defined based on >>>>>>>>>>>> producing a specific mapping of input to output, so if (even >>>>>>>>>>>> as a sub- machine) a specific input might produce different >>>>>>>>>>>> output, your architecture is NOT doing a computation.
And without that property, using what the machine could do, >>>>>>>>>>>> becomes a pretty worthless criteria, as you can't actually >>>>>>>>>>>> talk much about it.
the output is still well-defined and deterministic at runtime, >>>>>>>>>>
context-dependent computations are still computations. the >>>>>>>>>>> fact TMs don't capture them is an indication that the ct- >>>>>>>>>>> thesis may be false
Nope. Not unless the "context" is made part of the "input", >>>>>>>>>> and if you do that, you find that since you are trying to make >>>>>>>>>> it so the caller can't just define that context, your system >>>>>>>>>> is less than turing complete.
Your system break to property of building a computation by the >>>>>>>>>> concatination of sub-computations.
...including a context-dependent sub-computation makes ur
overall computation context-dependent too ... if u dont want a >>>>>>>>> context- dependent computation don't include context-dependent >>>>>>>>> sub- computation.
Which makes it not a computation.
PERIOD.
Fallacy of equivocation.
i'm not shifting meaning dude. i'm directly claiming it's a
distinct type of computation that has been ignored by the theory >>>>>>> of computing thus far
nice try tho
But you don't actually do that, as you then claim to be in the
same field to solve a problem specified in the field.
As I said, if you want to try to define a new field based on a new >>>>>> definition of what a computation is, go ahead.
it's not a new field, it's a mild extension of turing machines,
with one new operation.
No, it is, as you are changing essential core defintions.
That is like saying that spherical geometery is the same field as
plane geometry, we just added a small extension.
what the did the nut say when it was all grown up???
You need to work out your formal definition.
Show how the system actually works out.
Show what it can show.
And show why anyone would want to use it.
context-dependent computation simply expands it's input to
but in order to be complete and coherent, certain computations >>>>>>>>> *must* have context-awareness and are therefore context-
dependent. these computations aren't generally computable by >>>>>>>>> TMs because TMs lack the necessary mechanisms to grant context- >>>>>>>>> awareness.
In other words, you require some computations to not be actual >>>>>>>> computations.
unless u can produce some actual proof of some computation that >>>>>>>>> actually breaks in context-dependence, rather than just listing >>>>>>>>> things u assume are true, i won't believe u know what ur
talking about
The definition.
A computation produces the well defined result based on the INPUT. >>>>>>>
include the entire computing context, not just the formal
parameters. it's still well defined and it grants us access to
meta computation that is not as expressible in TM computing.
ct-thesis is cooked dude
Nope, because you are just putting yourself outside the field it
is written about.
You can't change the definition of a computation, and still talk
about things as if you were in the same system.
That just shows you are smoking some bad weed.
Your context, being not part of the input, can't change the
well- defined result.
Should 1 + 2 become 4 on Thursdays? of it asked of a gingerbread >>>>>>>> man?
ur overgeneralizing. just become some computation is context-
dependent doesn't mean all computation is context-dependent.
another fallacy.
Right, but nothing that actually is a computation can be context- >>>>>> dependent.
ur just arguing in circles with this.
No, you are just lying to yourself to try to disagree with the
definition.
All you are doing is saying you disagree with the definition.
Go ahead, try to define an alternate version of Computation
Theory where the result can depend on things that aren't part of >>>>>>>> the actual input to the machine, and see what you can show that >>>>>>>> is useful.
The problem becomes that you can't really say anything about
what you will get, since you don't know what the "hidden"
factors are.
??? i was very clear multiple times over what the "hidden" input >>>>>>> was. there's nothing random about it, context-dependent
computation is just as well-defend and deterministic as context- >>>>>>> independent computation
The problem is that when you look at the computation itself (that >>>>>> might be imbedded into a larger computation) you don't know which >>>>>> of the infinite contexts it might be within.
depth is not infinite for any given step,
I didn't say infinite depth, I said from infinite contexts.
AND THAT'S WHERE REFLECT COMES IN: IT DUMPS THE FULL MACHINE
DESCRIPTION OF THE RUNNING MACHINE, THE CURRENT STATE NUMBER, AND A >>>>> FULL COPY OF THE TAPE ...
And WHICH machine description does it dump? The problem is the
machine description isn't unique.
all the info required to compute all configurations between the
beginning and the current step of the computation, which can allow
it to compute anything that is "knowable" about where it is in the
computation at time of the REFLECT operation...
And where did it store that information?
Remember, the starting tape was unbounded in length (but finite).
The machine itself is bounded in size, plus the unbounded tape.
the problem is ur literally not reading what i'm writing to an
appreciable degree of comprehension, being too focused on isolated
responses that lack overall *contextual* awareness of the
conversation...
No, you are ignoring the requirements to implement what you desire.
Which is why you need to actually FULLY DEFINE them, and admit it is
Thus, what you can say about that "computation" is very limited.
You don't seem to understand that a key point of the theory is
about being able to build complicate things from simpler pieces.
It comes out of how logic works, we build complicated theories
based on simpler theories and the axioms. If those simplere things >>>>>> were "context dependent" it makes it much harder for them to
specifiy what they actually do in all contexts, and to then use
them in all contexts.
i'm sorry context-dependent computation aren't as simple >>>>
a new field.
well it'd be great if someone fucking helped me out there, but all i
get is a bunch adversarial dismissal cause i'm stuck on a god
forsaking planet of a fucking half-braindead clowns
Help has been offered,
not constructively, ur barely even paying attention to what i write
but you just reject it as it doesn't match your ideas, largely because
you don't understand what you are trying to get in.
When your errors are explained, just just curse back.
I can't fix stupid.
You aren't stuck on a planet of clowns, you are the clown that doesn't
understand the world.
if the simplest theory was always correct we'd still be using
newtonian gravity for everything
You can't change a thing and it still be the same thing.
I guess that truth is something you don't understand
On 1/18/26 1:05 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/17/26 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/17/26 10:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
Good luck starving to death when your money runs out.
one can only hope for so much sometimes 🙏
I guess you don't understand the rules of logic.
also not an argument
Again, YOUR PROBLEM.
it's pretty crazy i can produce a machine (even if u haven't
understood it yet) that produces a consistent deterministic result >>>>>> that is "not a computation".
Because you get that result only by equivocating on your definitions. >>>>>
If the context is part of the inpt to make the output determistic
from the input, then they fail to be usable as sub-computations as
we can't control that context part of the input.
When we look at just the controllable input for a sub-computation,
the output is NOT a deterministic function of that inut.
not sure what the fuck it's doing if it's not a computation
Its using hidden inputs that the caller can't control.
which we do all the time in normal programming, something which
apparently u think the tHeOrY oF CoMpUtInG fails to encapsulate
Right, but that isn't about computations.
pretty crazy we do a bunch "non-computating" in the normal act of
programming computers
Why?
As I have said, "Computatations" is NOT about how modern computers work. >>>
I guess you are just showing that you fundamentally don't understand
the problem field you are betting your life on.
one would presume the fundamental theory of computing would be general
enough to encapsulate everything computed by real world computers, no???
Why?
Remember, the fundamental theory of Computing PREDATES the computer as
you know it.
All you are doing is showing your ignorance of what you are talking about.
Showing that you really don't understand what you are talking about. >>>>>
It seems you just assume you are allowed to change the
definition, perhaps because you never bothered to learn it.
Not from the "input" to the piece of algorithm, as it
This is sort of like the problem with a RASP machine >>>>>>>>>>>>> architecture, sub- machines on such a platform are not >>>>>>>>>>>>> necessarily computations, if they use the machines
capability to pass information not allowed by the rules of >>>>>>>>>>>>> a computation. Your RTM similarly break that property. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Remember, Computations are NOT just what some model of >>>>>>>>>>>>> processing produce, but specifically is defined based on >>>>>>>>>>>>> producing a specific mapping of input to output, so if >>>>>>>>>>>>> (even as a sub- machine) a specific input might produce >>>>>>>>>>>>> different output, your architecture is NOT doing a
computation.
And without that property, using what the machine could do, >>>>>>>>>>>>> becomes a pretty worthless criteria, as you can't actually >>>>>>>>>>>>> talk much about it.
the output is still well-defined and deterministic at runtime, >>>>>>>>>>>
includes "hidden" state from outside that input stored
elsewhere in the machine.
context-dependent computations are still computations. the >>>>>>>>>>>> fact TMs don't capture them is an indication that the ct- >>>>>>>>>>>> thesis may be false
Nope. Not unless the "context" is made part of the "input", >>>>>>>>>>> and if you do that, you find that since you are trying to >>>>>>>>>>> make it so the caller can't just define that context, your >>>>>>>>>>> system is less than turing complete.
Your system break to property of building a computation by >>>>>>>>>>> the concatination of sub-computations.
...including a context-dependent sub-computation makes ur >>>>>>>>>> overall computation context-dependent too ... if u dont want a >>>>>>>>>> context- dependent computation don't include context-dependent >>>>>>>>>> sub- computation.
Which makes it not a computation.
PERIOD.
Fallacy of equivocation.
i'm not shifting meaning dude. i'm directly claiming it's a
distinct type of computation that has been ignored by the theory >>>>>>>> of computing thus far
nice try tho
But you don't actually do that, as you then claim to be in the
same field to solve a problem specified in the field.
As I said, if you want to try to define a new field based on a
new definition of what a computation is, go ahead.
it's not a new field, it's a mild extension of turing machines,
with one new operation.
No, it is, as you are changing essential core defintions.
That is like saying that spherical geometery is the same field as
plane geometry, we just added a small extension.
what the did the nut say when it was all grown up???
You need to work out your formal definition.
Show how the system actually works out.
Show what it can show.
And show why anyone would want to use it.
context-dependent computation simply expands it's input to
but in order to be complete and coherent, certain computations >>>>>>>>>> *must* have context-awareness and are therefore context-
dependent. these computations aren't generally computable by >>>>>>>>>> TMs because TMs lack the necessary mechanisms to grant
context- awareness.
In other words, you require some computations to not be actual >>>>>>>>> computations.
unless u can produce some actual proof of some computation >>>>>>>>>> that actually breaks in context-dependence, rather than just >>>>>>>>>> listing things u assume are true, i won't believe u know what >>>>>>>>>> ur talking about
The definition.
A computation produces the well defined result based on the INPUT. >>>>>>>>
include the entire computing context, not just the formal
parameters. it's still well defined and it grants us access to >>>>>>>> meta computation that is not as expressible in TM computing.
ct-thesis is cooked dude
Nope, because you are just putting yourself outside the field it >>>>>>> is written about.
You can't change the definition of a computation, and still talk >>>>>>> about things as if you were in the same system.
That just shows you are smoking some bad weed.
Your context, being not part of the input, can't change the >>>>>>>>> well- defined result.
Should 1 + 2 become 4 on Thursdays? of it asked of a
gingerbread man?
ur overgeneralizing. just become some computation is context- >>>>>>>> dependent doesn't mean all computation is context-dependent.
another fallacy.
Right, but nothing that actually is a computation can be context- >>>>>>> dependent.
ur just arguing in circles with this.
No, you are just lying to yourself to try to disagree with the
definition.
All you are doing is saying you disagree with the definition. >>>>>>>>>
Go ahead, try to define an alternate version of Computation >>>>>>>>> Theory where the result can depend on things that aren't part >>>>>>>>> of the actual input to the machine, and see what you can show >>>>>>>>> that is useful.
The problem becomes that you can't really say anything about >>>>>>>>> what you will get, since you don't know what the "hidden"
factors are.
??? i was very clear multiple times over what the "hidden" input >>>>>>>> was. there's nothing random about it, context-dependent
computation is just as well-defend and deterministic as context- >>>>>>>> independent computation
The problem is that when you look at the computation itself (that >>>>>>> might be imbedded into a larger computation) you don't know which >>>>>>> of the infinite contexts it might be within.
depth is not infinite for any given step,
I didn't say infinite depth, I said from infinite contexts.
AND THAT'S WHERE REFLECT COMES IN: IT DUMPS THE FULL MACHINE
DESCRIPTION OF THE RUNNING MACHINE, THE CURRENT STATE NUMBER, AND >>>>>> A FULL COPY OF THE TAPE ...
And WHICH machine description does it dump? The problem is the
machine description isn't unique.
all the info required to compute all configurations between the
beginning and the current step of the computation, which can allow >>>>>> it to compute anything that is "knowable" about where it is in the >>>>>> computation at time of the REFLECT operation...
And where did it store that information?
Remember, the starting tape was unbounded in length (but finite).
The machine itself is bounded in size, plus the unbounded tape.
the problem is ur literally not reading what i'm writing to an
appreciable degree of comprehension, being too focused on isolated >>>>>> responses that lack overall *contextual* awareness of the
conversation...
No, you are ignoring the requirements to implement what you desire.
Which is why you need to actually FULLY DEFINE them, and admit it
Thus, what you can say about that "computation" is very limited. >>>>>>>
You don't seem to understand that a key point of the theory is
about being able to build complicate things from simpler pieces. >>>>>>>
It comes out of how logic works, we build complicated theories
based on simpler theories and the axioms. If those simplere
things were "context dependent" it makes it much harder for them >>>>>>> to specifiy what they actually do in all contexts, and to then
use them in all contexts.
i'm sorry context-dependent computation aren't as simple >>>>>
is a new field.
well it'd be great if someone fucking helped me out there, but all i
get is a bunch adversarial dismissal cause i'm stuck on a god
forsaking planet of a fucking half-braindead clowns
Help has been offered,
not constructively, ur barely even paying attention to what i write
No, perhaps the problem is I assume you at least attempt to learn what
you are trying to talk about.
but you just reject it as it doesn't match your ideas, largely
because you don't understand what you are trying to get in.
When your errors are explained, just just curse back.
I can't fix stupid.
You aren't stuck on a planet of clowns, you are the clown that
doesn't understand the world.
if the simplest theory was always correct we'd still be using
newtonian gravity for everything
You can't change a thing and it still be the same thing.
I guess that truth is something you don't understand
On 1/18/26 4:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 1:05 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/17/26 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/17/26 10:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
Good luck starving to death when your money runs out.
one can only hope for so much sometimes 🙏
I guess you don't understand the rules of logic.
also not an argument
Again, YOUR PROBLEM.
it's pretty crazy i can produce a machine (even if u haven't
understood it yet) that produces a consistent deterministic
result that is "not a computation".
Because you get that result only by equivocating on your definitions. >>>>>>
If the context is part of the inpt to make the output determistic >>>>>> from the input, then they fail to be usable as sub-computations as >>>>>> we can't control that context part of the input.
When we look at just the controllable input for a sub-computation, >>>>>> the output is NOT a deterministic function of that inut.
not sure what the fuck it's doing if it's not a computation
Its using hidden inputs that the caller can't control.
which we do all the time in normal programming, something which
apparently u think the tHeOrY oF CoMpUtInG fails to encapsulate
Right, but that isn't about computations.
pretty crazy we do a bunch "non-computating" in the normal act of
programming computers
Why?
As I have said, "Computatations" is NOT about how modern computers
work.
I guess you are just showing that you fundamentally don't understand
the problem field you are betting your life on.
one would presume the fundamental theory of computing would be
general enough to encapsulate everything computed by real world
computers, no???
Why?
Remember, the fundamental theory of Computing PREDATES the computer as
you know it.
so ur saying it's outdated and needs updating in regards to new things
we do with computers that apparently turing machines as a model don't
have variations of ...
or what ... someone writes down a fundamental theory and then it just
sticks around like an unchanging law when u haven't even proven the ct- thesis correct???
All you are doing is showing your ignorance of what you are talking
about.
Showing that you really don't understand what you are talking about. >>>>>>
It seems you just assume you are allowed to change the
definition, perhaps because you never bothered to learn it. >>>>>>>>>>
Not from the "input" to the piece of algorithm, as it >>>>>>>>>>>> includes "hidden" state from outside that input stored >>>>>>>>>>>> elsewhere in the machine.
This is sort of like the problem with a RASP machine >>>>>>>>>>>>>> architecture, sub- machines on such a platform are not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessarily computations, if they use the machines >>>>>>>>>>>>>> capability to pass information not allowed by the rules of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a computation. Your RTM similarly break that property. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Remember, Computations are NOT just what some model of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing produce, but specifically is defined based on >>>>>>>>>>>>>> producing a specific mapping of input to output, so if >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (even as a sub- machine) a specific input might produce >>>>>>>>>>>>>> different output, your architecture is NOT doing a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation.
And without that property, using what the machine could >>>>>>>>>>>>>> do, becomes a pretty worthless criteria, as you can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually talk much about it.
the output is still well-defined and deterministic at runtime, >>>>>>>>>>>>
context-dependent computations are still computations. the >>>>>>>>>>>>> fact TMs don't capture them is an indication that the ct- >>>>>>>>>>>>> thesis may be false
Nope. Not unless the "context" is made part of the "input", >>>>>>>>>>>> and if you do that, you find that since you are trying to >>>>>>>>>>>> make it so the caller can't just define that context, your >>>>>>>>>>>> system is less than turing complete.
Your system break to property of building a computation by >>>>>>>>>>>> the concatination of sub-computations.
...including a context-dependent sub-computation makes ur >>>>>>>>>>> overall computation context-dependent too ... if u dont want >>>>>>>>>>> a context- dependent computation don't include context- >>>>>>>>>>> dependent sub- computation.
Which makes it not a computation.
PERIOD.
Fallacy of equivocation.
i'm not shifting meaning dude. i'm directly claiming it's a >>>>>>>>> distinct type of computation that has been ignored by the
theory of computing thus far
nice try tho
But you don't actually do that, as you then claim to be in the >>>>>>>> same field to solve a problem specified in the field.
As I said, if you want to try to define a new field based on a >>>>>>>> new definition of what a computation is, go ahead.
it's not a new field, it's a mild extension of turing machines, >>>>>>> with one new operation.
No, it is, as you are changing essential core defintions.
That is like saying that spherical geometery is the same field as >>>>>> plane geometry, we just added a small extension.
what the did the nut say when it was all grown up???
You need to work out your formal definition.
Show how the system actually works out.
Show what it can show.
And show why anyone would want to use it.
but in order to be complete and coherent, certain
computations *must* have context-awareness and are therefore >>>>>>>>>>> context- dependent. these computations aren't generally >>>>>>>>>>> computable by TMs because TMs lack the necessary mechanisms >>>>>>>>>>> to grant context- awareness.
In other words, you require some computations to not be actual >>>>>>>>>> computations.
unless u can produce some actual proof of some computation >>>>>>>>>>> that actually breaks in context-dependence, rather than just >>>>>>>>>>> listing things u assume are true, i won't believe u know what >>>>>>>>>>> ur talking about
The definition.
A computation produces the well defined result based on the >>>>>>>>>> INPUT.
context-dependent computation simply expands it's input to
include the entire computing context, not just the formal
parameters. it's still well defined and it grants us access to >>>>>>>>> meta computation that is not as expressible in TM computing. >>>>>>>>>
ct-thesis is cooked dude
Nope, because you are just putting yourself outside the field it >>>>>>>> is written about.
You can't change the definition of a computation, and still talk >>>>>>>> about things as if you were in the same system.
That just shows you are smoking some bad weed.
Your context, being not part of the input, can't change the >>>>>>>>>> well- defined result.
Should 1 + 2 become 4 on Thursdays? of it asked of a
gingerbread man?
ur overgeneralizing. just become some computation is context- >>>>>>>>> dependent doesn't mean all computation is context-dependent. >>>>>>>>>
another fallacy.
Right, but nothing that actually is a computation can be
context- dependent.
ur just arguing in circles with this.
No, you are just lying to yourself to try to disagree with the
definition.
All you are doing is saying you disagree with the definition. >>>>>>>>>>
Go ahead, try to define an alternate version of Computation >>>>>>>>>> Theory where the result can depend on things that aren't part >>>>>>>>>> of the actual input to the machine, and see what you can show >>>>>>>>>> that is useful.
The problem becomes that you can't really say anything about >>>>>>>>>> what you will get, since you don't know what the "hidden" >>>>>>>>>> factors are.
??? i was very clear multiple times over what the "hidden"
input was. there's nothing random about it, context-dependent >>>>>>>>> computation is just as well-defend and deterministic as
context- independent computation
The problem is that when you look at the computation itself
(that might be imbedded into a larger computation) you don't
know which of the infinite contexts it might be within.
depth is not infinite for any given step,
I didn't say infinite depth, I said from infinite contexts.
AND THAT'S WHERE REFLECT COMES IN: IT DUMPS THE FULL MACHINE
DESCRIPTION OF THE RUNNING MACHINE, THE CURRENT STATE NUMBER, AND >>>>>>> A FULL COPY OF THE TAPE ...
And WHICH machine description does it dump? The problem is the
machine description isn't unique.
all the info required to compute all configurations between the >>>>>>> beginning and the current step of the computation, which can
allow it to compute anything that is "knowable" about where it is >>>>>>> in the computation at time of the REFLECT operation...
And where did it store that information?
Remember, the starting tape was unbounded in length (but finite).
The machine itself is bounded in size, plus the unbounded tape.
the problem is ur literally not reading what i'm writing to an
appreciable degree of comprehension, being too focused on
isolated responses that lack overall *contextual* awareness of
the conversation...
No, you are ignoring the requirements to implement what you desire. >>>>>>
Which is why you need to actually FULLY DEFINE them, and admit it >>>>>> is a new field.
Thus, what you can say about that "computation" is very limited. >>>>>>>>
You don't seem to understand that a key point of the theory is >>>>>>>> about being able to build complicate things from simpler pieces. >>>>>>>>
It comes out of how logic works, we build complicated theories >>>>>>>> based on simpler theories and the axioms. If those simplere
things were "context dependent" it makes it much harder for them >>>>>>>> to specifiy what they actually do in all contexts, and to then >>>>>>>> use them in all contexts.
i'm sorry context-dependent computation aren't as simple >>>>>>
well it'd be great if someone fucking helped me out there, but all
i get is a bunch adversarial dismissal cause i'm stuck on a god
forsaking planet of a fucking half-braindead clowns
Help has been offered,
not constructively, ur barely even paying attention to what i write
No, perhaps the problem is I assume you at least attempt to learn what
you are trying to talk about.
u don't even know what constructive help is to be frank
i'm not ur student, ur not my teachers, this isn't a hierarchical relationship,
and until u recognize that ur going to continue to be non-constructive
but you just reject it as it doesn't match your ideas, largely
because you don't understand what you are trying to get in.
When your errors are explained, just just curse back.
I can't fix stupid.
You aren't stuck on a planet of clowns, you are the clown that
doesn't understand the world.
if the simplest theory was always correct we'd still be using
newtonian gravity for everything
You can't change a thing and it still be the same thing.
I guess that truth is something you don't understand
On 1/18/26 1:15 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/18/26 4:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 1:05 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/17/26 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/17/26 10:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
Good luck starving to death when your money runs out.
one can only hope for so much sometimes 🙏
I guess you don't understand the rules of logic.
also not an argument
Again, YOUR PROBLEM.
it's pretty crazy i can produce a machine (even if u haven't
understood it yet) that produces a consistent deterministic
result that is "not a computation".
Because you get that result only by equivocating on your
definitions.
If the context is part of the inpt to make the output determistic >>>>>>> from the input, then they fail to be usable as sub-computations >>>>>>> as we can't control that context part of the input.
When we look at just the controllable input for a sub-
computation, the output is NOT a deterministic function of that >>>>>>> inut.
not sure what the fuck it's doing if it's not a computation
Its using hidden inputs that the caller can't control.
which we do all the time in normal programming, something which
apparently u think the tHeOrY oF CoMpUtInG fails to encapsulate
Right, but that isn't about computations.
pretty crazy we do a bunch "non-computating" in the normal act of >>>>>> programming computers
Why?
As I have said, "Computatations" is NOT about how modern computers
work.
I guess you are just showing that you fundamentally don't
understand the problem field you are betting your life on.
one would presume the fundamental theory of computing would be
general enough to encapsulate everything computed by real world
computers, no???
Why?
Remember, the fundamental theory of Computing PREDATES the computer
as you know it.
so ur saying it's outdated and needs updating in regards to new things
we do with computers that apparently turing machines as a model don't
have variations of ...
No, it still handles that which it was developed for.
or what ... someone writes down a fundamental theory and then it just
sticks around like an unchanging law when u haven't even proven the
ct- thesis correct???
Why does it need to change?
If a new problem comes up, a new theory might be needed to handle it.
All you are doing is showing your ignorance of what you are talking
about.
Showing that you really don't understand what you are talking about. >>>>>>>
It seems you just assume you are allowed to change the
definition, perhaps because you never bothered to learn it. >>>>>>>>>>>
This is sort of like the problem with a RASP machine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> architecture, sub- machines on such a platform are not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessarily computations, if they use the machines >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capability to pass information not allowed by the rules >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a computation. Your RTM similarly break that property. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Remember, Computations are NOT just what some model of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing produce, but specifically is defined based on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> producing a specific mapping of input to output, so if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (even as a sub- machine) a specific input might produce >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different output, your architecture is NOT doing a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation.
And without that property, using what the machine could >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do, becomes a pretty worthless criteria, as you can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually talk much about it.
the output is still well-defined and deterministic at >>>>>>>>>>>>>> runtime,
Not from the "input" to the piece of algorithm, as it >>>>>>>>>>>>> includes "hidden" state from outside that input stored >>>>>>>>>>>>> elsewhere in the machine.
context-dependent computations are still computations. the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact TMs don't capture them is an indication that the ct- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> thesis may be false
Nope. Not unless the "context" is made part of the "input", >>>>>>>>>>>>> and if you do that, you find that since you are trying to >>>>>>>>>>>>> make it so the caller can't just define that context, your >>>>>>>>>>>>> system is less than turing complete.
Your system break to property of building a computation by >>>>>>>>>>>>> the concatination of sub-computations.
...including a context-dependent sub-computation makes ur >>>>>>>>>>>> overall computation context-dependent too ... if u dont want >>>>>>>>>>>> a context- dependent computation don't include context- >>>>>>>>>>>> dependent sub- computation.
Which makes it not a computation.
PERIOD.
Fallacy of equivocation.
i'm not shifting meaning dude. i'm directly claiming it's a >>>>>>>>>> distinct type of computation that has been ignored by the >>>>>>>>>> theory of computing thus far
nice try tho
But you don't actually do that, as you then claim to be in the >>>>>>>>> same field to solve a problem specified in the field.
As I said, if you want to try to define a new field based on a >>>>>>>>> new definition of what a computation is, go ahead.
it's not a new field, it's a mild extension of turing machines, >>>>>>>> with one new operation.
No, it is, as you are changing essential core defintions.
That is like saying that spherical geometery is the same field as >>>>>>> plane geometry, we just added a small extension.
what the did the nut say when it was all grown up???
You need to work out your formal definition.
Show how the system actually works out.
Show what it can show.
And show why anyone would want to use it.
but in order to be complete and coherent, certain
computations *must* have context-awareness and are therefore >>>>>>>>>>>> context- dependent. these computations aren't generally >>>>>>>>>>>> computable by TMs because TMs lack the necessary mechanisms >>>>>>>>>>>> to grant context- awareness.
In other words, you require some computations to not be >>>>>>>>>>> actual computations.
unless u can produce some actual proof of some computation >>>>>>>>>>>> that actually breaks in context-dependence, rather than just >>>>>>>>>>>> listing things u assume are true, i won't believe u know >>>>>>>>>>>> what ur talking about
The definition.
A computation produces the well defined result based on the >>>>>>>>>>> INPUT.
context-dependent computation simply expands it's input to >>>>>>>>>> include the entire computing context, not just the formal >>>>>>>>>> parameters. it's still well defined and it grants us access to >>>>>>>>>> meta computation that is not as expressible in TM computing. >>>>>>>>>>
ct-thesis is cooked dude
Nope, because you are just putting yourself outside the field >>>>>>>>> it is written about.
You can't change the definition of a computation, and still >>>>>>>>> talk about things as if you were in the same system.
That just shows you are smoking some bad weed.
Your context, being not part of the input, can't change the >>>>>>>>>>> well- defined result.
Should 1 + 2 become 4 on Thursdays? of it asked of a
gingerbread man?
ur overgeneralizing. just become some computation is context- >>>>>>>>>> dependent doesn't mean all computation is context-dependent. >>>>>>>>>>
another fallacy.
Right, but nothing that actually is a computation can be
context- dependent.
ur just arguing in circles with this.
No, you are just lying to yourself to try to disagree with the
definition.
All you are doing is saying you disagree with the definition. >>>>>>>>>>>
Go ahead, try to define an alternate version of Computation >>>>>>>>>>> Theory where the result can depend on things that aren't part >>>>>>>>>>> of the actual input to the machine, and see what you can show >>>>>>>>>>> that is useful.
The problem becomes that you can't really say anything about >>>>>>>>>>> what you will get, since you don't know what the "hidden" >>>>>>>>>>> factors are.
??? i was very clear multiple times over what the "hidden" >>>>>>>>>> input was. there's nothing random about it, context-dependent >>>>>>>>>> computation is just as well-defend and deterministic as
context- independent computation
The problem is that when you look at the computation itself >>>>>>>>> (that might be imbedded into a larger computation) you don't >>>>>>>>> know which of the infinite contexts it might be within.
depth is not infinite for any given step,
I didn't say infinite depth, I said from infinite contexts.
AND THAT'S WHERE REFLECT COMES IN: IT DUMPS THE FULL MACHINE
DESCRIPTION OF THE RUNNING MACHINE, THE CURRENT STATE NUMBER, >>>>>>>> AND A FULL COPY OF THE TAPE ...
And WHICH machine description does it dump? The problem is the
machine description isn't unique.
all the info required to compute all configurations between the >>>>>>>> beginning and the current step of the computation, which can
allow it to compute anything that is "knowable" about where it >>>>>>>> is in the computation at time of the REFLECT operation...
And where did it store that information?
Remember, the starting tape was unbounded in length (but finite). >>>>>>>
The machine itself is bounded in size, plus the unbounded tape.
the problem is ur literally not reading what i'm writing to an >>>>>>>> appreciable degree of comprehension, being too focused on
isolated responses that lack overall *contextual* awareness of >>>>>>>> the conversation...
No, you are ignoring the requirements to implement what you desire. >>>>>>>
Which is why you need to actually FULLY DEFINE them, and admit it >>>>>>> is a new field.
Thus, what you can say about that "computation" is very limited. >>>>>>>>>
You don't seem to understand that a key point of the theory is >>>>>>>>> about being able to build complicate things from simpler pieces. >>>>>>>>>
It comes out of how logic works, we build complicated theories >>>>>>>>> based on simpler theories and the axioms. If those simplere >>>>>>>>> things were "context dependent" it makes it much harder for >>>>>>>>> them to specifiy what they actually do in all contexts, and to >>>>>>>>> then use them in all contexts.
i'm sorry context-dependent computation aren't as simple >>>>>>>
well it'd be great if someone fucking helped me out there, but all >>>>>> i get is a bunch adversarial dismissal cause i'm stuck on a god
forsaking planet of a fucking half-braindead clowns
Help has been offered,
not constructively, ur barely even paying attention to what i write
No, perhaps the problem is I assume you at least attempt to learn
what you are trying to talk about.
u don't even know what constructive help is to be frank
i'm not ur student, ur not my teachers, this isn't a hierarchical
relationship,
and until u recognize that ur going to continue to be non-constructive
YOU were the one asking for help to develop your ideas, if only by
posting them and asking for comments.
I have just pointed out the fundamental errors in your analysis
You need to make a choice of directions.
Either you work in the currently established theory, so you can use
things in it, and see if you can develop something new.
Or, you branch out and start a brand new theory, and start at the ground floor, fully define what you mean by things, show what you ideas can do,
and why that would be useful.
It seems you want to change the foundation, but keep most of the
building on top, without even knowing how that building was built and
how it connects to the foundation.
That just doesn't work.
but you just reject it as it doesn't match your ideas, largely
because you don't understand what you are trying to get in.
When your errors are explained, just just curse back.
I can't fix stupid.
You aren't stuck on a planet of clowns, you are the clown that
doesn't understand the world.
if the simplest theory was always correct we'd still be using >>>>>>>> newtonian gravity for everything
You can't change a thing and it still be the same thing.
I guess that truth is something you don't understand
well it was developed to be a general theory of computing, and
apparently modern computing has transcended that theory
well it was developed to be a general theory of computing, and
apparently modern computing has transcended that theory
On 18/01/2026 21:50, dart200 wrote:
well it was developed to be a general theory of computing, and
apparently modern computing has transcended that theory
In what ways is that apparent to you?
Note "computing (the field, today)" does not refer to exactly the same
relata as "computation" or "computing (the activity, then)".
computing to
On 1/18/26 2:27 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 18/01/2026 21:50, dart200 wrote:
well it was developed to be a general theory of computing, and
apparently modern computing has transcended that theory
In what ways is that apparent to you?
modern computing utilized context-dependent functions, whereas turing machine computations cannot be context-dependent.
like a simple total stack trace cannot be generally implemented for
turing machines cause the top level runtime cannot be deduced by the computation. there's no mechanism to do that.
Note "computing (the field, today)" does not refer to exactly the same
relata as "computation" or "computing (the activity, then)".
computing to
On 1/18/26 12:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 1:15 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/18/26 4:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 1:05 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/17/26 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/17/26 10:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
Good luck starving to death when your money runs out.
one can only hope for so much sometimes 🙏
I guess you don't understand the rules of logic.
also not an argument
Again, YOUR PROBLEM.
it's pretty crazy i can produce a machine (even if u haven't >>>>>>>>> understood it yet) that produces a consistent deterministic >>>>>>>>> result that is "not a computation".
Because you get that result only by equivocating on your
definitions.
If the context is part of the inpt to make the output
determistic from the input, then they fail to be usable as sub- >>>>>>>> computations as we can't control that context part of the input. >>>>>>>>
When we look at just the controllable input for a sub-
computation, the output is NOT a deterministic function of that >>>>>>>> inut.
not sure what the fuck it's doing if it's not a computation
Its using hidden inputs that the caller can't control.
which we do all the time in normal programming, something which >>>>>>> apparently u think the tHeOrY oF CoMpUtInG fails to encapsulate
Right, but that isn't about computations.
pretty crazy we do a bunch "non-computating" in the normal act of >>>>>>> programming computers
Why?
As I have said, "Computatations" is NOT about how modern computers >>>>>> work.
I guess you are just showing that you fundamentally don't
understand the problem field you are betting your life on.
one would presume the fundamental theory of computing would be
general enough to encapsulate everything computed by real world
computers, no???
Why?
Remember, the fundamental theory of Computing PREDATES the computer
as you know it.
so ur saying it's outdated and needs updating in regards to new
things we do with computers that apparently turing machines as a
model don't have variations of ...
No, it still handles that which it was developed for.
well it was developed to be a general theory of computing, and
apparently modern computing has transcended that theory ...
or what ... someone writes down a fundamental theory and then it just
sticks around like an unchanging law when u haven't even proven the
ct- thesis correct???
Why does it need to change?
why does the fundamental theory of computing need to encapsulate all
that is possible within computing??
idk, what's what i thot a fundamental theory is supposed to do, but i
guess you don't agree???
like, if the fundamental theory doesn't encapsulate everything done
within computing ... then idk why u think the halting problem should
apply to modern computing???
If a new problem comes up, a new theory might be needed to handle it.
or maybe new techniques could rectify old problems ...
talk about a lack of curiosity. you confusing regurgitation of route learning with actual intelligence, but i suppose that's all u need
working for a military contractor...
military intelligence is an oxymoron, remember?
All you are doing is showing your ignorance of what you are talking
about.
Showing that you really don't understand what you are talking >>>>>>>> about.
It seems you just assume you are allowed to change the >>>>>>>>>>>> definition, perhaps because you never bothered to learn it. >>>>>>>>>>>>
This is sort of like the problem with a RASP machine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> architecture, sub- machines on such a platform are not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessarily computations, if they use the machines >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capability to pass information not allowed by the rules >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a computation. Your RTM similarly break that property. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Remember, Computations are NOT just what some model of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing produce, but specifically is defined based on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> producing a specific mapping of input to output, so if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (even as a sub- machine) a specific input might produce >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different output, your architecture is NOT doing a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation.
And without that property, using what the machine could >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do, becomes a pretty worthless criteria, as you can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually talk much about it.
the output is still well-defined and deterministic at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> runtime,
Not from the "input" to the piece of algorithm, as it >>>>>>>>>>>>>> includes "hidden" state from outside that input stored >>>>>>>>>>>>>> elsewhere in the machine.
context-dependent computations are still computations. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the fact TMs don't capture them is an indication that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ct- thesis may be false
Nope. Not unless the "context" is made part of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "input", and if you do that, you find that since you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to make it so the caller can't just define that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> context, your system is less than turing complete. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Your system break to property of building a computation by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the concatination of sub-computations.
...including a context-dependent sub-computation makes ur >>>>>>>>>>>>> overall computation context-dependent too ... if u dont >>>>>>>>>>>>> want a context- dependent computation don't include >>>>>>>>>>>>> context- dependent sub- computation.
Which makes it not a computation.
PERIOD.
Fallacy of equivocation.
i'm not shifting meaning dude. i'm directly claiming it's a >>>>>>>>>>> distinct type of computation that has been ignored by the >>>>>>>>>>> theory of computing thus far
nice try tho
But you don't actually do that, as you then claim to be in the >>>>>>>>>> same field to solve a problem specified in the field.
As I said, if you want to try to define a new field based on a >>>>>>>>>> new definition of what a computation is, go ahead.
it's not a new field, it's a mild extension of turing machines, >>>>>>>>> with one new operation.
No, it is, as you are changing essential core defintions.
That is like saying that spherical geometery is the same field >>>>>>>> as plane geometry, we just added a small extension.
what the did the nut say when it was all grown up???
You need to work out your formal definition.
Show how the system actually works out.
Show what it can show.
And show why anyone would want to use it.
but in order to be complete and coherent, certain
computations *must* have context-awareness and are
therefore context- dependent. these computations aren't >>>>>>>>>>>>> generally computable by TMs because TMs lack the necessary >>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanisms to grant context- awareness.
In other words, you require some computations to not be >>>>>>>>>>>> actual computations.
unless u can produce some actual proof of some computation >>>>>>>>>>>>> that actually breaks in context-dependence, rather than >>>>>>>>>>>>> just listing things u assume are true, i won't believe u >>>>>>>>>>>>> know what ur talking about
The definition.
A computation produces the well defined result based on the >>>>>>>>>>>> INPUT.
context-dependent computation simply expands it's input to >>>>>>>>>>> include the entire computing context, not just the formal >>>>>>>>>>> parameters. it's still well defined and it grants us access >>>>>>>>>>> to meta computation that is not as expressible in TM computing. >>>>>>>>>>>
ct-thesis is cooked dude
Nope, because you are just putting yourself outside the field >>>>>>>>>> it is written about.
You can't change the definition of a computation, and still >>>>>>>>>> talk about things as if you were in the same system.
That just shows you are smoking some bad weed.
Your context, being not part of the input, can't change the >>>>>>>>>>>> well- defined result.
Should 1 + 2 become 4 on Thursdays? of it asked of a
gingerbread man?
ur overgeneralizing. just become some computation is context- >>>>>>>>>>> dependent doesn't mean all computation is context-dependent. >>>>>>>>>>>
another fallacy.
Right, but nothing that actually is a computation can be
context- dependent.
ur just arguing in circles with this.
No, you are just lying to yourself to try to disagree with the >>>>>>>> definition.
All you are doing is saying you disagree with the definition. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Go ahead, try to define an alternate version of Computation >>>>>>>>>>>> Theory where the result can depend on things that aren't >>>>>>>>>>>> part of the actual input to the machine, and see what you >>>>>>>>>>>> can show that is useful.
The problem becomes that you can't really say anything about >>>>>>>>>>>> what you will get, since you don't know what the "hidden" >>>>>>>>>>>> factors are.
??? i was very clear multiple times over what the "hidden" >>>>>>>>>>> input was. there's nothing random about it, context-dependent >>>>>>>>>>> computation is just as well-defend and deterministic as >>>>>>>>>>> context- independent computation
The problem is that when you look at the computation itself >>>>>>>>>> (that might be imbedded into a larger computation) you don't >>>>>>>>>> know which of the infinite contexts it might be within.
depth is not infinite for any given step,
I didn't say infinite depth, I said from infinite contexts.
AND THAT'S WHERE REFLECT COMES IN: IT DUMPS THE FULL MACHINE >>>>>>>>> DESCRIPTION OF THE RUNNING MACHINE, THE CURRENT STATE NUMBER, >>>>>>>>> AND A FULL COPY OF THE TAPE ...
And WHICH machine description does it dump? The problem is the >>>>>>>> machine description isn't unique.
all the info required to compute all configurations between the >>>>>>>>> beginning and the current step of the computation, which can >>>>>>>>> allow it to compute anything that is "knowable" about where it >>>>>>>>> is in the computation at time of the REFLECT operation...
And where did it store that information?
Remember, the starting tape was unbounded in length (but finite). >>>>>>>>
The machine itself is bounded in size, plus the unbounded tape. >>>>>>>>
the problem is ur literally not reading what i'm writing to an >>>>>>>>> appreciable degree of comprehension, being too focused on
isolated responses that lack overall *contextual* awareness of >>>>>>>>> the conversation...
No, you are ignoring the requirements to implement what you desire. >>>>>>>>
Which is why you need to actually FULLY DEFINE them, and admit >>>>>>>> it is a new field.
Thus, what you can say about that "computation" is very limited. >>>>>>>>>>
You don't seem to understand that a key point of the theory is >>>>>>>>>> about being able to build complicate things from simpler pieces. >>>>>>>>>>
It comes out of how logic works, we build complicated theories >>>>>>>>>> based on simpler theories and the axioms. If those simplere >>>>>>>>>> things were "context dependent" it makes it much harder for >>>>>>>>>> them to specifiy what they actually do in all contexts, and to >>>>>>>>>> then use them in all contexts.
i'm sorry context-dependent computation aren't as simple >>>>>>>>
well it'd be great if someone fucking helped me out there, but
all i get is a bunch adversarial dismissal cause i'm stuck on a >>>>>>> god forsaking planet of a fucking half-braindead clowns
Help has been offered,
not constructively, ur barely even paying attention to what i write
No, perhaps the problem is I assume you at least attempt to learn
what you are trying to talk about.
u don't even know what constructive help is to be frank
i'm not ur student, ur not my teachers, this isn't a hierarchical
relationship,
and until u recognize that ur going to continue to be non-constructive
YOU were the one asking for help to develop your ideas, if only by
posting them and asking for comments.
I have just pointed out the fundamental errors in your analysis
You need to make a choice of directions.
Either you work in the currently established theory, so you can use
things in it, and see if you can develop something new.
Or, you branch out and start a brand new theory, and start at the
ground floor, fully define what you mean by things, show what you
ideas can do, and why that would be useful.
false dichotomy, add that to growing list of fallacies u shat out at me
It seems you want to change the foundation, but keep most of the
building on top, without even knowing how that building was built and
how it connects to the foundation.
That just doesn't work.
but you just reject it as it doesn't match your ideas, largely
because you don't understand what you are trying to get in.
When your errors are explained, just just curse back.
I can't fix stupid.
You aren't stuck on a planet of clowns, you are the clown that
doesn't understand the world.
if the simplest theory was always correct we'd still be using >>>>>>>>> newtonian gravity for everything
You can't change a thing and it still be the same thing.
I guess that truth is something you don't understand
On 1/18/26 6:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/18/26 2:27 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 18/01/2026 21:50, dart200 wrote:
well it was developed to be a general theory of computing, and
apparently modern computing has transcended that theory
In what ways is that apparent to you?
modern computing utilized context-dependent functions, whereas turing
machine computations cannot be context-dependent.
like a simple total stack trace cannot be generally implemented for
turing machines cause the top level runtime cannot be deduced by the
computation. there's no mechanism to do that.
Note "computing (the field, today)" does not refer to exactly the same
relata as "computation" or "computing (the activity, then)".
computing to
Since Turing Machines don't HAVE a stack, that is just a red herring.
And yes, there IS a mechanism, if the sub part needs to know that to do
its computation, then you pass that as part of its input or state.
It just means you need to be EXPLICIT about what you are doing.
Explicit helps us know exactly what is happening.
Most subroutines shouldn't care about their caller, and if they do, it should be explicit.
On 1/18/26 4:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/18/26 12:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 1:15 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/18/26 4:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 1:05 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/17/26 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/17/26 10:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
Good luck starving to death when your money runs out.
one can only hope for so much sometimes 🙏
I guess you don't understand the rules of logic.
also not an argument
Again, YOUR PROBLEM.
Right, but that isn't about computations.
it's pretty crazy i can produce a machine (even if u haven't >>>>>>>>>> understood it yet) that produces a consistent deterministic >>>>>>>>>> result that is "not a computation".
Because you get that result only by equivocating on your
definitions.
If the context is part of the inpt to make the output
determistic from the input, then they fail to be usable as sub- >>>>>>>>> computations as we can't control that context part of the input. >>>>>>>>>
When we look at just the controllable input for a sub-
computation, the output is NOT a deterministic function of that >>>>>>>>> inut.
Its using hidden inputs that the caller can't control.
not sure what the fuck it's doing if it's not a computation >>>>>>>>>
which we do all the time in normal programming, something which >>>>>>>> apparently u think the tHeOrY oF CoMpUtInG fails to encapsulate >>>>>>>
pretty crazy we do a bunch "non-computating" in the normal act >>>>>>>> of programming computers
Why?
As I have said, "Computatations" is NOT about how modern
computers work.
I guess you are just showing that you fundamentally don't
understand the problem field you are betting your life on.
one would presume the fundamental theory of computing would be
general enough to encapsulate everything computed by real world
computers, no???
Why?
Remember, the fundamental theory of Computing PREDATES the computer >>>>> as you know it.
so ur saying it's outdated and needs updating in regards to new
things we do with computers that apparently turing machines as a
model don't have variations of ...
No, it still handles that which it was developed for.
well it was developed to be a general theory of computing, and
apparently modern computing has transcended that theory ...
Not really.
THe way modern processors work, "sub-routines" can fail to be
computations, but whole programs will tend to be. Sub-routines CAN be
built with care to fall under its guidance.
THere ARE advantages to doing so, as that DOES add a lot of correctness provability to the code.
The biggest part of code not being analyzable/provable is when it
deviates from the requirements of being a computation.
or what ... someone writes down a fundamental theory and then it
just sticks around like an unchanging law when u haven't even proven
the ct- thesis correct???
Why does it need to change?
why does the fundamental theory of computing need to encapsulate all
that is possible within computing??
That is like asking about shouldn't number theory talk about everything mathematics.
idk, what's what i thot a fundamental theory is supposed to do, but i
guess you don't agree???
Nope, it handles ONE ASPECT of the general field.
We not only have Computation Theory, but we also get things like
Complexity Theory,
like, if the fundamental theory doesn't encapsulate everything done
within computing ... then idk why u think the halting problem should
apply to modern computing???
Because it DOES present a limitation of what modern computers can do.
After all, every non-computation can be converted into a computation by forcing all the "hidden inputs" to be considered as inputs.
This just shows the limitation in controlability of the interface.
If a new problem comes up, a new theory might be needed to handle it.
or maybe new techniques could rectify old problems ...
talk about a lack of curiosity. you confusing regurgitation of route
learning with actual intelligence, but i suppose that's all u need
working for a military contractor...
military intelligence is an oxymoron, remember?
You might be surprised about that statement.
You don't want a "smart bomb" locked onto you.
All you are doing is showing your ignorance of what you are talking >>>>> about.
No, perhaps the problem is I assume you at least attempt to learn
Showing that you really don't understand what you are talking >>>>>>>>> about.
It seems you just assume you are allowed to change the >>>>>>>>>>>>> definition, perhaps because you never bothered to learn it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is sort of like the problem with a RASP machine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> architecture, sub- machines on such a platform are not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessarily computations, if they use the machines >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capability to pass information not allowed by the rules >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a computation. Your RTM similarly break that property. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Remember, Computations are NOT just what some model of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing produce, but specifically is defined based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on producing a specific mapping of input to output, so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (even as a sub- machine) a specific input might >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce different output, your architecture is NOT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing a computation.
And without that property, using what the machine could >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do, becomes a pretty worthless criteria, as you can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually talk much about it.
the output is still well-defined and deterministic at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> runtime,
Not from the "input" to the piece of algorithm, as it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> includes "hidden" state from outside that input stored >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elsewhere in the machine.
context-dependent computations are still computations. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the fact TMs don't capture them is an indication that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ct- thesis may be false
Nope. Not unless the "context" is made part of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "input", and if you do that, you find that since you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to make it so the caller can't just define that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context, your system is less than turing complete. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Your system break to property of building a computation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the concatination of sub-computations.
...including a context-dependent sub-computation makes ur >>>>>>>>>>>>>> overall computation context-dependent too ... if u dont >>>>>>>>>>>>>> want a context- dependent computation don't include >>>>>>>>>>>>>> context- dependent sub- computation.
Which makes it not a computation.
PERIOD.
Fallacy of equivocation.
i'm not shifting meaning dude. i'm directly claiming it's a >>>>>>>>>>>> distinct type of computation that has been ignored by the >>>>>>>>>>>> theory of computing thus far
nice try tho
But you don't actually do that, as you then claim to be in >>>>>>>>>>> the same field to solve a problem specified in the field. >>>>>>>>>>>
As I said, if you want to try to define a new field based on >>>>>>>>>>> a new definition of what a computation is, go ahead.
it's not a new field, it's a mild extension of turing
machines, with one new operation.
No, it is, as you are changing essential core defintions.
That is like saying that spherical geometery is the same field >>>>>>>>> as plane geometry, we just added a small extension.
what the did the nut say when it was all grown up???
You need to work out your formal definition.
Show how the system actually works out.
Show what it can show.
And show why anyone would want to use it.
but in order to be complete and coherent, certain >>>>>>>>>>>>>> computations *must* have context-awareness and are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> therefore context- dependent. these computations aren't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> generally computable by TMs because TMs lack the necessary >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanisms to grant context- awareness.
In other words, you require some computations to not be >>>>>>>>>>>>> actual computations.
unless u can produce some actual proof of some computation >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that actually breaks in context-dependence, rather than >>>>>>>>>>>>>> just listing things u assume are true, i won't believe u >>>>>>>>>>>>>> know what ur talking about
The definition.
A computation produces the well defined result based on the >>>>>>>>>>>>> INPUT.
context-dependent computation simply expands it's input to >>>>>>>>>>>> include the entire computing context, not just the formal >>>>>>>>>>>> parameters. it's still well defined and it grants us access >>>>>>>>>>>> to meta computation that is not as expressible in TM computing. >>>>>>>>>>>>
ct-thesis is cooked dude
Nope, because you are just putting yourself outside the field >>>>>>>>>>> it is written about.
You can't change the definition of a computation, and still >>>>>>>>>>> talk about things as if you were in the same system.
That just shows you are smoking some bad weed.
Your context, being not part of the input, can't change the >>>>>>>>>>>>> well- defined result.
Should 1 + 2 become 4 on Thursdays? of it asked of a >>>>>>>>>>>>> gingerbread man?
ur overgeneralizing. just become some computation is
context- dependent doesn't mean all computation is context- >>>>>>>>>>>> dependent.
another fallacy.
Right, but nothing that actually is a computation can be >>>>>>>>>>> context- dependent.
ur just arguing in circles with this.
No, you are just lying to yourself to try to disagree with the >>>>>>>>> definition.
All you are doing is saying you disagree with the definition. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Go ahead, try to define an alternate version of Computation >>>>>>>>>>>>> Theory where the result can depend on things that aren't >>>>>>>>>>>>> part of the actual input to the machine, and see what you >>>>>>>>>>>>> can show that is useful.
The problem becomes that you can't really say anything >>>>>>>>>>>>> about what you will get, since you don't know what the >>>>>>>>>>>>> "hidden" factors are.
??? i was very clear multiple times over what the "hidden" >>>>>>>>>>>> input was. there's nothing random about it, context-
dependent computation is just as well-defend and
deterministic as context- independent computation
The problem is that when you look at the computation itself >>>>>>>>>>> (that might be imbedded into a larger computation) you don't >>>>>>>>>>> know which of the infinite contexts it might be within.
depth is not infinite for any given step,
I didn't say infinite depth, I said from infinite contexts.
AND THAT'S WHERE REFLECT COMES IN: IT DUMPS THE FULL MACHINE >>>>>>>>>> DESCRIPTION OF THE RUNNING MACHINE, THE CURRENT STATE NUMBER, >>>>>>>>>> AND A FULL COPY OF THE TAPE ...
And WHICH machine description does it dump? The problem is the >>>>>>>>> machine description isn't unique.
all the info required to compute all configurations between >>>>>>>>>> the beginning and the current step of the computation, which >>>>>>>>>> can allow it to compute anything that is "knowable" about >>>>>>>>>> where it is in the computation at time of the REFLECT
operation...
And where did it store that information?
Remember, the starting tape was unbounded in length (but finite). >>>>>>>>>
The machine itself is bounded in size, plus the unbounded tape. >>>>>>>>>
the problem is ur literally not reading what i'm writing to an >>>>>>>>>> appreciable degree of comprehension, being too focused on >>>>>>>>>> isolated responses that lack overall *contextual* awareness of >>>>>>>>>> the conversation...
No, you are ignoring the requirements to implement what you >>>>>>>>> desire.
Thus, what you can say about that "computation" is very limited. >>>>>>>>>>>
You don't seem to understand that a key point of the theory >>>>>>>>>>> is about being able to build complicate things from simpler >>>>>>>>>>> pieces.
It comes out of how logic works, we build complicated
theories based on simpler theories and the axioms. If those >>>>>>>>>>> simplere things were "context dependent" it makes it much >>>>>>>>>>> harder for them to specifiy what they actually do in all >>>>>>>>>>> contexts, and to then use them in all contexts.
i'm sorry context-dependent computation aren't as simple
Which is why you need to actually FULLY DEFINE them, and admit >>>>>>>>> it is a new field.
well it'd be great if someone fucking helped me out there, but >>>>>>>> all i get is a bunch adversarial dismissal cause i'm stuck on a >>>>>>>> god forsaking planet of a fucking half-braindead clowns
Help has been offered,
not constructively, ur barely even paying attention to what i write >>>>>
what you are trying to talk about.
u don't even know what constructive help is to be frank
i'm not ur student, ur not my teachers, this isn't a hierarchical
relationship,
and until u recognize that ur going to continue to be non-constructive
YOU were the one asking for help to develop your ideas, if only by
posting them and asking for comments.
I have just pointed out the fundamental errors in your analysis
You need to make a choice of directions.
Either you work in the currently established theory, so you can use
things in it, and see if you can develop something new.
Or, you branch out and start a brand new theory, and start at the
ground floor, fully define what you mean by things, show what you
ideas can do, and why that would be useful.
false dichotomy, add that to growing list of fallacies u shat out at me
No real dichotomy.
Follow the rules and you can stay in the system.
Change anything and you are outside, and need to show what still can apply.
To say you can change the foundation but keep the building is just lying.
It seems you want to change the foundation, but keep most of the
building on top, without even knowing how that building was built and
how it connects to the foundation.
That just doesn't work.
but you just reject it as it doesn't match your ideas, largely
because you don't understand what you are trying to get in.
When your errors are explained, just just curse back.
I can't fix stupid.
You aren't stuck on a planet of clowns, you are the clown that
doesn't understand the world.
if the simplest theory was always correct we'd still be using >>>>>>>>>> newtonian gravity for everything
You can't change a thing and it still be the same thing.
I guess that truth is something you don't understand
On 1/18/26 4:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 6:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/18/26 2:27 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On 18/01/2026 21:50, dart200 wrote:
well it was developed to be a general theory of computing, and
apparently modern computing has transcended that theory
In what ways is that apparent to you?
modern computing utilized context-dependent functions, whereas turing
machine computations cannot be context-dependent.
like a simple total stack trace cannot be generally implemented for
turing machines cause the top level runtime cannot be deduced by the
computation. there's no mechanism to do that.
Note "computing (the field, today)" does not refer to exactly the same >>>> relata as "computation" or "computing (the activity, then)".
computing to
Since Turing Machines don't HAVE a stack, that is just a red herring.
it's amazing how retared one can be even when technically correct
And yes, there IS a mechanism, if the sub part needs to know that to
do its computation, then you pass that as part of its input or state.
It just means you need to be EXPLICIT about what you are doing.
Explicit helps us know exactly what is happening.
that's a design choice, sure
Most subroutines shouldn't care about their caller, and if they do, it
should be explicit.
but if want to care generally, i can't do that because turing machines
don't have the mechanisms in place to ensure i have theoretically robust access to whatever would be the stack trace equivalent
On 1/18/26 4:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 4:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/18/26 12:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 1:15 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/18/26 4:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 1:05 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/17/26 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/17/26 10:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
Good luck starving to death when your money runs out.
one can only hope for so much sometimes 🙏
I guess you don't understand the rules of logic.
also not an argument
Again, YOUR PROBLEM.
Right, but that isn't about computations.
it's pretty crazy i can produce a machine (even if u haven't >>>>>>>>>>> understood it yet) that produces a consistent deterministic >>>>>>>>>>> result that is "not a computation".
Because you get that result only by equivocating on your
definitions.
If the context is part of the inpt to make the output
determistic from the input, then they fail to be usable as >>>>>>>>>> sub- computations as we can't control that context part of the >>>>>>>>>> input.
When we look at just the controllable input for a sub-
computation, the output is NOT a deterministic function of >>>>>>>>>> that inut.
Its using hidden inputs that the caller can't control.
not sure what the fuck it's doing if it's not a computation >>>>>>>>>>
which we do all the time in normal programming, something which >>>>>>>>> apparently u think the tHeOrY oF CoMpUtInG fails to encapsulate >>>>>>>>
pretty crazy we do a bunch "non-computating" in the normal act >>>>>>>>> of programming computers
Why?
As I have said, "Computatations" is NOT about how modern
computers work.
I guess you are just showing that you fundamentally don't
understand the problem field you are betting your life on.
one would presume the fundamental theory of computing would be
general enough to encapsulate everything computed by real world >>>>>>> computers, no???
Why?
Remember, the fundamental theory of Computing PREDATES the
computer as you know it.
so ur saying it's outdated and needs updating in regards to new
things we do with computers that apparently turing machines as a
model don't have variations of ...
No, it still handles that which it was developed for.
well it was developed to be a general theory of computing, and
apparently modern computing has transcended that theory ...
Not really.
THe way modern processors work, "sub-routines" can fail to be
computations, but whole programs will tend to be. Sub-routines CAN be
built with care to fall under its guidance.
lol, what are they even if not "computations"???
THere ARE advantages to doing so, as that DOES add a lot of
correctness provability to the code.
The biggest part of code not being analyzable/provable is when it
deviates from the requirements of being a computation.
or what ... someone writes down a fundamental theory and then it
just sticks around like an unchanging law when u haven't even
proven the ct- thesis correct???
Why does it need to change?
why does the fundamental theory of computing need to encapsulate all
that is possible within computing??
That is like asking about shouldn't number theory talk about
everything mathematics.
idk, what's what i thot a fundamental theory is supposed to do, but i
guess you don't agree???
Nope, it handles ONE ASPECT of the general field.
We not only have Computation Theory, but we also get things like
Complexity Theory,
complexity theory is built on top of the fundamentals of computing ...
like, if the fundamental theory doesn't encapsulate everything done
within computing ... then idk why u think the halting problem should
apply to modern computing???
Because it DOES present a limitation of what modern computers can do.
After all, every non-computation can be converted into a computation
by forcing all the "hidden inputs" to be considered as inputs.
lol schrodinger's computation
This just shows the limitation in controlability of the interface.
If a new problem comes up, a new theory might be needed to handle it.
or maybe new techniques could rectify old problems ...
talk about a lack of curiosity. you confusing regurgitation of route
learning with actual intelligence, but i suppose that's all u need
working for a military contractor...
military intelligence is an oxymoron, remember?
You might be surprised about that statement.
You don't want a "smart bomb" locked onto you.
they also don't want that if they know what's best for them
YOU were the one asking for help to develop your ideas, if only by
All you are doing is showing your ignorance of what you are
talking about.
No, perhaps the problem is I assume you at least attempt to learn >>>>>> what you are trying to talk about.
Showing that you really don't understand what you are talking >>>>>>>>>> about.
It seems you just assume you are allowed to change the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition, perhaps because you never bothered to learn it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is sort of like the problem with a RASP machine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> architecture, sub- machines on such a platform are not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessarily computations, if they use the machines >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capability to pass information not allowed by the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules of a computation. Your RTM similarly break that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> property.
Remember, Computations are NOT just what some model of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing produce, but specifically is defined based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on producing a specific mapping of input to output, so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (even as a sub- machine) a specific input might >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produce different output, your architecture is NOT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing a computation.
And without that property, using what the machine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could do, becomes a pretty worthless criteria, as you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't actually talk much about it.
the output is still well-defined and deterministic at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> runtime,
Not from the "input" to the piece of algorithm, as it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> includes "hidden" state from outside that input stored >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elsewhere in the machine.
context-dependent computations are still computations. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the fact TMs don't capture them is an indication that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ct- thesis may be false
Nope. Not unless the "context" is made part of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "input", and if you do that, you find that since you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to make it so the caller can't just define that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context, your system is less than turing complete. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Your system break to property of building a computation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the concatination of sub-computations.
...including a context-dependent sub-computation makes ur >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overall computation context-dependent too ... if u dont >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want a context- dependent computation don't include >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context- dependent sub- computation.
Which makes it not a computation.
PERIOD.
Fallacy of equivocation.
i'm not shifting meaning dude. i'm directly claiming it's a >>>>>>>>>>>>> distinct type of computation that has been ignored by the >>>>>>>>>>>>> theory of computing thus far
nice try tho
But you don't actually do that, as you then claim to be in >>>>>>>>>>>> the same field to solve a problem specified in the field. >>>>>>>>>>>>
As I said, if you want to try to define a new field based on >>>>>>>>>>>> a new definition of what a computation is, go ahead.
it's not a new field, it's a mild extension of turing
machines, with one new operation.
No, it is, as you are changing essential core defintions.
That is like saying that spherical geometery is the same field >>>>>>>>>> as plane geometry, we just added a small extension.
what the did the nut say when it was all grown up???
You need to work out your formal definition.
Show how the system actually works out.
Show what it can show.
And show why anyone would want to use it.
In other words, you require some computations to not be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual computations.
but in order to be complete and coherent, certain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computations *must* have context-awareness and are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> therefore context- dependent. these computations aren't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generally computable by TMs because TMs lack the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary mechanisms to grant context- awareness. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
unless u can produce some actual proof of some
computation that actually breaks in context-dependence, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rather than just listing things u assume are true, i >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't believe u know what ur talking about
The definition.
A computation produces the well defined result based on >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the INPUT.
context-dependent computation simply expands it's input to >>>>>>>>>>>>> include the entire computing context, not just the formal >>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters. it's still well defined and it grants us access >>>>>>>>>>>>> to meta computation that is not as expressible in TM >>>>>>>>>>>>> computing.
ct-thesis is cooked dude
Nope, because you are just putting yourself outside the >>>>>>>>>>>> field it is written about.
You can't change the definition of a computation, and still >>>>>>>>>>>> talk about things as if you were in the same system.
That just shows you are smoking some bad weed.
Your context, being not part of the input, can't change >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the well- defined result.
Should 1 + 2 become 4 on Thursdays? of it asked of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> gingerbread man?
ur overgeneralizing. just become some computation is >>>>>>>>>>>>> context- dependent doesn't mean all computation is context- >>>>>>>>>>>>> dependent.
another fallacy.
Right, but nothing that actually is a computation can be >>>>>>>>>>>> context- dependent.
ur just arguing in circles with this.
No, you are just lying to yourself to try to disagree with the >>>>>>>>>> definition.
depth is not infinite for any given step,
All you are doing is saying you disagree with the definition. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Go ahead, try to define an alternate version of
Computation Theory where the result can depend on things >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that aren't part of the actual input to the machine, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> see what you can show that is useful.
The problem becomes that you can't really say anything >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about what you will get, since you don't know what the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "hidden" factors are.
??? i was very clear multiple times over what the "hidden" >>>>>>>>>>>>> input was. there's nothing random about it, context- >>>>>>>>>>>>> dependent computation is just as well-defend and
deterministic as context- independent computation
The problem is that when you look at the computation itself >>>>>>>>>>>> (that might be imbedded into a larger computation) you don't >>>>>>>>>>>> know which of the infinite contexts it might be within. >>>>>>>>>>>
I didn't say infinite depth, I said from infinite contexts. >>>>>>>>>>
AND THAT'S WHERE REFLECT COMES IN: IT DUMPS THE FULL MACHINE >>>>>>>>>>> DESCRIPTION OF THE RUNNING MACHINE, THE CURRENT STATE NUMBER, >>>>>>>>>>> AND A FULL COPY OF THE TAPE ...
And WHICH machine description does it dump? The problem is the >>>>>>>>>> machine description isn't unique.
all the info required to compute all configurations between >>>>>>>>>>> the beginning and the current step of the computation, which >>>>>>>>>>> can allow it to compute anything that is "knowable" about >>>>>>>>>>> where it is in the computation at time of the REFLECT
operation...
And where did it store that information?
Remember, the starting tape was unbounded in length (but finite). >>>>>>>>>>
The machine itself is bounded in size, plus the unbounded tape. >>>>>>>>>>
the problem is ur literally not reading what i'm writing to >>>>>>>>>>> an appreciable degree of comprehension, being too focused on >>>>>>>>>>> isolated responses that lack overall *contextual* awareness >>>>>>>>>>> of the conversation...
No, you are ignoring the requirements to implement what you >>>>>>>>>> desire.
Thus, what you can say about that "computation" is very >>>>>>>>>>>> limited.
You don't seem to understand that a key point of the theory >>>>>>>>>>>> is about being able to build complicate things from simpler >>>>>>>>>>>> pieces.
It comes out of how logic works, we build complicated >>>>>>>>>>>> theories based on simpler theories and the axioms. If those >>>>>>>>>>>> simplere things were "context dependent" it makes it much >>>>>>>>>>>> harder for them to specifiy what they actually do in all >>>>>>>>>>>> contexts, and to then use them in all contexts.
i'm sorry context-dependent computation aren't as simple
Which is why you need to actually FULLY DEFINE them, and admit >>>>>>>>>> it is a new field.
well it'd be great if someone fucking helped me out there, but >>>>>>>>> all i get is a bunch adversarial dismissal cause i'm stuck on a >>>>>>>>> god forsaking planet of a fucking half-braindead clowns
Help has been offered,
not constructively, ur barely even paying attention to what i write >>>>>>
u don't even know what constructive help is to be frank
i'm not ur student, ur not my teachers, this isn't a hierarchical
relationship,
and until u recognize that ur going to continue to be non-constructive >>>>
posting them and asking for comments.
I have just pointed out the fundamental errors in your analysis
You need to make a choice of directions.
Either you work in the currently established theory, so you can use
things in it, and see if you can develop something new.
Or, you branch out and start a brand new theory, and start at the
ground floor, fully define what you mean by things, show what you
ideas can do, and why that would be useful.
false dichotomy, add that to growing list of fallacies u shat out at me
No real dichotomy.
no, i don't have to totally rewrite the system to transcend a few
classical limits.
Follow the rules and you can stay in the system.
Change anything and you are outside, and need to show what still can
apply.
To say you can change the foundation but keep the building is just lying.
you can in fact replace foundation without even lifting the house bro
i'm not invalidating most of computing, just gunning for a few classical limits that don't actually do anything interesting anyways. not really
sure why people are to bent up about them
It seems you want to change the foundation, but keep most of the
building on top, without even knowing how that building was built
and how it connects to the foundation.
That just doesn't work.
but you just reject it as it doesn't match your ideas, largely >>>>>>>> because you don't understand what you are trying to get in.
When your errors are explained, just just curse back.
I can't fix stupid.
You aren't stuck on a planet of clowns, you are the clown that >>>>>>>> doesn't understand the world.
if the simplest theory was always correct we'd still be using >>>>>>>>>>> newtonian gravity for everything
You can't change a thing and it still be the same thing.
I guess that truth is something you don't understand
On 1/18/26 11:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/18/26 4:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 4:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/18/26 12:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 1:15 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/18/26 4:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 1:05 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/17/26 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/17/26 10:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
Good luck starving to death when your money runs out.
one can only hope for so much sometimes 🙏
I guess you don't understand the rules of logic.
also not an argument
Again, YOUR PROBLEM.
it's pretty crazy i can produce a machine (even if u haven't >>>>>>>>>>>> understood it yet) that produces a consistent deterministic >>>>>>>>>>>> result that is "not a computation".
Because you get that result only by equivocating on your >>>>>>>>>>> definitions.
If the context is part of the inpt to make the output
determistic from the input, then they fail to be usable as >>>>>>>>>>> sub- computations as we can't control that context part of >>>>>>>>>>> the input.
When we look at just the controllable input for a sub-
computation, the output is NOT a deterministic function of >>>>>>>>>>> that inut.
Its using hidden inputs that the caller can't control.
not sure what the fuck it's doing if it's not a computation >>>>>>>>>>>
which we do all the time in normal programming, something >>>>>>>>>> which apparently u think the tHeOrY oF CoMpUtInG fails to >>>>>>>>>> encapsulate
Right, but that isn't about computations.
pretty crazy we do a bunch "non-computating" in the normal act >>>>>>>>>> of programming computers
Why?
As I have said, "Computatations" is NOT about how modern
computers work.
I guess you are just showing that you fundamentally don't
understand the problem field you are betting your life on.
one would presume the fundamental theory of computing would be >>>>>>>> general enough to encapsulate everything computed by real world >>>>>>>> computers, no???
Why?
Remember, the fundamental theory of Computing PREDATES the
computer as you know it.
so ur saying it's outdated and needs updating in regards to new
things we do with computers that apparently turing machines as a
model don't have variations of ...
No, it still handles that which it was developed for.
well it was developed to be a general theory of computing, and
apparently modern computing has transcended that theory ...
Not really.
THe way modern processors work, "sub-routines" can fail to be
computations, but whole programs will tend to be. Sub-routines CAN be
built with care to fall under its guidance.
lol, what are they even if not "computations"???
not-computations
THere ARE advantages to doing so, as that DOES add a lot of
correctness provability to the code.
The biggest part of code not being analyzable/provable is when it
deviates from the requirements of being a computation.
or what ... someone writes down a fundamental theory and then it
just sticks around like an unchanging law when u haven't even
proven the ct- thesis correct???
Why does it need to change?
why does the fundamental theory of computing need to encapsulate all
that is possible within computing??
That is like asking about shouldn't number theory talk about
everything mathematics.
idk, what's what i thot a fundamental theory is supposed to do, but
i guess you don't agree???
Nope, it handles ONE ASPECT of the general field.
We not only have Computation Theory, but we also get things like
Complexity Theory,
complexity theory is built on top of the fundamentals of computing ...
Yes, just like computability/comptation theory.
The field of "Computer Science" has a bunch of subfields/theories within
it.
You seem to confuse Computation THeory with fundamental of computing.
like, if the fundamental theory doesn't encapsulate everything done
within computing ... then idk why u think the halting problem should
apply to modern computing???
Because it DOES present a limitation of what modern computers can do.
After all, every non-computation can be converted into a computation
by forcing all the "hidden inputs" to be considered as inputs.
lol schrodinger's computation
Model conversion.
This just shows the limitation in controlability of the interface.
or maybe new techniques could rectify old problems ...
If a new problem comes up, a new theory might be needed to handle it. >>>>
talk about a lack of curiosity. you confusing regurgitation of route
learning with actual intelligence, but i suppose that's all u need
working for a military contractor...
military intelligence is an oxymoron, remember?
You might be surprised about that statement.
You don't want a "smart bomb" locked onto you.
they also don't want that if they know what's best for them
No real dichotomy.
All you are doing is showing your ignorance of what you are
talking about.
No, perhaps the problem is I assume you at least attempt to learn >>>>>>> what you are trying to talk about.
what the did the nut say when it was all grown up???
Showing that you really don't understand what you are talking >>>>>>>>>>> about.
it's not a new field, it's a mild extension of turing >>>>>>>>>>>> machines, with one new operation.
It seems you just assume you are allowed to change the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition, perhaps because you never bothered to learn it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is sort of like the problem with a RASP machine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> architecture, sub- machines on such a platform are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not necessarily computations, if they use the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines capability to pass information not allowed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the rules of a computation. Your RTM similarly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> break that property.
Remember, Computations are NOT just what some model >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of processing produce, but specifically is defined >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on producing a specific mapping of input to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> output, so if (even as a sub- machine) a specific >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input might produce different output, your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> architecture is NOT doing a computation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And without that property, using what the machine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could do, becomes a pretty worthless criteria, as you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't actually talk much about it.
the output is still well-defined and deterministic at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> runtime,
Not from the "input" to the piece of algorithm, as it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> includes "hidden" state from outside that input stored >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elsewhere in the machine.
context-dependent computations are still computations. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the fact TMs don't capture them is an indication that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ct- thesis may be false
Nope. Not unless the "context" is made part of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "input", and if you do that, you find that since you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are trying to make it so the caller can't just define >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that context, your system is less than turing complete. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Your system break to property of building a computation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the concatination of sub-computations.
...including a context-dependent sub-computation makes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ur overall computation context-dependent too ... if u >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dont want a context- dependent computation don't include >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context- dependent sub- computation.
Which makes it not a computation.
PERIOD.
Fallacy of equivocation.
i'm not shifting meaning dude. i'm directly claiming it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a distinct type of computation that has been ignored by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the theory of computing thus far
nice try tho
But you don't actually do that, as you then claim to be in >>>>>>>>>>>>> the same field to solve a problem specified in the field. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
As I said, if you want to try to define a new field based >>>>>>>>>>>>> on a new definition of what a computation is, go ahead. >>>>>>>>>>>>
No, it is, as you are changing essential core defintions. >>>>>>>>>>>
That is like saying that spherical geometery is the same >>>>>>>>>>> field as plane geometry, we just added a small extension. >>>>>>>>>>
You need to work out your formal definition.
Show how the system actually works out.
Show what it can show.
And show why anyone would want to use it.
In other words, you require some computations to not be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual computations.
but in order to be complete and coherent, certain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computations *must* have context-awareness and are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> therefore context- dependent. these computations aren't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generally computable by TMs because TMs lack the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary mechanisms to grant context- awareness. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
unless u can produce some actual proof of some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation that actually breaks in context-dependence, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rather than just listing things u assume are true, i >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't believe u know what ur talking about
The definition.
A computation produces the well defined result based on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the INPUT.
context-dependent computation simply expands it's input to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> include the entire computing context, not just the formal >>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters. it's still well defined and it grants us >>>>>>>>>>>>>> access to meta computation that is not as expressible in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> TM computing.
ct-thesis is cooked dude
Nope, because you are just putting yourself outside the >>>>>>>>>>>>> field it is written about.
You can't change the definition of a computation, and still >>>>>>>>>>>>> talk about things as if you were in the same system.
That just shows you are smoking some bad weed.
Your context, being not part of the input, can't change >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the well- defined result.
Should 1 + 2 become 4 on Thursdays? of it asked of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gingerbread man?
ur overgeneralizing. just become some computation is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> context- dependent doesn't mean all computation is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> context- dependent.
another fallacy.
Right, but nothing that actually is a computation can be >>>>>>>>>>>>> context- dependent.
ur just arguing in circles with this.
No, you are just lying to yourself to try to disagree with >>>>>>>>>>> the definition.
depth is not infinite for any given step,
All you are doing is saying you disagree with the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
Go ahead, try to define an alternate version of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Computation Theory where the result can depend on things >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that aren't part of the actual input to the machine, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see what you can show that is useful.
The problem becomes that you can't really say anything >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about what you will get, since you don't know what the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "hidden" factors are.
??? i was very clear multiple times over what the "hidden" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> input was. there's nothing random about it, context- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependent computation is just as well-defend and
deterministic as context- independent computation
The problem is that when you look at the computation itself >>>>>>>>>>>>> (that might be imbedded into a larger computation) you >>>>>>>>>>>>> don't know which of the infinite contexts it might be within. >>>>>>>>>>>>
I didn't say infinite depth, I said from infinite contexts. >>>>>>>>>>>
AND THAT'S WHERE REFLECT COMES IN: IT DUMPS THE FULL MACHINE >>>>>>>>>>>> DESCRIPTION OF THE RUNNING MACHINE, THE CURRENT STATE >>>>>>>>>>>> NUMBER, AND A FULL COPY OF THE TAPE ...
And WHICH machine description does it dump? The problem is >>>>>>>>>>> the machine description isn't unique.
all the info required to compute all configurations between >>>>>>>>>>>> the beginning and the current step of the computation, which >>>>>>>>>>>> can allow it to compute anything that is "knowable" about >>>>>>>>>>>> where it is in the computation at time of the REFLECT >>>>>>>>>>>> operation...
And where did it store that information?
Remember, the starting tape was unbounded in length (but >>>>>>>>>>> finite).
The machine itself is bounded in size, plus the unbounded tape. >>>>>>>>>>>
the problem is ur literally not reading what i'm writing to >>>>>>>>>>>> an appreciable degree of comprehension, being too focused on >>>>>>>>>>>> isolated responses that lack overall *contextual* awareness >>>>>>>>>>>> of the conversation...
No, you are ignoring the requirements to implement what you >>>>>>>>>>> desire.
Thus, what you can say about that "computation" is very >>>>>>>>>>>>> limited.
You don't seem to understand that a key point of the theory >>>>>>>>>>>>> is about being able to build complicate things from simpler >>>>>>>>>>>>> pieces.
It comes out of how logic works, we build complicated >>>>>>>>>>>>> theories based on simpler theories and the axioms. If those >>>>>>>>>>>>> simplere things were "context dependent" it makes it much >>>>>>>>>>>>> harder for them to specifiy what they actually do in all >>>>>>>>>>>>> contexts, and to then use them in all contexts.
i'm sorry context-dependent computation aren't as simple
Which is why you need to actually FULLY DEFINE them, and >>>>>>>>>>> admit it is a new field.
well it'd be great if someone fucking helped me out there, but >>>>>>>>>> all i get is a bunch adversarial dismissal cause i'm stuck on >>>>>>>>>> a god forsaking planet of a fucking half-braindead clowns
Help has been offered,
not constructively, ur barely even paying attention to what i write >>>>>>>
u don't even know what constructive help is to be frank
i'm not ur student, ur not my teachers, this isn't a hierarchical >>>>>> relationship,
and until u recognize that ur going to continue to be non-
constructive
YOU were the one asking for help to develop your ideas, if only by
posting them and asking for comments.
I have just pointed out the fundamental errors in your analysis
You need to make a choice of directions.
Either you work in the currently established theory, so you can use >>>>> things in it, and see if you can develop something new.
Or, you branch out and start a brand new theory, and start at the
ground floor, fully define what you mean by things, show what you
ideas can do, and why that would be useful.
false dichotomy, add that to growing list of fallacies u shat out at me >>>
no, i don't have to totally rewrite the system to transcend a few
classical limits.
Sure you do. You need to figure out what might have changed.
Remove the first floor of your building and see what happens.
Follow the rules and you can stay in the system.
Change anything and you are outside, and need to show what still can
apply.
To say you can change the foundation but keep the building is just
lying.
you can in fact replace foundation without even lifting the house bro
Not in logic.
I guess you don't understand the use of figures of speach.
i'm not invalidating most of computing, just gunning for a few
classical limits that don't actually do anything interesting anyways.
not really sure why people are to bent up about them
And, if you don't understand what those changes do, you don't know if
your system is valid.
It seems you want to change the foundation, but keep most of the
building on top, without even knowing how that building was built
and how it connects to the foundation.
That just doesn't work.
but you just reject it as it doesn't match your ideas, largely >>>>>>>>> because you don't understand what you are trying to get in.
When your errors are explained, just just curse back.
I can't fix stupid.
You aren't stuck on a planet of clowns, you are the clown that >>>>>>>>> doesn't understand the world.
if the simplest theory was always correct we'd still be >>>>>>>>>>>> using newtonian gravity for everything
You can't change a thing and it still be the same thing. >>>>>>>>>>>
I guess that truth is something you don't understand
On 1/19/26 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 11:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/18/26 4:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 4:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/18/26 12:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 1:15 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/18/26 4:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 1:05 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/17/26 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/17/26 10:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
Good luck starving to death when your money runs out.
one can only hope for so much sometimes 🙏
I guess you don't understand the rules of logic.
also not an argument
Again, YOUR PROBLEM.
it's pretty crazy i can produce a machine (even if u >>>>>>>>>>>>> haven't understood it yet) that produces a consistent >>>>>>>>>>>>> deterministic result that is "not a computation".
Because you get that result only by equivocating on your >>>>>>>>>>>> definitions.
If the context is part of the inpt to make the output >>>>>>>>>>>> determistic from the input, then they fail to be usable as >>>>>>>>>>>> sub- computations as we can't control that context part of >>>>>>>>>>>> the input.
When we look at just the controllable input for a sub- >>>>>>>>>>>> computation, the output is NOT a deterministic function of >>>>>>>>>>>> that inut.
Its using hidden inputs that the caller can't control.
not sure what the fuck it's doing if it's not a computation >>>>>>>>>>>>
which we do all the time in normal programming, something >>>>>>>>>>> which apparently u think the tHeOrY oF CoMpUtInG fails to >>>>>>>>>>> encapsulate
Right, but that isn't about computations.
pretty crazy we do a bunch "non-computating" in the normal >>>>>>>>>>> act of programming computers
Why?
As I have said, "Computatations" is NOT about how modern
computers work.
I guess you are just showing that you fundamentally don't >>>>>>>>>> understand the problem field you are betting your life on.
one would presume the fundamental theory of computing would be >>>>>>>>> general enough to encapsulate everything computed by real world >>>>>>>>> computers, no???
Why?
Remember, the fundamental theory of Computing PREDATES the
computer as you know it.
so ur saying it's outdated and needs updating in regards to new >>>>>>> things we do with computers that apparently turing machines as a >>>>>>> model don't have variations of ...
No, it still handles that which it was developed for.
well it was developed to be a general theory of computing, and
apparently modern computing has transcended that theory ...
Not really.
THe way modern processors work, "sub-routines" can fail to be
computations, but whole programs will tend to be. Sub-routines CAN
be built with care to fall under its guidance.
lol, what are they even if not "computations"???
not-computations
great, a set of deterministic steps that produces a result but is
somehow not a compution!
fucking dick is just pulling shit out of his ass, 🤮🤮🤮
THere ARE advantages to doing so, as that DOES add a lot of
correctness provability to the code.
The biggest part of code not being analyzable/provable is when it
deviates from the requirements of being a computation.
or what ... someone writes down a fundamental theory and then it >>>>>>> just sticks around like an unchanging law when u haven't even
proven the ct- thesis correct???
Why does it need to change?
why does the fundamental theory of computing need to encapsulate
all that is possible within computing??
That is like asking about shouldn't number theory talk about
everything mathematics.
idk, what's what i thot a fundamental theory is supposed to do, but >>>>> i guess you don't agree???
Nope, it handles ONE ASPECT of the general field.
We not only have Computation Theory, but we also get things like
Complexity Theory,
complexity theory is built on top of the fundamentals of computing ...
Yes, just like computability/comptation theory.
The field of "Computer Science" has a bunch of subfields/theories
within it.
You seem to confuse Computation THeory with fundamental of computing.
like, if the fundamental theory doesn't encapsulate everything done >>>>> within computing ... then idk why u think the halting problem
should apply to modern computing???
Because it DOES present a limitation of what modern computers can do.
After all, every non-computation can be converted into a computation
by forcing all the "hidden inputs" to be considered as inputs.
lol schrodinger's computation
Model conversion.
This just shows the limitation in controlability of the interface.
or maybe new techniques could rectify old problems ...
If a new problem comes up, a new theory might be needed to handle it. >>>>>
talk about a lack of curiosity. you confusing regurgitation of
route learning with actual intelligence, but i suppose that's all u >>>>> need working for a military contractor...
military intelligence is an oxymoron, remember?
You might be surprised about that statement.
You don't want a "smart bomb" locked onto you.
they also don't want that if they know what's best for them
All you are doing is showing your ignorance of what you are
talking about.
what the did the nut say when it was all grown up???
Showing that you really don't understand what you are >>>>>>>>>>>> talking about.
it's not a new field, it's a mild extension of turing >>>>>>>>>>>>> machines, with one new operation.
It seems you just assume you are allowed to change the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition, perhaps because you never bothered to learn it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
...including a context-dependent sub-computation makes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ur overall computation context-dependent too ... if u >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dont want a context- dependent computation don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include context- dependent sub- computation.
This is sort of like the problem with a RASP machine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> architecture, sub- machines on such a platform are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not necessarily computations, if they use the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines capability to pass information not allowed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by the rules of a computation. Your RTM similarly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> break that property.
Remember, Computations are NOT just what some model >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of processing produce, but specifically is defined >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on producing a specific mapping of input to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> output, so if (even as a sub- machine) a specific >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input might produce different output, your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> architecture is NOT doing a computation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And without that property, using what the machine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could do, becomes a pretty worthless criteria, as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can't actually talk much about it.
the output is still well-defined and deterministic at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> runtime,
Not from the "input" to the piece of algorithm, as it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> includes "hidden" state from outside that input stored >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elsewhere in the machine.
context-dependent computations are still >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computations. the fact TMs don't capture them is an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indication that the ct- thesis may be false >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nope. Not unless the "context" is made part of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "input", and if you do that, you find that since you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are trying to make it so the caller can't just define >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that context, your system is less than turing complete. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Your system break to property of building a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation by the concatination of sub-computations. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Which makes it not a computation.
PERIOD.
Fallacy of equivocation.
i'm not shifting meaning dude. i'm directly claiming it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a distinct type of computation that has been ignored by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the theory of computing thus far
nice try tho
But you don't actually do that, as you then claim to be in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same field to solve a problem specified in the field. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As I said, if you want to try to define a new field based >>>>>>>>>>>>>> on a new definition of what a computation is, go ahead. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
No, it is, as you are changing essential core defintions. >>>>>>>>>>>>
That is like saying that spherical geometery is the same >>>>>>>>>>>> field as plane geometry, we just added a small extension. >>>>>>>>>>>
You need to work out your formal definition.
Show how the system actually works out.
Show what it can show.
And show why anyone would want to use it.
In other words, you require some computations to not be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual computations.
but in order to be complete and coherent, certain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computations *must* have context-awareness and are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> therefore context- dependent. these computations aren't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generally computable by TMs because TMs lack the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary mechanisms to grant context- awareness. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
unless u can produce some actual proof of some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation that actually breaks in context-dependence, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rather than just listing things u assume are true, i >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't believe u know what ur talking about
The definition.
A computation produces the well defined result based on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the INPUT.
context-dependent computation simply expands it's input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to include the entire computing context, not just the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal parameters. it's still well defined and it grants >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> us access to meta computation that is not as expressible >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in TM computing.
ct-thesis is cooked dude
Nope, because you are just putting yourself outside the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> field it is written about.
You can't change the definition of a computation, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> still talk about things as if you were in the same system. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
That just shows you are smoking some bad weed.
Your context, being not part of the input, can't change >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the well- defined result.
Should 1 + 2 become 4 on Thursdays? of it asked of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gingerbread man?
ur overgeneralizing. just become some computation is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context- dependent doesn't mean all computation is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context- dependent.
another fallacy.
Right, but nothing that actually is a computation can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> context- dependent.
ur just arguing in circles with this.
No, you are just lying to yourself to try to disagree with >>>>>>>>>>>> the definition.
All you are doing is saying you disagree with the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
Go ahead, try to define an alternate version of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Computation Theory where the result can depend on things >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that aren't part of the actual input to the machine, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see what you can show that is useful.
The problem becomes that you can't really say anything >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about what you will get, since you don't know what the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "hidden" factors are.
??? i was very clear multiple times over what the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "hidden" input was. there's nothing random about it, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context- dependent computation is just as well-defend and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deterministic as context- independent computation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The problem is that when you look at the computation >>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself (that might be imbedded into a larger computation) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't know which of the infinite contexts it might be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> within.
depth is not infinite for any given step,
I didn't say infinite depth, I said from infinite contexts. >>>>>>>>>>>>
AND THAT'S WHERE REFLECT COMES IN: IT DUMPS THE FULL >>>>>>>>>>>>> MACHINE DESCRIPTION OF THE RUNNING MACHINE, THE CURRENT >>>>>>>>>>>>> STATE NUMBER, AND A FULL COPY OF THE TAPE ...
And WHICH machine description does it dump? The problem is >>>>>>>>>>>> the machine description isn't unique.
all the info required to compute all configurations between >>>>>>>>>>>>> the beginning and the current step of the computation, >>>>>>>>>>>>> which can allow it to compute anything that is "knowable" >>>>>>>>>>>>> about where it is in the computation at time of the REFLECT >>>>>>>>>>>>> operation...
And where did it store that information?
Remember, the starting tape was unbounded in length (but >>>>>>>>>>>> finite).
The machine itself is bounded in size, plus the unbounded tape. >>>>>>>>>>>>
the problem is ur literally not reading what i'm writing to >>>>>>>>>>>>> an appreciable degree of comprehension, being too focused >>>>>>>>>>>>> on isolated responses that lack overall *contextual* >>>>>>>>>>>>> awareness of the conversation...
No, you are ignoring the requirements to implement what you >>>>>>>>>>>> desire.
i'm sorry context-dependent computation aren't as simple >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thus, what you can say about that "computation" is very >>>>>>>>>>>>>> limited.
You don't seem to understand that a key point of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory is about being able to build complicate things from >>>>>>>>>>>>>> simpler pieces.
It comes out of how logic works, we build complicated >>>>>>>>>>>>>> theories based on simpler theories and the axioms. If >>>>>>>>>>>>>> those simplere things were "context dependent" it makes it >>>>>>>>>>>>>> much harder for them to specifiy what they actually do in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> all contexts, and to then use them in all contexts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Which is why you need to actually FULLY DEFINE them, and >>>>>>>>>>>> admit it is a new field.
well it'd be great if someone fucking helped me out there, >>>>>>>>>>> but all i get is a bunch adversarial dismissal cause i'm >>>>>>>>>>> stuck on a god forsaking planet of a fucking half-braindead >>>>>>>>>>> clowns
Help has been offered,
not constructively, ur barely even paying attention to what i >>>>>>>>> write
No, perhaps the problem is I assume you at least attempt to
learn what you are trying to talk about.
u don't even know what constructive help is to be frank
i'm not ur student, ur not my teachers, this isn't a hierarchical >>>>>>> relationship,
and until u recognize that ur going to continue to be non-
constructive
YOU were the one asking for help to develop your ideas, if only by >>>>>> posting them and asking for comments.
I have just pointed out the fundamental errors in your analysis
You need to make a choice of directions.
Either you work in the currently established theory, so you can
use things in it, and see if you can develop something new.
Or, you branch out and start a brand new theory, and start at the >>>>>> ground floor, fully define what you mean by things, show what you >>>>>> ideas can do, and why that would be useful.
false dichotomy, add that to growing list of fallacies u shat out
at me
No real dichotomy.
no, i don't have to totally rewrite the system to transcend a few
classical limits.
Sure you do. You need to figure out what might have changed.
nothing about this change affect computation without REFLECT ... so everything we already could compute is still computable.
that fact that's not obvious to you is just u being willfully ignorant
at this point.
Remove the first floor of your building and see what happens.
false analogy! wow, another fallacy!
Follow the rules and you can stay in the system.
Change anything and you are outside, and need to show what still can
apply.
To say you can change the foundation but keep the building is just
lying.
you can in fact replace foundation without even lifting the house bro
Not in logic.
I guess you don't understand the use of figures of speach.
or i just don't care for ur false analogy
i'm not invalidating most of computing, just gunning for a few
classical limits that don't actually do anything interesting anyways.
not really sure why people are to bent up about them
And, if you don't understand what those changes do, you don't know if
your system is valid.
ur just commenting on how little u've tried to understand it
It seems you want to change the foundation, but keep most of the
building on top, without even knowing how that building was built >>>>>> and how it connects to the foundation.
That just doesn't work.
but you just reject it as it doesn't match your ideas, largely >>>>>>>>>> because you don't understand what you are trying to get in. >>>>>>>>>>
When your errors are explained, just just curse back.
I can't fix stupid.
You aren't stuck on a planet of clowns, you are the clown that >>>>>>>>>> doesn't understand the world.
if the simplest theory was always correct we'd still be >>>>>>>>>>>>> using newtonian gravity for everything
You can't change a thing and it still be the same thing. >>>>>>>>>>>>
I guess that truth is something you don't understand
On 1/20/26 1:18 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/19/26 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 11:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/18/26 4:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 4:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/18/26 12:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 1:15 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/18/26 4:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 1:05 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/17/26 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/17/26 10:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
Good luck starving to death when your money runs out.
one can only hope for so much sometimes 🙏
one would presume the fundamental theory of computing would be >>>>>>>>>> general enough to encapsulate everything computed by real >>>>>>>>>> world computers, no???
I guess you don't understand the rules of logic.
also not an argument
Again, YOUR PROBLEM.
which we do all the time in normal programming, something >>>>>>>>>>>> which apparently u think the tHeOrY oF CoMpUtInG fails to >>>>>>>>>>>> encapsulate
it's pretty crazy i can produce a machine (even if u >>>>>>>>>>>>>> haven't understood it yet) that produces a consistent >>>>>>>>>>>>>> deterministic result that is "not a computation".
Because you get that result only by equivocating on your >>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions.
If the context is part of the inpt to make the output >>>>>>>>>>>>> determistic from the input, then they fail to be usable as >>>>>>>>>>>>> sub- computations as we can't control that context part of >>>>>>>>>>>>> the input.
When we look at just the controllable input for a sub- >>>>>>>>>>>>> computation, the output is NOT a deterministic function of >>>>>>>>>>>>> that inut.
Its using hidden inputs that the caller can't control. >>>>>>>>>>>>
not sure what the fuck it's doing if it's not a computation >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Right, but that isn't about computations.
pretty crazy we do a bunch "non-computating" in the normal >>>>>>>>>>>> act of programming computers
Why?
As I have said, "Computatations" is NOT about how modern >>>>>>>>>>> computers work.
I guess you are just showing that you fundamentally don't >>>>>>>>>>> understand the problem field you are betting your life on. >>>>>>>>>>
Why?
Remember, the fundamental theory of Computing PREDATES the
computer as you know it.
so ur saying it's outdated and needs updating in regards to new >>>>>>>> things we do with computers that apparently turing machines as a >>>>>>>> model don't have variations of ...
No, it still handles that which it was developed for.
well it was developed to be a general theory of computing, and
apparently modern computing has transcended that theory ...
Not really.
THe way modern processors work, "sub-routines" can fail to be
computations, but whole programs will tend to be. Sub-routines CAN
be built with care to fall under its guidance.
lol, what are they even if not "computations"???
not-computations
great, a set of deterministic steps that produces a result but is
somehow not a compution!
Because it isn't deterministically based on the INPUT,
but include other "unknown" factors.
The key point is that a computation always gives the same answer for a
given input, if it doesn't, it can't be a computation.
If you can't control the whole input, it isn't as useful, if it has any usefullness at all.
fucking dick is just pulling shit out of his ass, 🤮🤮🤮
It seems you are stuffing yours with shit.
THere ARE advantages to doing so, as that DOES add a lot of
correctness provability to the code.
The biggest part of code not being analyzable/provable is when it
deviates from the requirements of being a computation.
or what ... someone writes down a fundamental theory and then it >>>>>>>> just sticks around like an unchanging law when u haven't even >>>>>>>> proven the ct- thesis correct???
Why does it need to change?
why does the fundamental theory of computing need to encapsulate
all that is possible within computing??
That is like asking about shouldn't number theory talk about
everything mathematics.
idk, what's what i thot a fundamental theory is supposed to do,
but i guess you don't agree???
Nope, it handles ONE ASPECT of the general field.
We not only have Computation Theory, but we also get things like
Complexity Theory,
complexity theory is built on top of the fundamentals of computing ...
Yes, just like computability/comptation theory.
The field of "Computer Science" has a bunch of subfields/theories
within it.
You seem to confuse Computation THeory with fundamental of computing.
like, if the fundamental theory doesn't encapsulate everything
done within computing ... then idk why u think the halting problem >>>>>> should apply to modern computing???
Because it DOES present a limitation of what modern computers can do. >>>>>
After all, every non-computation can be converted into a
computation by forcing all the "hidden inputs" to be considered as
inputs.
lol schrodinger's computation
Model conversion.
This just shows the limitation in controlability of the interface.
If a new problem comes up, a new theory might be needed to handle >>>>>>> it.
or maybe new techniques could rectify old problems ...
talk about a lack of curiosity. you confusing regurgitation of
route learning with actual intelligence, but i suppose that's all >>>>>> u need working for a military contractor...
military intelligence is an oxymoron, remember?
You might be surprised about that statement.
You don't want a "smart bomb" locked onto you.
they also don't want that if they know what's best for them
All you are doing is showing your ignorance of what you are >>>>>>>>> talking about.
what the did the nut say when it was all grown up???
Showing that you really don't understand what you are >>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about.
it's not a new field, it's a mild extension of turing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines, with one new operation.
It seems you just assume you are allowed to change the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition, perhaps because you never bothered to learn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
Which makes it not a computation.
...including a context-dependent sub-computation makes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ur overall computation context-dependent too ... if u >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dont want a context- dependent computation don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include context- dependent sub- computation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
the output is still well-defined and deterministic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at runtime,
This is sort of like the problem with a RASP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine architecture, sub- machines on such a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> platform are not necessarily computations, if they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use the machines capability to pass information not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed by the rules of a computation. Your RTM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similarly break that property.
Remember, Computations are NOT just what some model >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of processing produce, but specifically is defined >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on producing a specific mapping of input to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> output, so if (even as a sub- machine) a specific >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input might produce different output, your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> architecture is NOT doing a computation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And without that property, using what the machine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could do, becomes a pretty worthless criteria, as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can't actually talk much about it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not from the "input" to the piece of algorithm, as it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> includes "hidden" state from outside that input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stored elsewhere in the machine.
context-dependent computations are still >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computations. the fact TMs don't capture them is an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indication that the ct- thesis may be false >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nope. Not unless the "context" is made part of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "input", and if you do that, you find that since you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are trying to make it so the caller can't just define >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that context, your system is less than turing complete. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Your system break to property of building a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation by the concatination of sub-computations. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
PERIOD.
Fallacy of equivocation.
i'm not shifting meaning dude. i'm directly claiming >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's a distinct type of computation that has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignored by the theory of computing thus far
nice try tho
But you don't actually do that, as you then claim to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the same field to solve a problem specified in the field. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As I said, if you want to try to define a new field based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on a new definition of what a computation is, go ahead. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No, it is, as you are changing essential core defintions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is like saying that spherical geometery is the same >>>>>>>>>>>>> field as plane geometry, we just added a small extension. >>>>>>>>>>>>
You need to work out your formal definition.
Show how the system actually works out.
Show what it can show.
And show why anyone would want to use it.
In other words, you require some computations to not be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual computations.
but in order to be complete and coherent, certain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computations *must* have context-awareness and are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> therefore context- dependent. these computations >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't generally computable by TMs because TMs lack >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the necessary mechanisms to grant context- awareness. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
unless u can produce some actual proof of some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation that actually breaks in context- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependence, rather than just listing things u assume >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are true, i won't believe u know what ur talking about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The definition.
A computation produces the well defined result based on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the INPUT.
context-dependent computation simply expands it's input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to include the entire computing context, not just the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal parameters. it's still well defined and it grants >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> us access to meta computation that is not as expressible >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in TM computing.
ct-thesis is cooked dude
Nope, because you are just putting yourself outside the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field it is written about.
You can't change the definition of a computation, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still talk about things as if you were in the same system. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That just shows you are smoking some bad weed.
Your context, being not part of the input, can't change >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the well- defined result.
Should 1 + 2 become 4 on Thursdays? of it asked of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gingerbread man?
ur overgeneralizing. just become some computation is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context- dependent doesn't mean all computation is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context- dependent.
another fallacy.
Right, but nothing that actually is a computation can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context- dependent.
ur just arguing in circles with this.
No, you are just lying to yourself to try to disagree with >>>>>>>>>>>>> the definition.
All you are doing is saying you disagree with the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
Go ahead, try to define an alternate version of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Computation Theory where the result can depend on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things that aren't part of the actual input to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine, and see what you can show that is useful. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The problem becomes that you can't really say anything >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about what you will get, since you don't know what the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "hidden" factors are.
??? i was very clear multiple times over what the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "hidden" input was. there's nothing random about it, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context- dependent computation is just as well-defend >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and deterministic as context- independent computation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The problem is that when you look at the computation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself (that might be imbedded into a larger computation) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't know which of the infinite contexts it might be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within.
depth is not infinite for any given step,
I didn't say infinite depth, I said from infinite contexts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
AND THAT'S WHERE REFLECT COMES IN: IT DUMPS THE FULL >>>>>>>>>>>>>> MACHINE DESCRIPTION OF THE RUNNING MACHINE, THE CURRENT >>>>>>>>>>>>>> STATE NUMBER, AND A FULL COPY OF THE TAPE ...
And WHICH machine description does it dump? The problem is >>>>>>>>>>>>> the machine description isn't unique.
all the info required to compute all configurations >>>>>>>>>>>>>> between the beginning and the current step of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation, which can allow it to compute anything that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is "knowable" about where it is in the computation at time >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the REFLECT operation...
And where did it store that information?
Remember, the starting tape was unbounded in length (but >>>>>>>>>>>>> finite).
The machine itself is bounded in size, plus the unbounded >>>>>>>>>>>>> tape.
the problem is ur literally not reading what i'm writing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to an appreciable degree of comprehension, being too >>>>>>>>>>>>>> focused on isolated responses that lack overall
*contextual* awareness of the conversation...
No, you are ignoring the requirements to implement what you >>>>>>>>>>>>> desire.
i'm sorry context-dependent computation aren't as simple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thus, what you can say about that "computation" is very >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> limited.
You don't seem to understand that a key point of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory is about being able to build complicate things >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from simpler pieces.
It comes out of how logic works, we build complicated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theories based on simpler theories and the axioms. If >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those simplere things were "context dependent" it makes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it much harder for them to specifiy what they actually do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in all contexts, and to then use them in all contexts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Which is why you need to actually FULLY DEFINE them, and >>>>>>>>>>>>> admit it is a new field.
well it'd be great if someone fucking helped me out there, >>>>>>>>>>>> but all i get is a bunch adversarial dismissal cause i'm >>>>>>>>>>>> stuck on a god forsaking planet of a fucking half-braindead >>>>>>>>>>>> clowns
Help has been offered,
not constructively, ur barely even paying attention to what i >>>>>>>>>> write
No, perhaps the problem is I assume you at least attempt to >>>>>>>>> learn what you are trying to talk about.
u don't even know what constructive help is to be frank
i'm not ur student, ur not my teachers, this isn't a
hierarchical relationship,
and until u recognize that ur going to continue to be non-
constructive
YOU were the one asking for help to develop your ideas, if only >>>>>>> by posting them and asking for comments.
I have just pointed out the fundamental errors in your analysis
You need to make a choice of directions.
Either you work in the currently established theory, so you can >>>>>>> use things in it, and see if you can develop something new.
Or, you branch out and start a brand new theory, and start at the >>>>>>> ground floor, fully define what you mean by things, show what you >>>>>>> ideas can do, and why that would be useful.
false dichotomy, add that to growing list of fallacies u shat out >>>>>> at me
No real dichotomy.
no, i don't have to totally rewrite the system to transcend a few
classical limits.
Sure you do. You need to figure out what might have changed.
nothing about this change affect computation without REFLECT ... so
everything we already could compute is still computable.
But only if you DON'T use reflect.
that fact that's not obvious to you is just u being willfully ignorant
at this point.
The problem is, once your "machine" definition can do non-computations,
you can't assume it does a computation, and thus your gaurenetees go
away, so you can say less about what it does.
Remove the first floor of your building and see what happens.
false analogy! wow, another fallacy!
Nope, that is EXACTLY what changing a foundational rule without seeing
what it supported does.
I guess you don't understand cause and effect.
Follow the rules and you can stay in the system.
Change anything and you are outside, and need to show what still
can apply.
To say you can change the foundation but keep the building is just
lying.
you can in fact replace foundation without even lifting the house bro
Not in logic.
I guess you don't understand the use of figures of speach.
or i just don't care for ur false analogy
In other words, you don't understand what an analogy is.
Too bad you are dooming yourself and your wife to starvation.
i'm not invalidating most of computing, just gunning for a few
classical limits that don't actually do anything interesting
anyways. not really sure why people are to bent up about them
And, if you don't understand what those changes do, you don't know if
your system is valid.
ur just commenting on how little u've tried to understand it
I'm trying to get you off the wrong track.
What would you do if you saw someone cutting the branch they were
sitting on, being outside the cut they were making.
It seems you want to change the foundation, but keep most of the >>>>>>> building on top, without even knowing how that building was built >>>>>>> and how it connects to the foundation.
That just doesn't work.
but you just reject it as it doesn't match your ideas,
largely because you don't understand what you are trying to >>>>>>>>>>> get in.
When your errors are explained, just just curse back.
I can't fix stupid.
You aren't stuck on a planet of clowns, you are the clown >>>>>>>>>>> that doesn't understand the world.
if the simplest theory was always correct we'd still be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> using newtonian gravity for everything
You can't change a thing and it still be the same thing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
I guess that truth is something you don't understand
On 1/20/26 4:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/20/26 1:18 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/19/26 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 11:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/18/26 4:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 4:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/18/26 12:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 1:15 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/18/26 4:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 1:05 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/17/26 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/17/26 10:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
Good luck starving to death when your money runs out.
one can only hope for so much sometimes 🙏
one would presume the fundamental theory of computing would >>>>>>>>>>> be general enough to encapsulate everything computed by real >>>>>>>>>>> world computers, no???
I guess you don't understand the rules of logic.
also not an argument
Again, YOUR PROBLEM.
which we do all the time in normal programming, something >>>>>>>>>>>>> which apparently u think the tHeOrY oF CoMpUtInG fails to >>>>>>>>>>>>> encapsulate
Because you get that result only by equivocating on your >>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions.
it's pretty crazy i can produce a machine (even if u >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> haven't understood it yet) that produces a consistent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deterministic result that is "not a computation". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If the context is part of the inpt to make the output >>>>>>>>>>>>>> determistic from the input, then they fail to be usable as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sub- computations as we can't control that context part of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the input.
When we look at just the controllable input for a sub- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation, the output is NOT a deterministic function of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that inut.
Its using hidden inputs that the caller can't control. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
not sure what the fuck it's doing if it's not a computation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Right, but that isn't about computations.
pretty crazy we do a bunch "non-computating" in the normal >>>>>>>>>>>>> act of programming computers
Why?
As I have said, "Computatations" is NOT about how modern >>>>>>>>>>>> computers work.
I guess you are just showing that you fundamentally don't >>>>>>>>>>>> understand the problem field you are betting your life on. >>>>>>>>>>>
Why?
Remember, the fundamental theory of Computing PREDATES the >>>>>>>>>> computer as you know it.
so ur saying it's outdated and needs updating in regards to new >>>>>>>>> things we do with computers that apparently turing machines as >>>>>>>>> a model don't have variations of ...
No, it still handles that which it was developed for.
well it was developed to be a general theory of computing, and
apparently modern computing has transcended that theory ...
Not really.
THe way modern processors work, "sub-routines" can fail to be
computations, but whole programs will tend to be. Sub-routines CAN >>>>>> be built with care to fall under its guidance.
lol, what are they even if not "computations"???
not-computations
great, a set of deterministic steps that produces a result but is
somehow not a compution!
Because it isn't deterministically based on the INPUT,
no it's just a series of steps to produce some output.
it may or may not have an input, and in fact the entirety of turing
machine computing can be expressed by enumerating only the turing
machines that do NOT take input.
but include other "unknown" factors.
lol, so when u print a stack trace, u consider those factors "unknown"?
The key point is that a computation always gives the same answer for a
given input, if it doesn't, it can't be a computation.
If you can't control the whole input, it isn't as useful, if it has
any usefullness at all.
fucking dick is just pulling shit out of his ass, 🤮🤮🤮
It seems you are stuffing yours with shit.
Yes, just like computability/comptation theory.
THere ARE advantages to doing so, as that DOES add a lot of
correctness provability to the code.
The biggest part of code not being analyzable/provable is when it >>>>>> deviates from the requirements of being a computation.
or what ... someone writes down a fundamental theory and then >>>>>>>>> it just sticks around like an unchanging law when u haven't >>>>>>>>> even proven the ct- thesis correct???
Why does it need to change?
why does the fundamental theory of computing need to encapsulate >>>>>>> all that is possible within computing??
That is like asking about shouldn't number theory talk about
everything mathematics.
idk, what's what i thot a fundamental theory is supposed to do, >>>>>>> but i guess you don't agree???
Nope, it handles ONE ASPECT of the general field.
We not only have Computation Theory, but we also get things like
Complexity Theory,
complexity theory is built on top of the fundamentals of computing ... >>>>
The field of "Computer Science" has a bunch of subfields/theories
within it.
You seem to confuse Computation THeory with fundamental of computing. >>>>>
like, if the fundamental theory doesn't encapsulate everything
done within computing ... then idk why u think the halting
problem should apply to modern computing???
Because it DOES present a limitation of what modern computers can do. >>>>>>
After all, every non-computation can be converted into a
computation by forcing all the "hidden inputs" to be considered as >>>>>> inputs.
lol schrodinger's computation
Model conversion.
This just shows the limitation in controlability of the interface. >>>>>>
If a new problem comes up, a new theory might be needed to
handle it.
or maybe new techniques could rectify old problems ...
talk about a lack of curiosity. you confusing regurgitation of
route learning with actual intelligence, but i suppose that's all >>>>>>> u need working for a military contractor...
military intelligence is an oxymoron, remember?
You might be surprised about that statement.
You don't want a "smart bomb" locked onto you.
they also don't want that if they know what's best for them
All you are doing is showing your ignorance of what you are >>>>>>>>>> talking about.
what the did the nut say when it was all grown up??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Showing that you really don't understand what you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about.
It seems you just assume you are allowed to change the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition, perhaps because you never bothered to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> learn it.
...including a context-dependent sub-computation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes ur overall computation context-dependent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too ... if u dont want a context- dependent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation don't include context- dependent sub- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation.
the output is still well-defined and deterministic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at runtime,
This is sort of like the problem with a RASP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine architecture, sub- machines on such a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> platform are not necessarily computations, if they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use the machines capability to pass information >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not allowed by the rules of a computation. Your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RTM similarly break that property. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Remember, Computations are NOT just what some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> model of processing produce, but specifically is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined based on producing a specific mapping of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to output, so if (even as a sub- machine) a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific input might produce different output, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your architecture is NOT doing a computation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And without that property, using what the machine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could do, becomes a pretty worthless criteria, as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can't actually talk much about it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not from the "input" to the piece of algorithm, as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it includes "hidden" state from outside that input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stored elsewhere in the machine.
context-dependent computations are still >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computations. the fact TMs don't capture them is an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indication that the ct- thesis may be false >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nope. Not unless the "context" is made part of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "input", and if you do that, you find that since you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are trying to make it so the caller can't just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> define that context, your system is less than turing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete.
Your system break to property of building a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation by the concatination of sub-computations. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Which makes it not a computation.
PERIOD.
Fallacy of equivocation.
i'm not shifting meaning dude. i'm directly claiming >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's a distinct type of computation that has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignored by the theory of computing thus far
nice try tho
But you don't actually do that, as you then claim to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the same field to solve a problem specified in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field.
As I said, if you want to try to define a new field >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on a new definition of what a computation is, go >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ahead.
it's not a new field, it's a mild extension of turing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines, with one new operation.
No, it is, as you are changing essential core defintions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is like saying that spherical geometery is the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>> field as plane geometry, we just added a small extension. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
You need to work out your formal definition.
Show how the system actually works out.
Show what it can show.
And show why anyone would want to use it.
In other words, you require some computations to not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be actual computations.
but in order to be complete and coherent, certain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computations *must* have context-awareness and are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> therefore context- dependent. these computations >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't generally computable by TMs because TMs lack >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the necessary mechanisms to grant context- awareness. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
unless u can produce some actual proof of some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation that actually breaks in context- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependence, rather than just listing things u assume >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are true, i won't believe u know what ur talking about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The definition.
A computation produces the well defined result based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the INPUT.
context-dependent computation simply expands it's input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to include the entire computing context, not just the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal parameters. it's still well defined and it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grants us access to meta computation that is not as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expressible in TM computing.
ct-thesis is cooked dude
Nope, because you are just putting yourself outside the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field it is written about.
You can't change the definition of a computation, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still talk about things as if you were in the same system. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That just shows you are smoking some bad weed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Your context, being not part of the input, can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change the well- defined result.
Should 1 + 2 become 4 on Thursdays? of it asked of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gingerbread man?
ur overgeneralizing. just become some computation is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context- dependent doesn't mean all computation is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context- dependent.
another fallacy.
Right, but nothing that actually is a computation can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context- dependent.
ur just arguing in circles with this.
No, you are just lying to yourself to try to disagree with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the definition.
All you are doing is saying you disagree with the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
Go ahead, try to define an alternate version of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Computation Theory where the result can depend on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things that aren't part of the actual input to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine, and see what you can show that is useful. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The problem becomes that you can't really say anything >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about what you will get, since you don't know what the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "hidden" factors are.
??? i was very clear multiple times over what the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "hidden" input was. there's nothing random about it, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context- dependent computation is just as well-defend >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and deterministic as context- independent computation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The problem is that when you look at the computation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself (that might be imbedded into a larger
computation) you don't know which of the infinite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contexts it might be within.
depth is not infinite for any given step,
I didn't say infinite depth, I said from infinite contexts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
AND THAT'S WHERE REFLECT COMES IN: IT DUMPS THE FULL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MACHINE DESCRIPTION OF THE RUNNING MACHINE, THE CURRENT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STATE NUMBER, AND A FULL COPY OF THE TAPE ...
And WHICH machine description does it dump? The problem is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the machine description isn't unique.
all the info required to compute all configurations >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between the beginning and the current step of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation, which can allow it to compute anything that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is "knowable" about where it is in the computation at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time of the REFLECT operation...
And where did it store that information?
Remember, the starting tape was unbounded in length (but >>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite).
The machine itself is bounded in size, plus the unbounded >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tape.
the problem is ur literally not reading what i'm writing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to an appreciable degree of comprehension, being too >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> focused on isolated responses that lack overall >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *contextual* awareness of the conversation...
No, you are ignoring the requirements to implement what >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you desire.
i'm sorry context-dependent computation aren't as simple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thus, what you can say about that "computation" is very >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> limited.
You don't seem to understand that a key point of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory is about being able to build complicate things >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from simpler pieces.
It comes out of how logic works, we build complicated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theories based on simpler theories and the axioms. If >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those simplere things were "context dependent" it makes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it much harder for them to specifiy what they actually >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do in all contexts, and to then use them in all contexts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Which is why you need to actually FULLY DEFINE them, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> admit it is a new field.
well it'd be great if someone fucking helped me out there, >>>>>>>>>>>>> but all i get is a bunch adversarial dismissal cause i'm >>>>>>>>>>>>> stuck on a god forsaking planet of a fucking half-braindead >>>>>>>>>>>>> clowns
Help has been offered,
not constructively, ur barely even paying attention to what i >>>>>>>>>>> write
No, perhaps the problem is I assume you at least attempt to >>>>>>>>>> learn what you are trying to talk about.
u don't even know what constructive help is to be frank
i'm not ur student, ur not my teachers, this isn't a
hierarchical relationship,
and until u recognize that ur going to continue to be non-
constructive
YOU were the one asking for help to develop your ideas, if only >>>>>>>> by posting them and asking for comments.
I have just pointed out the fundamental errors in your analysis >>>>>>>>
You need to make a choice of directions.
Either you work in the currently established theory, so you can >>>>>>>> use things in it, and see if you can develop something new.
Or, you branch out and start a brand new theory, and start at >>>>>>>> the ground floor, fully define what you mean by things, show
what you ideas can do, and why that would be useful.
false dichotomy, add that to growing list of fallacies u shat out >>>>>>> at me
No real dichotomy.
no, i don't have to totally rewrite the system to transcend a few
classical limits.
Sure you do. You need to figure out what might have changed.
nothing about this change affect computation without REFLECT ... so
everything we already could compute is still computable.
But only if you DON'T use reflect.
but so no power has been lost
that fact that's not obvious to you is just u being willfully
ignorant at this point.
The problem is, once your "machine" definition can do non-
computations, you can't assume it does a computation, and thus your
gaurenetees go away, so you can say less about what it does.
i think ur just pulling a definist fallacy. until u make it produce a contradiction, i don't really care what u label it as.
Remove the first floor of your building and see what happens.
false analogy! wow, another fallacy!
Nope, that is EXACTLY what changing a foundational rule without seeing
what it supported does.
I guess you don't understand cause and effect.
Not in logic.
Follow the rules and you can stay in the system.
Change anything and you are outside, and need to show what still
can apply.
To say you can change the foundation but keep the building is just >>>>>> lying.
you can in fact replace foundation without even lifting the house bro >>>>
I guess you don't understand the use of figures of speach.
or i just don't care for ur false analogy
In other words, you don't understand what an analogy is.
Too bad you are dooming yourself and your wife to starvation.
pretty nuts u think u need to keep bringing that up,
lol, u think ur on the right side here???
i'm not invalidating most of computing, just gunning for a few
classical limits that don't actually do anything interesting
anyways. not really sure why people are to bent up about them
And, if you don't understand what those changes do, you don't know
if your system is valid.
ur just commenting on how little u've tried to understand it
I'm trying to get you off the wrong track.
and yet all u do is push me down the track further cause ain't accept ur fallacies bro
What would you do if you saw someone cutting the branch they were
sitting on, being outside the cut they were making.
It seems you want to change the foundation, but keep most of the >>>>>>>> building on top, without even knowing how that building was
built and how it connects to the foundation.
That just doesn't work.
but you just reject it as it doesn't match your ideas, >>>>>>>>>>>> largely because you don't understand what you are trying to >>>>>>>>>>>> get in.
When your errors are explained, just just curse back.
I can't fix stupid.
You aren't stuck on a planet of clowns, you are the clown >>>>>>>>>>>> that doesn't understand the world.
if the simplest theory was always correct we'd still be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using newtonian gravity for everything
You can't change a thing and it still be the same thing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I guess that truth is something you don't understand >>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 1/20/26 8:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/20/26 4:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/20/26 1:18 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/19/26 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 11:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/18/26 4:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 4:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/18/26 12:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 1:15 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/18/26 4:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 1:05 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/17/26 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/17/26 10:14 PM, dart200 wrote:one can only hope for so much sometimes 🙏
Good luck starving to death when your money runs out. >>>>>>>>>>>>
one would presume the fundamental theory of computing would >>>>>>>>>>>> be general enough to encapsulate everything computed by real >>>>>>>>>>>> world computers, no???
I guess you don't understand the rules of logic.
also not an argument
Again, YOUR PROBLEM.
which we do all the time in normal programming, something >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which apparently u think the tHeOrY oF CoMpUtInG fails to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> encapsulate
Because you get that result only by equivocating on your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions.
it's pretty crazy i can produce a machine (even if u >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> haven't understood it yet) that produces a consistent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deterministic result that is "not a computation". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If the context is part of the inpt to make the output >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determistic from the input, then they fail to be usable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as sub- computations as we can't control that context >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> part of the input.
When we look at just the controllable input for a sub- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation, the output is NOT a deterministic function >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of that inut.
Its using hidden inputs that the caller can't control. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
not sure what the fuck it's doing if it's not a computation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Right, but that isn't about computations.
pretty crazy we do a bunch "non-computating" in the normal >>>>>>>>>>>>>> act of programming computers
Why?
As I have said, "Computatations" is NOT about how modern >>>>>>>>>>>>> computers work.
I guess you are just showing that you fundamentally don't >>>>>>>>>>>>> understand the problem field you are betting your life on. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Why?
Remember, the fundamental theory of Computing PREDATES the >>>>>>>>>>> computer as you know it.
so ur saying it's outdated and needs updating in regards to >>>>>>>>>> new things we do with computers that apparently turing
machines as a model don't have variations of ...
No, it still handles that which it was developed for.
well it was developed to be a general theory of computing, and >>>>>>>> apparently modern computing has transcended that theory ...
Not really.
THe way modern processors work, "sub-routines" can fail to be
computations, but whole programs will tend to be. Sub-routines
CAN be built with care to fall under its guidance.
lol, what are they even if not "computations"???
not-computations
great, a set of deterministic steps that produces a result but is
somehow not a compution!
Because it isn't deterministically based on the INPUT,
no it's just a series of steps to produce some output.
Nope, not in the formulation of the theory.
it may or may not have an input, and in fact the entirety of turing
machine computing can be expressed by enumerating only the turing
machines that do NOT take input.
In which case the input can be thought of as the empty set and the
output is a constant.
but include other "unknown" factors.
lol, so when u print a stack trace, u consider those factors "unknown"?
Thus making your definistic fallacy of confusing an instance of a computation with the definition and use of the computation itself.
If I am trying to document an API, but the results depend on something
not provided through that API, as far as that documentation is conserned those details are "unknown".
The key point is that a computation always gives the same answer for
a given input, if it doesn't, it can't be a computation.
If you can't control the whole input, it isn't as useful, if it has
any usefullness at all.
fucking dick is just pulling shit out of his ass, 🤮🤮🤮
It seems you are stuffing yours with shit.
THere ARE advantages to doing so, as that DOES add a lot of
correctness provability to the code.
The biggest part of code not being analyzable/provable is when it >>>>>>> deviates from the requirements of being a computation.
or what ... someone writes down a fundamental theory and then >>>>>>>>>> it just sticks around like an unchanging law when u haven't >>>>>>>>>> even proven the ct- thesis correct???
Why does it need to change?
why does the fundamental theory of computing need to encapsulate >>>>>>>> all that is possible within computing??
That is like asking about shouldn't number theory talk about
everything mathematics.
idk, what's what i thot a fundamental theory is supposed to do, >>>>>>>> but i guess you don't agree???
Nope, it handles ONE ASPECT of the general field.
We not only have Computation Theory, but we also get things like >>>>>>> Complexity Theory,
complexity theory is built on top of the fundamentals of
computing ...
Yes, just like computability/comptation theory.
The field of "Computer Science" has a bunch of subfields/theories
within it.
You seem to confuse Computation THeory with fundamental of computing. >>>>>>
like, if the fundamental theory doesn't encapsulate everything >>>>>>>> done within computing ... then idk why u think the halting
problem should apply to modern computing???
Because it DOES present a limitation of what modern computers can >>>>>>> do.
After all, every non-computation can be converted into a
computation by forcing all the "hidden inputs" to be considered >>>>>>> as inputs.
lol schrodinger's computation
Model conversion.
This just shows the limitation in controlability of the interface. >>>>>>>
If a new problem comes up, a new theory might be needed to
handle it.
or maybe new techniques could rectify old problems ...
talk about a lack of curiosity. you confusing regurgitation of >>>>>>>> route learning with actual intelligence, but i suppose that's >>>>>>>> all u need working for a military contractor...
military intelligence is an oxymoron, remember?
You might be surprised about that statement.
You don't want a "smart bomb" locked onto you.
they also don't want that if they know what's best for them
All you are doing is showing your ignorance of what you are >>>>>>>>>>> talking about.
what the did the nut say when it was all grown up??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Showing that you really don't understand what you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about.
It seems you just assume you are allowed to change >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the definition, perhaps because you never bothered to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> learn it.
...including a context-dependent sub-computation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes ur overall computation context-dependent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too ... if u dont want a context- dependent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation don't include context- dependent sub- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation.
the output is still well-defined and deterministic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at runtime,
This is sort of like the problem with a RASP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine architecture, sub- machines on such a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> platform are not necessarily computations, if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they use the machines capability to pass >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information not allowed by the rules of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation. Your RTM similarly break that property. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Remember, Computations are NOT just what some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> model of processing produce, but specifically is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined based on producing a specific mapping of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to output, so if (even as a sub- machine) a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific input might produce different output, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your architecture is NOT doing a computation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And without that property, using what the machine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could do, becomes a pretty worthless criteria, as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can't actually talk much about it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not from the "input" to the piece of algorithm, as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it includes "hidden" state from outside that input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stored elsewhere in the machine.
context-dependent computations are still >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computations. the fact TMs don't capture them is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an indication that the ct- thesis may be false >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nope. Not unless the "context" is made part of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "input", and if you do that, you find that since >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are trying to make it so the caller can't just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> define that context, your system is less than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> turing complete.
Your system break to property of building a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation by the concatination of sub-computations. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Which makes it not a computation.
PERIOD.
Fallacy of equivocation.
i'm not shifting meaning dude. i'm directly claiming >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's a distinct type of computation that has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignored by the theory of computing thus far >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
nice try tho
But you don't actually do that, as you then claim to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the same field to solve a problem specified in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field.
As I said, if you want to try to define a new field >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on a new definition of what a computation is, go >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ahead.
it's not a new field, it's a mild extension of turing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines, with one new operation.
No, it is, as you are changing essential core defintions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is like saying that spherical geometery is the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field as plane geometry, we just added a small extension. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You need to work out your formal definition. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Show how the system actually works out.
Show what it can show.
And show why anyone would want to use it.
In other words, you require some computations to not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be actual computations.
but in order to be complete and coherent, certain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computations *must* have context-awareness and are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> therefore context- dependent. these computations >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't generally computable by TMs because TMs lack >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the necessary mechanisms to grant context- awareness. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
unless u can produce some actual proof of some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation that actually breaks in context- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependence, rather than just listing things u assume >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are true, i won't believe u know what ur talking about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The definition.
A computation produces the well defined result based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the INPUT.
context-dependent computation simply expands it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to include the entire computing context, not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just the formal parameters. it's still well defined >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it grants us access to meta computation that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not as expressible in TM computing.
ct-thesis is cooked dude
Nope, because you are just putting yourself outside the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field it is written about.
You can't change the definition of a computation, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still talk about things as if you were in the same system. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That just shows you are smoking some bad weed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Your context, being not part of the input, can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change the well- defined result.
Should 1 + 2 become 4 on Thursdays? of it asked of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gingerbread man?
ur overgeneralizing. just become some computation is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context- dependent doesn't mean all computation is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context- dependent.
another fallacy.
Right, but nothing that actually is a computation can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be context- dependent.
ur just arguing in circles with this.
No, you are just lying to yourself to try to disagree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the definition.
All you are doing is saying you disagree with the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
Go ahead, try to define an alternate version of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Computation Theory where the result can depend on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things that aren't part of the actual input to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine, and see what you can show that is useful. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The problem becomes that you can't really say >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything about what you will get, since you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know what the "hidden" factors are.
??? i was very clear multiple times over what the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "hidden" input was. there's nothing random about it, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context- dependent computation is just as well-defend >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and deterministic as context- independent computation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The problem is that when you look at the computation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself (that might be imbedded into a larger >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation) you don't know which of the infinite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contexts it might be within.
depth is not infinite for any given step,
I didn't say infinite depth, I said from infinite contexts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
AND THAT'S WHERE REFLECT COMES IN: IT DUMPS THE FULL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MACHINE DESCRIPTION OF THE RUNNING MACHINE, THE CURRENT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STATE NUMBER, AND A FULL COPY OF THE TAPE ...
And WHICH machine description does it dump? The problem >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the machine description isn't unique.
all the info required to compute all configurations >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between the beginning and the current step of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation, which can allow it to compute anything that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is "knowable" about where it is in the computation at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time of the REFLECT operation...
And where did it store that information?
Remember, the starting tape was unbounded in length (but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite).
The machine itself is bounded in size, plus the unbounded >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tape.
the problem is ur literally not reading what i'm writing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to an appreciable degree of comprehension, being too >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> focused on isolated responses that lack overall >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *contextual* awareness of the conversation...
No, you are ignoring the requirements to implement what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you desire.
i'm sorry context-dependent computation aren't as simple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thus, what you can say about that "computation" is very >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> limited.
You don't seem to understand that a key point of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory is about being able to build complicate things >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from simpler pieces.
It comes out of how logic works, we build complicated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theories based on simpler theories and the axioms. If >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those simplere things were "context dependent" it makes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it much harder for them to specifiy what they actually >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do in all contexts, and to then use them in all contexts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Which is why you need to actually FULLY DEFINE them, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> admit it is a new field.
well it'd be great if someone fucking helped me out there, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but all i get is a bunch adversarial dismissal cause i'm >>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuck on a god forsaking planet of a fucking half- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> braindead clowns
Help has been offered,
not constructively, ur barely even paying attention to what >>>>>>>>>>>> i write
No, perhaps the problem is I assume you at least attempt to >>>>>>>>>>> learn what you are trying to talk about.
u don't even know what constructive help is to be frank
i'm not ur student, ur not my teachers, this isn't a
hierarchical relationship,
and until u recognize that ur going to continue to be non- >>>>>>>>>> constructive
YOU were the one asking for help to develop your ideas, if only >>>>>>>>> by posting them and asking for comments.
I have just pointed out the fundamental errors in your analysis >>>>>>>>>
You need to make a choice of directions.
Either you work in the currently established theory, so you can >>>>>>>>> use things in it, and see if you can develop something new.
Or, you branch out and start a brand new theory, and start at >>>>>>>>> the ground floor, fully define what you mean by things, show >>>>>>>>> what you ideas can do, and why that would be useful.
false dichotomy, add that to growing list of fallacies u shat >>>>>>>> out at me
No real dichotomy.
no, i don't have to totally rewrite the system to transcend a few >>>>>> classical limits.
Sure you do. You need to figure out what might have changed.
nothing about this change affect computation without REFLECT ... so
everything we already could compute is still computable.
But only if you DON'T use reflect.
but so no power has been lost
that fact that's not obvious to you is just u being willfully
ignorant at this point.
The problem is, once your "machine" definition can do non-
computations, you can't assume it does a computation, and thus your
gaurenetees go away, so you can say less about what it does.
i think ur just pulling a definist fallacy. until u make it produce a
contradiction, i don't really care what u label it as.
Remove the first floor of your building and see what happens.
false analogy! wow, another fallacy!
Nope, that is EXACTLY what changing a foundational rule without
seeing what it supported does.
I guess you don't understand cause and effect.
Not in logic.
Follow the rules and you can stay in the system.
Change anything and you are outside, and need to show what still >>>>>>> can apply.
To say you can change the foundation but keep the building is
just lying.
you can in fact replace foundation without even lifting the house bro >>>>>
I guess you don't understand the use of figures of speach.
or i just don't care for ur false analogy
In other words, you don't understand what an analogy is.
Too bad you are dooming yourself and your wife to starvation.
pretty nuts u think u need to keep bringing that up,
lol, u think ur on the right side here???
i'm not invalidating most of computing, just gunning for a few
classical limits that don't actually do anything interesting
anyways. not really sure why people are to bent up about them
And, if you don't understand what those changes do, you don't know
if your system is valid.
ur just commenting on how little u've tried to understand it
I'm trying to get you off the wrong track.
and yet all u do is push me down the track further cause ain't accept
ur fallacies bro
What would you do if you saw someone cutting the branch they were
sitting on, being outside the cut they were making.
It seems you want to change the foundation, but keep most of >>>>>>>>> the building on top, without even knowing how that building was >>>>>>>>> built and how it connects to the foundation.
That just doesn't work.
but you just reject it as it doesn't match your ideas, >>>>>>>>>>>>> largely because you don't understand what you are trying to >>>>>>>>>>>>> get in.
When your errors are explained, just just curse back. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
I can't fix stupid.
You aren't stuck on a planet of clowns, you are the clown >>>>>>>>>>>>> that doesn't understand the world.
if the simplest theory was always correct we'd still be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using newtonian gravity for everything
You can't change a thing and it still be the same thing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I guess that truth is something you don't understand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 1/5/26 4:24 PM, Oleksiy Gapotchenko wrote:*I think that I fixed that*
Just an external observation:
A lot of tech innovations in software optimization area get discarded
from the very beginning because people who work on them perceive the
halting problem as a dogma. As result, certain practical things (in
code analysis) are not even tried because it's assumed that they are
bound by the halting problem.
In practice, however, the halting problem is rarely a limitation. And
even when one hits it, they can safely discard a particular analysis
branch by marking it as inconclusive.
Halting problem for sure can be better framed to not sound as a dogma,
at least. In practice, algorithmic inconclusiveness has 0.001
probability, not a 100% guarantee as many engineers perceive it.
god it's been such a mind-fuck to unpack the halting problem,
but the halting problem does not mean that no algorithm exists for any
given machine, just that a "general" decider does not exist for all
machiens ...
heck it must be certain that for any given machine there must exist a partial decider that can decide on it ... because otherwise a paradox
would have to address all possible partial deciders in a computable
fashion and that runs up against it's own limit to classical computing. therefore some true decider must exist for any given machine that
exists ... we just can't funnel the knowledge thru a general interface.
i think the actual problem is the TM computing is not sufficient to
describe all computable relationships. TM computing is considered the gold-standard for what is computable, but we haven't actually proved that.
the CT-thesis is a thesis, not a proof.
On 1/6/2026 1:47 AM, dart200 wrote:
the CT-thesis is a thesis, not a proof.*I think that I fixed that*
It seems to me that if something cannot be computed
by applying finite string transformation rules to
input finite strings then it cannot be computed.
As soon as this is shown to be categorically impossible
then the thesis turns into a proof.
On 1/24/26 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/20/26 8:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/20/26 4:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/20/26 1:18 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/19/26 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 11:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/18/26 4:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 4:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/18/26 12:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 1:15 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/18/26 4:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 1:05 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/17/26 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/17/26 10:14 PM, dart200 wrote:one can only hope for so much sometimes 🙏
Good luck starving to death when your money runs out. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
one would presume the fundamental theory of computing would >>>>>>>>>>>>> be general enough to encapsulate everything computed by >>>>>>>>>>>>> real world computers, no???
also not an argument
I guess you don't understand the rules of logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Again, YOUR PROBLEM.
which we do all the time in normal programming, something >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which apparently u think the tHeOrY oF CoMpUtInG fails to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encapsulate
Because you get that result only by equivocating on your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions.
it's pretty crazy i can produce a machine (even if u >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> haven't understood it yet) that produces a consistent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deterministic result that is "not a computation". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If the context is part of the inpt to make the output >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determistic from the input, then they fail to be usable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as sub- computations as we can't control that context >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> part of the input.
When we look at just the controllable input for a sub- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation, the output is NOT a deterministic function >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of that inut.
not sure what the fuck it's doing if it's not a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation
Its using hidden inputs that the caller can't control. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Right, but that isn't about computations.
pretty crazy we do a bunch "non-computating" in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normal act of programming computers
Why?
As I have said, "Computatations" is NOT about how modern >>>>>>>>>>>>>> computers work.
I guess you are just showing that you fundamentally don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand the problem field you are betting your life on. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why?
Remember, the fundamental theory of Computing PREDATES the >>>>>>>>>>>> computer as you know it.
so ur saying it's outdated and needs updating in regards to >>>>>>>>>>> new things we do with computers that apparently turing
machines as a model don't have variations of ...
No, it still handles that which it was developed for.
well it was developed to be a general theory of computing, and >>>>>>>>> apparently modern computing has transcended that theory ...
Not really.
THe way modern processors work, "sub-routines" can fail to be >>>>>>>> computations, but whole programs will tend to be. Sub-routines >>>>>>>> CAN be built with care to fall under its guidance.
lol, what are they even if not "computations"???
not-computations
great, a set of deterministic steps that produces a result but is
somehow not a compution!
Because it isn't deterministically based on the INPUT,
no it's just a series of steps to produce some output.
Nope, not in the formulation of the theory.
again: YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN THAT TURING MACHINES, OR ANY EQUIVALENT
THEORY, ENCOMPASS ALL POSSIBLE COMPUTATIONS
like holy fuck, how many times will i need to repeat that???
it's a ct-THESIS not a ct-LAW
it may or may not have an input, and in fact the entirety of turing
machine computing can be expressed by enumerating only the turing
machines that do NOT take input.
In which case the input can be thought of as the empty set and the
output is a constant.
but include other "unknown" factors.
lol, so when u print a stack trace, u consider those factors "unknown"?
Thus making your definistic fallacy of confusing an instance of a
computation with the definition and use of the computation itself.
If I am trying to document an API, but the results depend on something
not provided through that API, as far as that documentation is
conserned those details are "unknown".
in react we deal with contexts all the time with to encapsulate state
with the functionality that renders/modifies it.
it doesn't make it "unknown", just not passed thru form
and yes it does need to be documented because you'll need to setup that state at the root the tree so it can be used by components lower in the react tree.
The key point is that a computation always gives the same answer for
a given input, if it doesn't, it can't be a computation.
If you can't control the whole input, it isn't as useful, if it has
any usefullness at all.
fucking dick is just pulling shit out of his ass, 🤮🤮🤮
It seems you are stuffing yours with shit.
THere ARE advantages to doing so, as that DOES add a lot of
correctness provability to the code.
The biggest part of code not being analyzable/provable is when >>>>>>>> it deviates from the requirements of being a computation.
or what ... someone writes down a fundamental theory and then >>>>>>>>>>> it just sticks around like an unchanging law when u haven't >>>>>>>>>>> even proven the ct- thesis correct???
Why does it need to change?
why does the fundamental theory of computing need to
encapsulate all that is possible within computing??
That is like asking about shouldn't number theory talk about
everything mathematics.
idk, what's what i thot a fundamental theory is supposed to do, >>>>>>>>> but i guess you don't agree???
Nope, it handles ONE ASPECT of the general field.
We not only have Computation Theory, but we also get things like >>>>>>>> Complexity Theory,
complexity theory is built on top of the fundamentals of
computing ...
Yes, just like computability/comptation theory.
The field of "Computer Science" has a bunch of subfields/theories >>>>>> within it.
You seem to confuse Computation THeory with fundamental of computing. >>>>>>>
like, if the fundamental theory doesn't encapsulate everything >>>>>>>>> done within computing ... then idk why u think the halting
problem should apply to modern computing???
Because it DOES present a limitation of what modern computers >>>>>>>> can do.
After all, every non-computation can be converted into a
computation by forcing all the "hidden inputs" to be considered >>>>>>>> as inputs.
lol schrodinger's computation
Model conversion.
This just shows the limitation in controlability of the interface. >>>>>>>>
If a new problem comes up, a new theory might be needed to >>>>>>>>>> handle it.
or maybe new techniques could rectify old problems ...
talk about a lack of curiosity. you confusing regurgitation of >>>>>>>>> route learning with actual intelligence, but i suppose that's >>>>>>>>> all u need working for a military contractor...
military intelligence is an oxymoron, remember?
You might be surprised about that statement.
You don't want a "smart bomb" locked onto you.
they also don't want that if they know what's best for them
All you are doing is showing your ignorance of what you are >>>>>>>>>>>> talking about.
what the did the nut say when it was all grown up??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Showing that you really don't understand what you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about.
It seems you just assume you are allowed to change >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the definition, perhaps because you never bothered >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to learn it.
...including a context-dependent sub-computation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes ur overall computation context-dependent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too ... if u dont want a context- dependent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation don't include context- dependent sub- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation.
the output is still well-defined and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deterministic at runtime,
This is sort of like the problem with a RASP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine architecture, sub- machines on such a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> platform are not necessarily computations, if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they use the machines capability to pass >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information not allowed by the rules of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation. Your RTM similarly break that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> property.
Remember, Computations are NOT just what some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> model of processing produce, but specifically is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined based on producing a specific mapping of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to output, so if (even as a sub- machine) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a specific input might produce different output, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your architecture is NOT doing a computation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And without that property, using what the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine could do, becomes a pretty worthless >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> criteria, as you can't actually talk much about it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not from the "input" to the piece of algorithm, as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it includes "hidden" state from outside that input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stored elsewhere in the machine.
context-dependent computations are still >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computations. the fact TMs don't capture them is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an indication that the ct- thesis may be false >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nope. Not unless the "context" is made part of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "input", and if you do that, you find that since >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are trying to make it so the caller can't just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> define that context, your system is less than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> turing complete.
Your system break to property of building a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation by the concatination of sub-computations. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Which makes it not a computation.
PERIOD.
Fallacy of equivocation.
i'm not shifting meaning dude. i'm directly claiming >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's a distinct type of computation that has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignored by the theory of computing thus far >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
nice try tho
But you don't actually do that, as you then claim to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be in the same field to solve a problem specified in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the field.
As I said, if you want to try to define a new field >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on a new definition of what a computation is, go >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ahead.
it's not a new field, it's a mild extension of turing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines, with one new operation.
No, it is, as you are changing essential core defintions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is like saying that spherical geometery is the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field as plane geometry, we just added a small extension. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You need to work out your formal definition. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Show how the system actually works out.
Show what it can show.
And show why anyone would want to use it.
In other words, you require some computations to not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be actual computations.
but in order to be complete and coherent, certain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computations *must* have context-awareness and are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> therefore context- dependent. these computations >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't generally computable by TMs because TMs lack >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the necessary mechanisms to grant context- awareness. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
unless u can produce some actual proof of some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation that actually breaks in context- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependence, rather than just listing things u >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assume are true, i won't believe u know what ur >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about
The definition.
A computation produces the well defined result based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the INPUT.
context-dependent computation simply expands it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to include the entire computing context, not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just the formal parameters. it's still well defined >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it grants us access to meta computation that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not as expressible in TM computing.
ct-thesis is cooked dude
Nope, because you are just putting yourself outside >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the field it is written about.
You can't change the definition of a computation, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still talk about things as if you were in the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system.
That just shows you are smoking some bad weed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Your context, being not part of the input, can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change the well- defined result.
Should 1 + 2 become 4 on Thursdays? of it asked of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gingerbread man?
ur overgeneralizing. just become some computation is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context- dependent doesn't mean all computation is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context- dependent.
another fallacy.
Right, but nothing that actually is a computation can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be context- dependent.
ur just arguing in circles with this.
No, you are just lying to yourself to try to disagree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the definition.
All you are doing is saying you disagree with the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
Go ahead, try to define an alternate version of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Computation Theory where the result can depend on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things that aren't part of the actual input to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine, and see what you can show that is useful. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The problem becomes that you can't really say >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything about what you will get, since you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know what the "hidden" factors are.
??? i was very clear multiple times over what the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "hidden" input was. there's nothing random about it, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context- dependent computation is just as well-defend >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and deterministic as context- independent computation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The problem is that when you look at the computation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself (that might be imbedded into a larger >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation) you don't know which of the infinite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contexts it might be within.
depth is not infinite for any given step,
I didn't say infinite depth, I said from infinite contexts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And WHICH machine description does it dump? The problem >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the machine description isn't unique.
AND THAT'S WHERE REFLECT COMES IN: IT DUMPS THE FULL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MACHINE DESCRIPTION OF THE RUNNING MACHINE, THE CURRENT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> STATE NUMBER, AND A FULL COPY OF THE TAPE ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
all the info required to compute all configurations >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between the beginning and the current step of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation, which can allow it to compute anything >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is "knowable" about where it is in the computation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at time of the REFLECT operation...
And where did it store that information?
Remember, the starting tape was unbounded in length (but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite).
The machine itself is bounded in size, plus the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unbounded tape.
No, you are ignoring the requirements to implement what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you desire.
the problem is ur literally not reading what i'm >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> writing to an appreciable degree of comprehension, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being too focused on isolated responses that lack >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overall *contextual* awareness of the conversation... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thus, what you can say about that "computation" is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very limited.
You don't seem to understand that a key point of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory is about being able to build complicate things >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from simpler pieces.
It comes out of how logic works, we build complicated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theories based on simpler theories and the axioms. If >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those simplere things were "context dependent" it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes it much harder for them to specifiy what they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually do in all contexts, and to then use them in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all contexts.
i'm sorry context-dependent computation aren't as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple
Which is why you need to actually FULLY DEFINE them, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> admit it is a new field.
well it'd be great if someone fucking helped me out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there, but all i get is a bunch adversarial dismissal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause i'm stuck on a god forsaking planet of a fucking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> half- braindead clowns
Help has been offered,
not constructively, ur barely even paying attention to what >>>>>>>>>>>>> i write
No, perhaps the problem is I assume you at least attempt to >>>>>>>>>>>> learn what you are trying to talk about.
u don't even know what constructive help is to be frank
i'm not ur student, ur not my teachers, this isn't a
hierarchical relationship,
and until u recognize that ur going to continue to be non- >>>>>>>>>>> constructive
YOU were the one asking for help to develop your ideas, if >>>>>>>>>> only by posting them and asking for comments.
I have just pointed out the fundamental errors in your analysis >>>>>>>>>>
You need to make a choice of directions.
Either you work in the currently established theory, so you >>>>>>>>>> can use things in it, and see if you can develop something new. >>>>>>>>>>
Or, you branch out and start a brand new theory, and start at >>>>>>>>>> the ground floor, fully define what you mean by things, show >>>>>>>>>> what you ideas can do, and why that would be useful.
false dichotomy, add that to growing list of fallacies u shat >>>>>>>>> out at me
No real dichotomy.
no, i don't have to totally rewrite the system to transcend a few >>>>>>> classical limits.
Sure you do. You need to figure out what might have changed.
nothing about this change affect computation without REFLECT ... so >>>>> everything we already could compute is still computable.
But only if you DON'T use reflect.
but so no power has been lost
that fact that's not obvious to you is just u being willfully
ignorant at this point.
The problem is, once your "machine" definition can do non-
computations, you can't assume it does a computation, and thus your
gaurenetees go away, so you can say less about what it does.
i think ur just pulling a definist fallacy. until u make it produce a
contradiction, i don't really care what u label it as.
Remove the first floor of your building and see what happens.
false analogy! wow, another fallacy!
Nope, that is EXACTLY what changing a foundational rule without
seeing what it supported does.
I guess you don't understand cause and effect.
Follow the rules and you can stay in the system.
Change anything and you are outside, and need to show what still >>>>>>>> can apply.
To say you can change the foundation but keep the building is >>>>>>>> just lying.
you can in fact replace foundation without even lifting the house >>>>>>> bro
Not in logic.
I guess you don't understand the use of figures of speach.
or i just don't care for ur false analogy
In other words, you don't understand what an analogy is.
Too bad you are dooming yourself and your wife to starvation.
pretty nuts u think u need to keep bringing that up,
lol, u think ur on the right side here???
i'm not invalidating most of computing, just gunning for a few
classical limits that don't actually do anything interesting
anyways. not really sure why people are to bent up about them
And, if you don't understand what those changes do, you don't know >>>>>> if your system is valid.
ur just commenting on how little u've tried to understand it
I'm trying to get you off the wrong track.
and yet all u do is push me down the track further cause ain't accept
ur fallacies bro
What would you do if you saw someone cutting the branch they were
sitting on, being outside the cut they were making.
It seems you want to change the foundation, but keep most of >>>>>>>>>> the building on top, without even knowing how that building >>>>>>>>>> was built and how it connects to the foundation.
That just doesn't work.
but you just reject it as it doesn't match your ideas, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> largely because you don't understand what you are trying >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to get in.
When your errors are explained, just just curse back. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I can't fix stupid.
You aren't stuck on a planet of clowns, you are the clown >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that doesn't understand the world.
if the simplest theory was always correct we'd still be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using newtonian gravity for everything
You can't change a thing and it still be the same thing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I guess that truth is something you don't understand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 1/24/26 6:06 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2026 1:47 AM, dart200 wrote:
the CT-thesis is a thesis, not a proof.*I think that I fixed that*
It seems to me that if something cannot be computed
by applying finite string transformation rules to
input finite strings then it cannot be computed.
As soon as this is shown to be categorically impossible
then the thesis turns into a proof.
In other words, you just don't know what you are talking about.
The fact that it is impossible to build a computation that, given a representation of another computation and its input, determine for all
cases if the computation will halt does nothing to further the question
of are Turing Machines the most powerful form of computation.
On 1/24/26 5:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/20/26 8:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/20/26 4:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/20/26 1:18 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/19/26 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 11:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/18/26 4:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 4:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/18/26 12:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Not really.
On 1/18/26 1:15 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/18/26 4:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 1:05 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/17/26 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/17/26 10:14 PM, dart200 wrote:one can only hope for so much sometimes 🙏
Good luck starving to death when your money runs out. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
one would presume the fundamental theory of computing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be general enough to encapsulate everything computed >>>>>>>>>>>>>> by real world computers, no???
also not an argument
I guess you don't understand the rules of logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Again, YOUR PROBLEM.
which we do all the time in normal programming, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something which apparently u think the tHeOrY oF >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CoMpUtInG fails to encapsulate
Because you get that result only by equivocating on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your definitions.
it's pretty crazy i can produce a machine (even if u >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> haven't understood it yet) that produces a consistent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deterministic result that is "not a computation". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If the context is part of the inpt to make the output >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determistic from the input, then they fail to be usable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as sub- computations as we can't control that context >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> part of the input.
When we look at just the controllable input for a sub- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation, the output is NOT a deterministic function >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of that inut.
not sure what the fuck it's doing if it's not a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation
Its using hidden inputs that the caller can't control. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Right, but that isn't about computations.
pretty crazy we do a bunch "non-computating" in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normal act of programming computers
Why?
As I have said, "Computatations" is NOT about how modern >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computers work.
I guess you are just showing that you fundamentally don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand the problem field you are betting your life on. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why?
Remember, the fundamental theory of Computing PREDATES the >>>>>>>>>>>>> computer as you know it.
so ur saying it's outdated and needs updating in regards to >>>>>>>>>>>> new things we do with computers that apparently turing >>>>>>>>>>>> machines as a model don't have variations of ...
No, it still handles that which it was developed for.
well it was developed to be a general theory of computing, and >>>>>>>>>> apparently modern computing has transcended that theory ... >>>>>>>>>
THe way modern processors work, "sub-routines" can fail to be >>>>>>>>> computations, but whole programs will tend to be. Sub-routines >>>>>>>>> CAN be built with care to fall under its guidance.
lol, what are they even if not "computations"???
not-computations
great, a set of deterministic steps that produces a result but is >>>>>> somehow not a compution!
Because it isn't deterministically based on the INPUT,
no it's just a series of steps to produce some output.
Nope, not in the formulation of the theory.
again: YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN THAT TURING MACHINES, OR ANY EQUIVALENT
THEORY, ENCOMPASS ALL POSSIBLE COMPUTATIONS
like holy fuck, how many times will i need to repeat that???
it's a ct-THESIS not a ct-LAW
But I can say that Computations as defined, are all that they can do.
On 1/24/26 6:06 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2026 1:47 AM, dart200 wrote:
the CT-thesis is a thesis, not a proof.*I think that I fixed that*
It seems to me that if something cannot be computed
by applying finite string transformation rules to
input finite strings then it cannot be computed.
As soon as this is shown to be categorically impossible
then the thesis turns into a proof.
In other words, you just don't know what you are talking about.
The fact that it is impossible to build a computation that, given a representation of another computation and its input, determine for all--
cases if the computation will halt does nothing to further the question
of are Turing Machines the most powerful form of computation.
On 1/24/2026 6:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 6:06 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2026 1:47 AM, dart200 wrote:
the CT-thesis is a thesis, not a proof.*I think that I fixed that*
It seems to me that if something cannot be computed
by applying finite string transformation rules to
input finite strings then it cannot be computed.
As soon as this is shown to be categorically impossible
then the thesis turns into a proof.
In other words, you just don't know what you are talking about.
It is categorically impossible to define a
computation more powerful than that above.
The fact that it is impossible to build a computation that, given a
representation of another computation and its input, determine for all
cases if the computation will halt does nothing to further the
question of are Turing Machines the most powerful form of computation.
On 1/24/26 6:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/24/2026 6:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 6:06 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2026 1:47 AM, dart200 wrote:
the CT-thesis is a thesis, not a proof.*I think that I fixed that*
It seems to me that if something cannot be computed
by applying finite string transformation rules to
input finite strings then it cannot be computed.
As soon as this is shown to be categorically impossible
then the thesis turns into a proof.
In other words, you just don't know what you are talking about.
It is categorically impossible to define a
computation more powerful than that above.
i mean turing machines are just a method to specify string
transformations on the tape ???
they are primarily defined by a large transition table for what
operation is done based on the state of the machine...
The fact that it is impossible to build a computation that, given a
representation of another computation and its input, determine for
all cases if the computation will halt does nothing to further the
question of are Turing Machines the most powerful form of computation.
On 1/24/2026 8:38 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 6:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/24/2026 6:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 6:06 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2026 1:47 AM, dart200 wrote:
the CT-thesis is a thesis, not a proof.*I think that I fixed that*
It seems to me that if something cannot be computed
by applying finite string transformation rules to
input finite strings then it cannot be computed.
As soon as this is shown to be categorically impossible
then the thesis turns into a proof.
In other words, you just don't know what you are talking about.
It is categorically impossible to define a
computation more powerful than that above.
i mean turing machines are just a method to specify string
transformations on the tape ???
they are primarily defined by a large transition table for what
operation is done based on the state of the machine...
No if you look at the Chomsky Hierarchy
they are much more powerful than finite
state machines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy
The fact that it is impossible to build a computation that, given a
representation of another computation and its input, determine for
all cases if the computation will halt does nothing to further the
question of are Turing Machines the most powerful form of computation.
On 1/24/26 6:53 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/24/2026 8:38 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 6:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/24/2026 6:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 6:06 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2026 1:47 AM, dart200 wrote:
the CT-thesis is a thesis, not a proof.*I think that I fixed that*
It seems to me that if something cannot be computed
by applying finite string transformation rules to
input finite strings then it cannot be computed.
As soon as this is shown to be categorically impossible
then the thesis turns into a proof.
In other words, you just don't know what you are talking about.
It is categorically impossible to define a
computation more powerful than that above.
i mean turing machines are just a method to specify string
transformations on the tape ???
they are primarily defined by a large transition table for what
operation is done based on the state of the machine...
No if you look at the Chomsky Hierarchy
they are much more powerful than finite
state machines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy
sorry idk what u mean: Type-0 recursively enumerable langauges,
"recognized" by turing machines, are the most "powerful" in that they encompass the "most" computations ... ?
... huh a bit unrelated but it's interesting to note that despite being technically the same cardinality, the Type-0 language encompasses "more" computations than say Type-1 Type-2 or Type-3 language.
sure we call this "power" and not "size", but the fundamental fact is
that Type-0 includes computations of Type 1, 2, and 3 languages + more
that aren't included in any of those, so it includes "more" computations than the more limited types.
The fact that it is impossible to build a computation that, given a >>>>> representation of another computation and its input, determine for
all cases if the computation will halt does nothing to further the
question of are Turing Machines the most powerful form of computation. >>>>
On 1/24/2026 9:12 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 6:53 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/24/2026 8:38 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 6:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/24/2026 6:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 6:06 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2026 1:47 AM, dart200 wrote:
the CT-thesis is a thesis, not a proof.*I think that I fixed that*
It seems to me that if something cannot be computed
by applying finite string transformation rules to
input finite strings then it cannot be computed.
As soon as this is shown to be categorically impossible
then the thesis turns into a proof.
In other words, you just don't know what you are talking about.
It is categorically impossible to define a
computation more powerful than that above.
i mean turing machines are just a method to specify string
transformations on the tape ???
they are primarily defined by a large transition table for what
operation is done based on the state of the machine...
No if you look at the Chomsky Hierarchy
they are much more powerful than finite
state machines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy
sorry idk what u mean: Type-0 recursively enumerable langauges,
"recognized" by turing machines, are the most "powerful" in that they
encompass the "most" computations ... ?
It requires the most powerful machine to recognize them.
Regular thus finite-state-machines are the weakest.
... huh a bit unrelated but it's interesting to note that despite
being technically the same cardinality, the Type-0 language
encompasses "more" computations than say Type-1 Type-2 or Type-3
language.
sure we call this "power" and not "size", but the fundamental fact is
that Type-0 includes computations of Type 1, 2, and 3 languages + more
that aren't included in any of those, so it includes "more"
computations than the more limited types.
The fact that it is impossible to build a computation that, given >>>>>> a representation of another computation and its input, determine
for all cases if the computation will halt does nothing to further >>>>>> the question of are Turing Machines the most powerful form of
computation.
On 1/24/26 7:42 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/24/2026 9:12 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 6:53 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/24/2026 8:38 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 6:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/24/2026 6:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 6:06 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2026 1:47 AM, dart200 wrote:
the CT-thesis is a thesis, not a proof.*I think that I fixed that*
It seems to me that if something cannot be computed
by applying finite string transformation rules to
input finite strings then it cannot be computed.
As soon as this is shown to be categorically impossible
then the thesis turns into a proof.
In other words, you just don't know what you are talking about.
It is categorically impossible to define a
computation more powerful than that above.
i mean turing machines are just a method to specify string
transformations on the tape ???
they are primarily defined by a large transition table for what
operation is done based on the state of the machine...
No if you look at the Chomsky Hierarchy
they are much more powerful than finite
state machines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy
sorry idk what u mean: Type-0 recursively enumerable langauges,
"recognized" by turing machines, are the most "powerful" in that they
encompass the "most" computations ... ?
It requires the most powerful machine to recognize them.
Regular thus finite-state-machines are the weakest.
i literally said turing machine, not finite-state-automota... ???
On 1/24/2026 10:03 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 7:42 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/24/2026 9:12 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 6:53 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/24/2026 8:38 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 6:35 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/24/2026 6:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 6:06 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2026 1:47 AM, dart200 wrote:
the CT-thesis is a thesis, not a proof.*I think that I fixed that*
It seems to me that if something cannot be computed
by applying finite string transformation rules to
input finite strings then it cannot be computed.
As soon as this is shown to be categorically impossible
then the thesis turns into a proof.
In other words, you just don't know what you are talking about. >>>>>>>>
It is categorically impossible to define a
computation more powerful than that above.
i mean turing machines are just a method to specify string
transformations on the tape ???
they are primarily defined by a large transition table for what
operation is done based on the state of the machine...
No if you look at the Chomsky Hierarchy
they are much more powerful than finite
state machines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_hierarchy
sorry idk what u mean: Type-0 recursively enumerable langauges,
"recognized" by turing machines, are the most "powerful" in that
they encompass the "most" computations ... ?
It requires the most powerful machine to recognize them.
Regular thus finite-state-machines are the weakest.
i literally said turing machine, not finite-state-automota... ???
Yes you did. I reread what you said.
On 1/24/26 4:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 5:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/20/26 8:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/20/26 4:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/20/26 1:18 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/19/26 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 11:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/18/26 4:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 4:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/18/26 12:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Not really.
On 1/18/26 1:15 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/18/26 4:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 1:05 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/17/26 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/17/26 10:14 PM, dart200 wrote:one can only hope for so much sometimes 🙏
Good luck starving to death when your money runs out. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
also not an argument
I guess you don't understand the rules of logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Again, YOUR PROBLEM.
which we do all the time in normal programming, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something which apparently u think the tHeOrY oF >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CoMpUtInG fails to encapsulate
Because you get that result only by equivocating on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your definitions.
it's pretty crazy i can produce a machine (even if u >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> haven't understood it yet) that produces a consistent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deterministic result that is "not a computation". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If the context is part of the inpt to make the output >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determistic from the input, then they fail to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> usable as sub- computations as we can't control that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context part of the input.
When we look at just the controllable input for a sub- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation, the output is NOT a deterministic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function of that inut.
not sure what the fuck it's doing if it's not a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation
Its using hidden inputs that the caller can't control. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Right, but that isn't about computations.
pretty crazy we do a bunch "non-computating" in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normal act of programming computers
Why?
As I have said, "Computatations" is NOT about how modern >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computers work.
I guess you are just showing that you fundamentally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't understand the problem field you are betting your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> life on.
one would presume the fundamental theory of computing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be general enough to encapsulate everything >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computed by real world computers, no???
Why?
Remember, the fundamental theory of Computing PREDATES the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> computer as you know it.
so ur saying it's outdated and needs updating in regards to >>>>>>>>>>>>> new things we do with computers that apparently turing >>>>>>>>>>>>> machines as a model don't have variations of ...
No, it still handles that which it was developed for.
well it was developed to be a general theory of computing, >>>>>>>>>>> and apparently modern computing has transcended that theory ... >>>>>>>>>>
THe way modern processors work, "sub-routines" can fail to be >>>>>>>>>> computations, but whole programs will tend to be. Sub-routines >>>>>>>>>> CAN be built with care to fall under its guidance.
lol, what are they even if not "computations"???
not-computations
great, a set of deterministic steps that produces a result but is >>>>>>> somehow not a compution!
Because it isn't deterministically based on the INPUT,
no it's just a series of steps to produce some output.
Nope, not in the formulation of the theory.
again: YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN THAT TURING MACHINES, OR ANY EQUIVALENT
THEORY, ENCOMPASS ALL POSSIBLE COMPUTATIONS
like holy fuck, how many times will i need to repeat that???
it's a ct-THESIS not a ct-LAW
But I can say that Computations as defined, are all that they can do.
i will never care about you complaining about the fact the computations
i'm talking about don't fit within the particular box you call a "Computation", because i just doesn't mean anything,
u and the entire field can be wrong about how u specified "Computation",
and that potential is well codified by the fact the ct-thesis is still a thesis and not a law.
i will not respond to more comments on this because it's a boring, lazy, non-argument that is fucking waste of both our time.
On 1/24/26 4:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 6:06 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2026 1:47 AM, dart200 wrote:
the CT-thesis is a thesis, not a proof.*I think that I fixed that*
It seems to me that if something cannot be computed
by applying finite string transformation rules to
input finite strings then it cannot be computed.
As soon as this is shown to be categorically impossible
then the thesis turns into a proof.
In other words, you just don't know what you are talking about.
The fact that it is impossible to build a computation that, given a
representation of another computation and its input, determine for all
cases if the computation will halt does nothing to further the
question of are Turing Machines the most powerful form of computation.
contexts-aware machines compute functions:
(context,input) -> output
On 1/24/26 9:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 4:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 6:06 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2026 1:47 AM, dart200 wrote:
the CT-thesis is a thesis, not a proof.*I think that I fixed that*
It seems to me that if something cannot be computed
by applying finite string transformation rules to
input finite strings then it cannot be computed.
As soon as this is shown to be categorically impossible
then the thesis turns into a proof.
In other words, you just don't know what you are talking about.
The fact that it is impossible to build a computation that, given a
representation of another computation and its input, determine for
all cases if the computation will halt does nothing to further the
question of are Turing Machines the most powerful form of computation.
contexts-aware machines compute functions:
(context,input) -> output
And what problems of interest to computation theory are of that form?
Computation Theory was to answer questions of logic and mathematics.
What logic or math is dependent on "context"
On 1/24/26 9:24 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 4:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 5:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/20/26 8:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/20/26 4:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/20/26 1:18 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/19/26 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 11:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/18/26 4:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 4:50 PM, dart200 wrote:lol, what are they even if not "computations"???
On 1/18/26 12:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Not really.
On 1/18/26 1:15 PM, dart200 wrote:well it was developed to be a general theory of computing, >>>>>>>>>>>> and apparently modern computing has transcended that theory ... >>>>>>>>>>>
On 1/18/26 4:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 1:05 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/17/26 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/17/26 10:14 PM, dart200 wrote:one can only hope for so much sometimes 🙏
Good luck starving to death when your money runs out. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
also not an argument
I guess you don't understand the rules of logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Again, YOUR PROBLEM.
which we do all the time in normal programming, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something which apparently u think the tHeOrY oF >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CoMpUtInG fails to encapsulate
it's pretty crazy i can produce a machine (even if u >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> haven't understood it yet) that produces a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent deterministic result that is "not a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation".
Because you get that result only by equivocating on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your definitions.
If the context is part of the inpt to make the output >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determistic from the input, then they fail to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> usable as sub- computations as we can't control that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context part of the input.
When we look at just the controllable input for a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sub- computation, the output is NOT a deterministic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function of that inut.
not sure what the fuck it's doing if it's not a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation
Its using hidden inputs that the caller can't control. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Right, but that isn't about computations.
pretty crazy we do a bunch "non-computating" in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normal act of programming computers
Why?
As I have said, "Computatations" is NOT about how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modern computers work.
I guess you are just showing that you fundamentally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't understand the problem field you are betting your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> life on.
one would presume the fundamental theory of computing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be general enough to encapsulate everything >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computed by real world computers, no???
Why?
Remember, the fundamental theory of Computing PREDATES >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the computer as you know it.
so ur saying it's outdated and needs updating in regards >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to new things we do with computers that apparently turing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines as a model don't have variations of ...
No, it still handles that which it was developed for. >>>>>>>>>>>>
THe way modern processors work, "sub-routines" can fail to be >>>>>>>>>>> computations, but whole programs will tend to be. Sub-
routines CAN be built with care to fall under its guidance. >>>>>>>>>>
not-computations
great, a set of deterministic steps that produces a result but >>>>>>>> is somehow not a compution!
Because it isn't deterministically based on the INPUT,
no it's just a series of steps to produce some output.
Nope, not in the formulation of the theory.
again: YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN THAT TURING MACHINES, OR ANY EQUIVALENT
THEORY, ENCOMPASS ALL POSSIBLE COMPUTATIONS
like holy fuck, how many times will i need to repeat that???
it's a ct-THESIS not a ct-LAW
But I can say that Computations as defined, are all that they can do.
i will never care about you complaining about the fact the
computations i'm talking about don't fit within the particular box you
call a "Computation", because i just doesn't mean anything,
In other words, you are just saying you don't care about computation
theory, and thus why are you complaining about what it says about computations.
u and the entire field can be wrong about how u specified "Computation",
No, you just don't understand the WHY of computation theory.
and that potential is well codified by the fact the ct-thesis is still
a thesis and not a law.
It might just be a thesis, because it IS an unprovable truth.
i will not respond to more comments on this because it's a boring,
lazy, non-argument that is fucking waste of both our time.
On 1/25/26 10:21 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 9:24 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 4:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 5:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/20/26 8:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/20/26 4:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/20/26 1:18 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/19/26 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 11:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/18/26 4:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 4:50 PM, dart200 wrote:lol, what are they even if not "computations"???
On 1/18/26 12:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 1:15 PM, dart200 wrote:well it was developed to be a general theory of computing, >>>>>>>>>>>>> and apparently modern computing has transcended that >>>>>>>>>>>>> theory ...
On 1/18/26 4:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 1:05 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/17/26 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/17/26 10:14 PM, dart200 wrote:one can only hope for so much sometimes 🙏 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Good luck starving to death when your money runs out. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
also not an argument
I guess you don't understand the rules of logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Again, YOUR PROBLEM.
which we do all the time in normal programming, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something which apparently u think the tHeOrY oF >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CoMpUtInG fails to encapsulate
it's pretty crazy i can produce a machine (even if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> u haven't understood it yet) that produces a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent deterministic result that is "not a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation".
Because you get that result only by equivocating on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your definitions.
If the context is part of the inpt to make the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> output determistic from the input, then they fail to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be usable as sub- computations as we can't control >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that context part of the input.
When we look at just the controllable input for a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sub- computation, the output is NOT a deterministic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function of that inut.
not sure what the fuck it's doing if it's not a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation
Its using hidden inputs that the caller can't control. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Right, but that isn't about computations.
pretty crazy we do a bunch "non-computating" in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normal act of programming computers
Why?
As I have said, "Computatations" is NOT about how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modern computers work.
I guess you are just showing that you fundamentally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't understand the problem field you are betting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your life on.
one would presume the fundamental theory of computing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be general enough to encapsulate everything >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computed by real world computers, no???
Why?
Remember, the fundamental theory of Computing PREDATES >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the computer as you know it.
so ur saying it's outdated and needs updating in regards >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to new things we do with computers that apparently turing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machines as a model don't have variations of ...
No, it still handles that which it was developed for. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not really.
THe way modern processors work, "sub-routines" can fail to >>>>>>>>>>>> be computations, but whole programs will tend to be. Sub- >>>>>>>>>>>> routines CAN be built with care to fall under its guidance. >>>>>>>>>>>
not-computations
great, a set of deterministic steps that produces a result but >>>>>>>>> is somehow not a compution!
Because it isn't deterministically based on the INPUT,
no it's just a series of steps to produce some output.
Nope, not in the formulation of the theory.
again: YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN THAT TURING MACHINES, OR ANY EQUIVALENT
THEORY, ENCOMPASS ALL POSSIBLE COMPUTATIONS
like holy fuck, how many times will i need to repeat that???
it's a ct-THESIS not a ct-LAW
But I can say that Computations as defined, are all that they can do.
i will never care about you complaining about the fact the
computations i'm talking about don't fit within the particular box
you call a "Computation", because i just doesn't mean anything,
In other words, you are just saying you don't care about computation
theory, and thus why are you complaining about what it says about
computations.
no i'm saying i don't care about ur particular definition, richard
do better that trying to "define" me as wrong. meaning: put in the work
to demonstrate actual contradictions
u and the entire field can be wrong about how u specified "Computation",
No, you just don't understand the WHY of computation theory.
u don't give a why u stupid fucking retarded faggot, and u never will because the ct-thesis isn't proven, and u've already gone down the
moronic hole of "maybe my favorite truth isn't even provable!!!??"
and that potential is well codified by the fact the ct-thesis is
still a thesis and not a law.
It might just be a thesis, because it IS an unprovable truth.
lookie u just accepting things as "muh unprovable truths". holy fucking hypocritical fucking faggot
imagine if i pulled that argument out on you wildly unfair irrational bastard??
u make a complete mockery of reason with the disgustingly idiot dogshit
u post over and over again...
holy fuck you dude eat a bag of dicks
i will not respond to more comments on this because it's a boring,
lazy, non-argument that is fucking waste of both our time.
On 1/25/26 10:23 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 9:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 4:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 6:06 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2026 1:47 AM, dart200 wrote:
the CT-thesis is a thesis, not a proof.*I think that I fixed that*
It seems to me that if something cannot be computed
by applying finite string transformation rules to
input finite strings then it cannot be computed.
As soon as this is shown to be categorically impossible
then the thesis turns into a proof.
In other words, you just don't know what you are talking about.
The fact that it is impossible to build a computation that, given a
representation of another computation and its input, determine for
all cases if the computation will halt does nothing to further the
question of are Turing Machines the most powerful form of computation.
contexts-aware machines compute functions:
(context,input) -> output
And what problems of interest to computation theory are of that form?
Computation Theory was to answer questions of logic and mathematics.
What logic or math is dependent on "context"
*mechanically computing* the answer *generally* is dependent on context,
and ignoring that is the underlying cause of the halting problem
clearly novel techniques will be required to resolve long standing
problems, eh richard???
fuck
On 1/25/26 4:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/25/26 10:21 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 9:24 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 4:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 5:36 PM, dart200 wrote:i will never care about you complaining about the fact the
On 1/24/26 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/20/26 8:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/20/26 4:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/20/26 1:18 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/19/26 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 11:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/18/26 4:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 4:50 PM, dart200 wrote:lol, what are they even if not "computations"???
On 1/18/26 12:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 1:15 PM, dart200 wrote:well it was developed to be a general theory of computing, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and apparently modern computing has transcended that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory ...
On 1/18/26 4:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:No, it still handles that which it was developed for. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 1/18/26 1:05 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/17/26 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/17/26 10:14 PM, dart200 wrote:one can only hope for so much sometimes 🙏 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Good luck starving to death when your money runs out. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
also not an argument
I guess you don't understand the rules of logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Again, YOUR PROBLEM.
which we do all the time in normal programming, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something which apparently u think the tHeOrY oF >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CoMpUtInG fails to encapsulate
it's pretty crazy i can produce a machine (even if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> u haven't understood it yet) that produces a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent deterministic result that is "not a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation".
Because you get that result only by equivocating on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your definitions.
If the context is part of the inpt to make the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> output determistic from the input, then they fail >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be usable as sub- computations as we can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> control that context part of the input. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When we look at just the controllable input for a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sub- computation, the output is NOT a deterministic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function of that inut.
not sure what the fuck it's doing if it's not a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation
Its using hidden inputs that the caller can't control. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Right, but that isn't about computations. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
pretty crazy we do a bunch "non-computating" in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normal act of programming computers
Why?
As I have said, "Computatations" is NOT about how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modern computers work.
I guess you are just showing that you fundamentally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't understand the problem field you are betting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your life on.
one would presume the fundamental theory of computing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be general enough to encapsulate everything >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computed by real world computers, no???
Why?
Remember, the fundamental theory of Computing PREDATES >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the computer as you know it.
so ur saying it's outdated and needs updating in regards >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to new things we do with computers that apparently >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> turing machines as a model don't have variations of ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not really.
THe way modern processors work, "sub-routines" can fail to >>>>>>>>>>>>> be computations, but whole programs will tend to be. Sub- >>>>>>>>>>>>> routines CAN be built with care to fall under its guidance. >>>>>>>>>>>>
not-computations
great, a set of deterministic steps that produces a result but >>>>>>>>>> is somehow not a compution!
Because it isn't deterministically based on the INPUT,
no it's just a series of steps to produce some output.
Nope, not in the formulation of the theory.
again: YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN THAT TURING MACHINES, OR ANY EQUIVALENT >>>>>> THEORY, ENCOMPASS ALL POSSIBLE COMPUTATIONS
like holy fuck, how many times will i need to repeat that???
it's a ct-THESIS not a ct-LAW
But I can say that Computations as defined, are all that they can do. >>>>
computations i'm talking about don't fit within the particular box
you call a "Computation", because i just doesn't mean anything,
In other words, you are just saying you don't care about computation
theory, and thus why are you complaining about what it says about
computations.
no i'm saying i don't care about ur particular definition, richard
do better that trying to "define" me as wrong. meaning: put in the
work to demonstrate actual contradictions
In other words, you want me to prove there isn't a teapot in the
asteroid belt.
YOU are the one assuming things can be done, but refuse to actually try
to define an actual algorithm that does so.
An actual algorithm being an actual sequence of finite atomic steps, and using bounded loops.
u and the entire field can be wrong about how u specified
"Computation",
No, you just don't understand the WHY of computation theory.
u don't give a why u stupid fucking retarded faggot, and u never will
because the ct-thesis isn't proven, and u've already gone down the
moronic hole of "maybe my favorite truth isn't even provable!!!??"
I have mentioned it, but have you bothered to look into it?
Comptation Theory was developed to see if "Computations" of this sort
could be used to generate proofs of the great problems of mathematics
and logic.
It was hoped that it would provide a solution to the then curretly
seeming intractable problems that seemed to have an answer, but they
just couldn't be found.
Insteed, it showed that it was a provable fact that some problems would
not have a solution. And thus we had to accept that we couldn't prove everything we might want.
and that potential is well codified by the fact the ct-thesis is
still a thesis and not a law.
It might just be a thesis, because it IS an unprovable truth.
lookie u just accepting things as "muh unprovable truths". holy
fucking hypocritical fucking faggot
It isn't "just accepting", it is looking at the proofs and understanding
the logic of them.
imagine if i pulled that argument out on you wildly unfair irrational
bastard??
But all you can do is make baseless claims. My statements of unprovable truths is based on real proofs, that seem to be beyond you ability to understand.
u make a complete mockery of reason with the disgustingly idiot
dogshit u post over and over again...
How is looking at proofs and accepting their results.
It is the rejection of proofs and thinking things must be different that
is the mockery.
holy fuck you dude eat a bag of dicks
It seems you have eaten them all already,
i will not respond to more comments on this because it's a boring,
lazy, non-argument that is fucking waste of both our time.
On 1/25/26 4:04 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/25/26 10:23 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 9:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 4:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 6:06 PM, olcott wrote:contexts-aware machines compute functions:
On 1/6/2026 1:47 AM, dart200 wrote:
the CT-thesis is a thesis, not a proof.*I think that I fixed that*
It seems to me that if something cannot be computed
by applying finite string transformation rules to
input finite strings then it cannot be computed.
As soon as this is shown to be categorically impossible
then the thesis turns into a proof.
In other words, you just don't know what you are talking about.
The fact that it is impossible to build a computation that, given a >>>>> representation of another computation and its input, determine for
all cases if the computation will halt does nothing to further the
question of are Turing Machines the most powerful form of computation. >>>>
(context,input) -> output
And what problems of interest to computation theory are of that form?
Computation Theory was to answer questions of logic and mathematics.
What logic or math is dependent on "context"
*mechanically computing* the answer *generally* is dependent on context,
Really?
Most problems don't care about the context of the person asking it, just
the context of the thing being looked at.
and ignoring that is the underlying cause of the halting problem
Nope.
clearly novel techniques will be required to resolve long standing
problems, eh richard???
Or just lying as you try.
I guess you think the speed of light is just a suggestion. (Yes, there
are some thoughts about how to break it, but they require things totally outside our current physics).
Yes, there may be a new definition of "Computations" that is actually useful, and generates answers to some things we currently think as uncomputable, but until you can actually figure out what that is,
assuming it is just science fiction.
fuck
On 1/25/26 2:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/25/26 4:04 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/25/26 10:23 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 9:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 4:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 6:06 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2026 1:47 AM, dart200 wrote:
the CT-thesis is a thesis, not a proof.*I think that I fixed that*
It seems to me that if something cannot be computed
by applying finite string transformation rules to
input finite strings then it cannot be computed.
As soon as this is shown to be categorically impossible
then the thesis turns into a proof.
In other words, you just don't know what you are talking about.
The fact that it is impossible to build a computation that, given >>>>>> a representation of another computation and its input, determine
for all cases if the computation will halt does nothing to further >>>>>> the question of are Turing Machines the most powerful form of
computation.
contexts-aware machines compute functions:
(context,input) -> output
And what problems of interest to computation theory are of that form?
Computation Theory was to answer questions of logic and mathematics.
What logic or math is dependent on "context"
*mechanically computing* the answer *generally* is dependent on context,
Really?
Most problems don't care about the context of the person asking it,
just the context of the thing being looked at.
well, yes, most problems don't involve pathologically querying a decider specifically for the purpose of then contradicting the decision... 🙄
and ignoring that is the underlying cause of the halting problem
Nope.
clearly novel techniques will be required to resolve long standing
problems, eh richard???
Or just lying as you try.
I guess you think the speed of light is just a suggestion. (Yes, there
are some thoughts about how to break it, but they require things
totally outside our current physics).
Yes, there may be a new definition of "Computations" that is actually
useful, and generates answers to some things we currently think as
uncomputable, but until you can actually figure out what that is,
assuming it is just science fiction.
or u'd just call it lying over and over again with no serious
consideration to what's really being said ...
fuck
On 1/25/26 2:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/25/26 4:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/25/26 10:21 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 9:24 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 4:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 5:36 PM, dart200 wrote:i will never care about you complaining about the fact the
On 1/24/26 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/20/26 8:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/20/26 4:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/20/26 1:18 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/19/26 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 11:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/18/26 4:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 4:50 PM, dart200 wrote:lol, what are they even if not "computations"???
On 1/18/26 12:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 1:15 PM, dart200 wrote:well it was developed to be a general theory of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computing, and apparently modern computing has
On 1/18/26 4:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 1:05 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/17/26 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/17/26 10:14 PM, dart200 wrote:
one can only hope for so much sometimes 🙏 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Good luck starving to death when your money runs out. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
also not an argument
I guess you don't understand the rules of logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Again, YOUR PROBLEM.
it's pretty crazy i can produce a machine (even >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if u haven't understood it yet) that produces a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent deterministic result that is "not a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation".
Because you get that result only by equivocating >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on your definitions.
If the context is part of the inpt to make the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> output determistic from the input, then they fail >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be usable as sub- computations as we can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> control that context part of the input. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When we look at just the controllable input for a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sub- computation, the output is NOT a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deterministic function of that inut. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
not sure what the fuck it's doing if it's not a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation
Its using hidden inputs that the caller can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> control.
which we do all the time in normal programming, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something which apparently u think the tHeOrY oF >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CoMpUtInG fails to encapsulate
Right, but that isn't about computations. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
pretty crazy we do a bunch "non-computating" in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normal act of programming computers
Why?
As I have said, "Computatations" is NOT about how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modern computers work.
I guess you are just showing that you fundamentally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't understand the problem field you are betting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your life on.
one would presume the fundamental theory of computing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be general enough to encapsulate everything >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computed by real world computers, no???
Why?
Remember, the fundamental theory of Computing PREDATES >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the computer as you know it.
so ur saying it's outdated and needs updating in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regards to new things we do with computers that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apparently turing machines as a model don't have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> variations of ...
No, it still handles that which it was developed for. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
transcended that theory ...
Not really.
THe way modern processors work, "sub-routines" can fail to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be computations, but whole programs will tend to be. Sub- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> routines CAN be built with care to fall under its guidance. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
not-computations
great, a set of deterministic steps that produces a result >>>>>>>>>>> but is somehow not a compution!
Because it isn't deterministically based on the INPUT,
no it's just a series of steps to produce some output.
Nope, not in the formulation of the theory.
again: YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN THAT TURING MACHINES, OR ANY
EQUIVALENT THEORY, ENCOMPASS ALL POSSIBLE COMPUTATIONS
like holy fuck, how many times will i need to repeat that???
it's a ct-THESIS not a ct-LAW
But I can say that Computations as defined, are all that they can do. >>>>>
computations i'm talking about don't fit within the particular box
you call a "Computation", because i just doesn't mean anything,
In other words, you are just saying you don't care about computation
theory, and thus why are you complaining about what it says about
computations.
no i'm saying i don't care about ur particular definition, richard
do better that trying to "define" me as wrong. meaning: put in the
work to demonstrate actual contradictions
In other words, you want me to prove there isn't a teapot in the
asteroid belt.
lol, what. asking for a proof of contradiction is now akin to russel's teapot???
are u even doing math here or this just a giant definist fallacy
shitshow???
YOU are the one assuming things can be done, but refuse to actually
try to define an actual algorithm that does so.
An actual algorithm being an actual sequence of finite atomic steps,
and using bounded loops.
u and the entire field can be wrong about how u specified
"Computation",
No, you just don't understand the WHY of computation theory.
u don't give a why u stupid fucking retarded faggot, and u never will
because the ct-thesis isn't proven, and u've already gone down the
moronic hole of "maybe my favorite truth isn't even provable!!!??"
I have mentioned it, but have you bothered to look into it?
Comptation Theory was developed to see if "Computations" of this sort
could be used to generate proofs of the great problems of mathematics
and logic.
It was hoped that it would provide a solution to the then curretly
seeming intractable problems that seemed to have an answer, but they
just couldn't be found.
Insteed, it showed that it was a provable fact that some problems
would not have a solution. And thus we had to accept that we couldn't
prove everything we might want.
and that fact was only shown, for computing in regards to itself, by
using self-referential set-classification paradoxes, like the halting problem
which is the part i'm trying to reconcile, that very specific (but quite broad within tm computing) problem...
i'm not here to spoon feed humanity a general decision algo, cause we assuredly do not have enough number theory to build that at this time.
i'm trying to deal with all the claims of hubris that such a general decision algo *cannot* exist, by showing *how* it could exist alongside
the potential for self-referential set-classification paradoxes:
either by showing that we can just ignore the paradoxes, or by utilizing reflective turing machines to decide on them in a context aware manner,
both are valid resolutions.
i know u want me to spoon feed you all the answers here, but i'm one freaking dude, with very limited time, and training, stuck with
discussion that is willfully antagonistic and soaked with fallacy after fallacy,
turing spend years coming up with his turing jump nonsense, on a brand
new fresh theory, and people that likely actually tried to be
collaborative,
while i've gotta reconcile a massive almost century old bandwagon, /thru argument alone/
i don't even have the luxury of pointing to an experiment, i've gotta
come up with a set of purely logical arguments that stand entirely on
their own right. einstein had it easier
and that potential is well codified by the fact the ct-thesis is
still a thesis and not a law.
It might just be a thesis, because it IS an unprovable truth.
lookie u just accepting things as "muh unprovable truths". holy
fucking hypocritical fucking faggot
It isn't "just accepting", it is looking at the proofs and
understanding the logic of them.
YOU HAVEN'T PROVEN THE CT-THESIS, MY GOD
imagine if i pulled that argument out on you wildly unfair irrational
bastard??
But all you can do is make baseless claims. My statements of
unprovable truths is based on real proofs, that seem to be beyond you
ability to understand.
YOU ALSO HAVEN'T PROVEN THAT THE CT-THESIS IS UNPROVABLE, MY FUCKING GOD
u make a complete mockery of reason with the disgustingly idiot
dogshit u post over and over again...
How is looking at proofs and accepting their results.
BECAUSE UR JUST ARBITRARILY OVERGENERALIZING WITHOUT PROOF,
OH MY FUCKING GOD
godel's result is a curse on this species even if he wasn't wrong to
produce it
It is the rejection of proofs and thinking things must be different
that is the mockery.
holy fuck you dude eat a bag of dicks
It seems you have eaten them all already,
sure thing dick ✌️
i will not respond to more comments on this because it's a boring,
lazy, non-argument that is fucking waste of both our time.
On 1/25/26 2:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/25/26 4:04 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/25/26 10:23 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 9:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 4:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 6:06 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2026 1:47 AM, dart200 wrote:
the CT-thesis is a thesis, not a proof.*I think that I fixed that*
It seems to me that if something cannot be computed
by applying finite string transformation rules to
input finite strings then it cannot be computed.
As soon as this is shown to be categorically impossible
then the thesis turns into a proof.
In other words, you just don't know what you are talking about.
The fact that it is impossible to build a computation that, given >>>>>> a representation of another computation and its input, determine
for all cases if the computation will halt does nothing to further >>>>>> the question of are Turing Machines the most powerful form of
computation.
contexts-aware machines compute functions:
(context,input) -> output
And what problems of interest to computation theory are of that form?
Computation Theory was to answer questions of logic and mathematics.
What logic or math is dependent on "context"
*mechanically computing* the answer *generally* is dependent on context,
Really?
Most problems don't care about the context of the person asking it,
just the context of the thing being looked at.
well, yes, most problems don't involve pathologically querying a decider specifically for the purpose of then contradicting the decision... 🙄
and ignoring that is the underlying cause of the halting problem
Nope.
clearly novel techniques will be required to resolve long standing
problems, eh richard???
Or just lying as you try.
I guess you think the speed of light is just a suggestion. (Yes, there
are some thoughts about how to break it, but they require things
totally outside our current physics).
Yes, there may be a new definition of "Computations" that is actually
useful, and generates answers to some things we currently think as
uncomputable, but until you can actually figure out what that is,
assuming it is just science fiction.
or u'd just call it lying over and over again with no serious
consideration to what's really being said ...
fuck
On 1/26/26 12:56 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/25/26 2:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/25/26 4:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/25/26 10:21 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 9:24 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 4:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 5:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/20/26 8:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/20/26 4:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/20/26 1:18 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/19/26 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 11:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/18/26 4:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 4:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/18/26 12:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 1:15 PM, dart200 wrote:well it was developed to be a general theory of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computing, and apparently modern computing has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transcended that theory ...
On 1/18/26 4:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 1:05 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/17/26 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/17/26 10:14 PM, dart200 wrote:Why?
one can only hope for so much sometimes 🙏 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Good luck starving to death when your money runs out. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
also not an argument
I guess you don't understand the rules of logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Again, YOUR PROBLEM.
it's pretty crazy i can produce a machine (even >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if u haven't understood it yet) that produces a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent deterministic result that is "not a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation".
Because you get that result only by equivocating >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on your definitions.
If the context is part of the inpt to make the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> output determistic from the input, then they fail >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be usable as sub- computations as we can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> control that context part of the input. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When we look at just the controllable input for a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sub- computation, the output is NOT a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deterministic function of that inut. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
not sure what the fuck it's doing if it's not a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation
Its using hidden inputs that the caller can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> control.
which we do all the time in normal programming, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something which apparently u think the tHeOrY oF >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CoMpUtInG fails to encapsulate
Right, but that isn't about computations. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why?
pretty crazy we do a bunch "non-computating" in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the normal act of programming computers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As I have said, "Computatations" is NOT about how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modern computers work.
I guess you are just showing that you fundamentally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't understand the problem field you are betting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your life on.
one would presume the fundamental theory of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computing would be general enough to encapsulate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything computed by real world computers, no??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Remember, the fundamental theory of Computing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PREDATES the computer as you know it.
so ur saying it's outdated and needs updating in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regards to new things we do with computers that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apparently turing machines as a model don't have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> variations of ...
No, it still handles that which it was developed for. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not really.
THe way modern processors work, "sub-routines" can fail >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be computations, but whole programs will tend to be. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sub- routines CAN be built with care to fall under its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guidance.
lol, what are they even if not "computations"???
not-computations
great, a set of deterministic steps that produces a result >>>>>>>>>>>> but is somehow not a compution!
Because it isn't deterministically based on the INPUT,
no it's just a series of steps to produce some output.
Nope, not in the formulation of the theory.
again: YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN THAT TURING MACHINES, OR ANY
EQUIVALENT THEORY, ENCOMPASS ALL POSSIBLE COMPUTATIONS
like holy fuck, how many times will i need to repeat that???
it's a ct-THESIS not a ct-LAW
But I can say that Computations as defined, are all that they can >>>>>>> do.
i will never care about you complaining about the fact the
computations i'm talking about don't fit within the particular box >>>>>> you call a "Computation", because i just doesn't mean anything,
In other words, you are just saying you don't care about
computation theory, and thus why are you complaining about what it
says about computations.
no i'm saying i don't care about ur particular definition, richard
do better that trying to "define" me as wrong. meaning: put in the
work to demonstrate actual contradictions
In other words, you want me to prove there isn't a teapot in the
asteroid belt.
lol, what. asking for a proof of contradiction is now akin to russel's
teapot???
You are asking me to disprove something that you won't (and can't) define.
are u even doing math here or this just a giant definist fallacy
shitshow???
No, you just don't know what that means.
YOU are the one assuming things can be done, but refuse to actually
try to define an actual algorithm that does so.
An actual algorithm being an actual sequence of finite atomic steps,
and using bounded loops.
u and the entire field can be wrong about how u specified
"Computation",
No, you just don't understand the WHY of computation theory.
u don't give a why u stupid fucking retarded faggot, and u never
will because the ct-thesis isn't proven, and u've already gone down
the moronic hole of "maybe my favorite truth isn't even provable!!!??"
I have mentioned it, but have you bothered to look into it?
Comptation Theory was developed to see if "Computations" of this sort
could be used to generate proofs of the great problems of mathematics
and logic.
It was hoped that it would provide a solution to the then curretly
seeming intractable problems that seemed to have an answer, but they
just couldn't be found.
Insteed, it showed that it was a provable fact that some problems
would not have a solution. And thus we had to accept that we couldn't
prove everything we might want.
and that fact was only shown, for computing in regards to itself, by
using self-referential set-classification paradoxes, like the halting
problem
which is the part i'm trying to reconcile, that very specific (but
quite broad within tm computing) problem...
But you are only saying that there must be something else (that is
Russel's teapot must exist) but can't show it.
Thus, it is encumbent on YOU to prove or at least define what you are claiming to exist.
i'm not here to spoon feed humanity a general decision algo, cause we
assuredly do not have enough number theory to build that at this time.
It seems you are not here to do anything constructive, only engage in flights of fancy imagining things that are not, but assuming they are.
i'm trying to deal with all the claims of hubris that such a general
decision algo *cannot* exist, by showing *how* it could exist
alongside the potential for self-referential set-classification
paradoxes:
either by showing that we can just ignore the paradoxes, or by
utilizing reflective turing machines to decide on them in a context
aware manner, both are valid resolutions.
In other words, by ignoring the reality,
i know u want me to spoon feed you all the answers here, but i'm one
freaking dude, with very limited time, and training, stuck with
discussion that is willfully antagonistic and soaked with fallacy
after fallacy,
turing spend years coming up with his turing jump nonsense, on a brand
new fresh theory, and people that likely actually tried to be
collaborative,
while i've gotta reconcile a massive almost century old bandwagon, /
thru argument alone/
i don't even have the luxury of pointing to an experiment, i've gotta
come up with a set of purely logical arguments that stand entirely on
their own right. einstein had it easier
But, if you listened to people to make sure you were working on solid ground, and not flights of fancy, it might be easier, or at least become evident that it is a dead end.
Even Einstein admitted that his theory was likely "wrong", but was
better than what we currently had, and WOULD be refined in the future.
Just like classical mechanics were "wrong" in some cases, but close
enough for most of the work that they were being used for.
In the same way, yes, perhaps there is a refinement needed to the
definition of what a "Computation" is, but just like Einstein's theory,
it doesn't change the results significantly for what we currently can see.
Your issue is you need to find that "improved" definition that still
works for the common cases that we know about, before you can start to
work out what it implies.
STARTING with assumptions of that implicaion, is like assuming you can
find a road network to drive from New York to Paris, France.
and that potential is well codified by the fact the ct-thesis is
still a thesis and not a law.
It might just be a thesis, because it IS an unprovable truth.
lookie u just accepting things as "muh unprovable truths". holy
fucking hypocritical fucking faggot
It isn't "just accepting", it is looking at the proofs and
understanding the logic of them.
YOU HAVEN'T PROVEN THE CT-THESIS, MY GOD
imagine if i pulled that argument out on you wildly unfair
irrational bastard??
But all you can do is make baseless claims. My statements of
unprovable truths is based on real proofs, that seem to be beyond you
ability to understand.
YOU ALSO HAVEN'T PROVEN THAT THE CT-THESIS IS UNPROVABLE, MY FUCKING GOD
u make a complete mockery of reason with the disgustingly idiot
dogshit u post over and over again...
How is looking at proofs and accepting their results.
BECAUSE UR JUST ARBITRARILY OVERGENERALIZING WITHOUT PROOF,
OH MY FUCKING GOD
godel's result is a curse on this species even if he wasn't wrong to
produce it
It is the rejection of proofs and thinking things must be different
that is the mockery.
holy fuck you dude eat a bag of dicks
It seems you have eaten them all already,
sure thing dick ✌️
i will not respond to more comments on this because it's a boring, >>>>>> lazy, non-argument that is fucking waste of both our time.
On 1/26/26 1:50 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/25/26 2:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/25/26 4:04 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/25/26 10:23 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 9:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 4:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 6:06 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2026 1:47 AM, dart200 wrote:
the CT-thesis is a thesis, not a proof.*I think that I fixed that*
It seems to me that if something cannot be computed
by applying finite string transformation rules to
input finite strings then it cannot be computed.
As soon as this is shown to be categorically impossible
then the thesis turns into a proof.
In other words, you just don't know what you are talking about.
The fact that it is impossible to build a computation that, given >>>>>>> a representation of another computation and its input, determine >>>>>>> for all cases if the computation will halt does nothing to
further the question of are Turing Machines the most powerful
form of computation.
contexts-aware machines compute functions:
(context,input) -> output
And what problems of interest to computation theory are of that form? >>>>>
Computation Theory was to answer questions of logic and mathematics. >>>>>
What logic or math is dependent on "context"
*mechanically computing* the answer *generally* is dependent on
context,
Really?
Most problems don't care about the context of the person asking it,
just the context of the thing being looked at.
well, yes, most problems don't involve pathologically querying a
decider specifically for the purpose of then contradicting the
decision... 🙄
Which is a problem that doesn't actually depend on the context of the
asker, so using the context just makes you wrong.
and ignoring that is the underlying cause of the halting problem
Nope.
clearly novel techniques will be required to resolve long standing
problems, eh richard???
Or just lying as you try.
I guess you think the speed of light is just a suggestion. (Yes,
there are some thoughts about how to break it, but they require
things totally outside our current physics).
Yes, there may be a new definition of "Computations" that is actually
useful, and generates answers to some things we currently think as
uncomputable, but until you can actually figure out what that is,
assuming it is just science fiction.
or u'd just call it lying over and over again with no serious
consideration to what's really being said ...
Yep, that is a good description of what you are doing.
You forget to consider the topic you are talking about.
Either you accept the current definitions, or you actually supply your
own new ones. Just assuming you can change them without actually doing
so makes your argument baseless.
fuck
On 1/26/26 8:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/26/26 12:56 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/25/26 2:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/25/26 4:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/25/26 10:21 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 9:24 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 4:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:In other words, you are just saying you don't care about
On 1/24/26 5:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/20/26 8:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/20/26 4:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/20/26 1:18 AM, dart200 wrote:no it's just a series of steps to produce some output.
On 1/19/26 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 11:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/18/26 4:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 4:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/18/26 12:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 1:15 PM, dart200 wrote:well it was developed to be a general theory of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computing, and apparently modern computing has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transcended that theory ...
On 1/18/26 4:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/26 1:05 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/17/26 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/17/26 10:14 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Why?
Good luck starving to death when your money runs out. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>one can only hope for so much sometimes 🙏 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
also not an argument
I guess you don't understand the rules of logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Again, YOUR PROBLEM.
it's pretty crazy i can produce a machine (even >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if u haven't understood it yet) that produces a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent deterministic result that is "not a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation".
Because you get that result only by equivocating >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on your definitions.
If the context is part of the inpt to make the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> output determistic from the input, then they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail to be usable as sub- computations as we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't control that context part of the input. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When we look at just the controllable input for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a sub- computation, the output is NOT a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deterministic function of that inut. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
not sure what the fuck it's doing if it's not a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation
Its using hidden inputs that the caller can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> control.
which we do all the time in normal programming, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something which apparently u think the tHeOrY oF >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CoMpUtInG fails to encapsulate
Right, but that isn't about computations. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why?
pretty crazy we do a bunch "non-computating" in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the normal act of programming computers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As I have said, "Computatations" is NOT about how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modern computers work.
I guess you are just showing that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamentally don't understand the problem field >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are betting your life on.
one would presume the fundamental theory of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computing would be general enough to encapsulate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything computed by real world computers, no??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Remember, the fundamental theory of Computing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PREDATES the computer as you know it.
so ur saying it's outdated and needs updating in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regards to new things we do with computers that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apparently turing machines as a model don't have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> variations of ...
No, it still handles that which it was developed for. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not really.
THe way modern processors work, "sub-routines" can fail >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be computations, but whole programs will tend to be. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sub- routines CAN be built with care to fall under its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guidance.
lol, what are they even if not "computations"???
not-computations
great, a set of deterministic steps that produces a result >>>>>>>>>>>>> but is somehow not a compution!
Because it isn't deterministically based on the INPUT, >>>>>>>>>>>
Nope, not in the formulation of the theory.
again: YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN THAT TURING MACHINES, OR ANY
EQUIVALENT THEORY, ENCOMPASS ALL POSSIBLE COMPUTATIONS
like holy fuck, how many times will i need to repeat that??? >>>>>>>>>
it's a ct-THESIS not a ct-LAW
But I can say that Computations as defined, are all that they >>>>>>>> can do.
i will never care about you complaining about the fact the
computations i'm talking about don't fit within the particular
box you call a "Computation", because i just doesn't mean anything, >>>>>>
computation theory, and thus why are you complaining about what it >>>>>> says about computations.
no i'm saying i don't care about ur particular definition, richard
do better that trying to "define" me as wrong. meaning: put in the
work to demonstrate actual contradictions
In other words, you want me to prove there isn't a teapot in the
asteroid belt.
lol, what. asking for a proof of contradiction is now akin to
russel's teapot???
You are asking me to disprove something that you won't (and can't)
define.
i tried to but ur incredibly uncooperative
are u even doing math here or this just a giant definist fallacy
shitshow???
No, you just don't know what that means.
YOU are the one assuming things can be done, but refuse to actually
try to define an actual algorithm that does so.
An actual algorithm being an actual sequence of finite atomic steps,
and using bounded loops.
I have mentioned it, but have you bothered to look into it?
u and the entire field can be wrong about how u specified
"Computation",
No, you just don't understand the WHY of computation theory.
u don't give a why u stupid fucking retarded faggot, and u never
will because the ct-thesis isn't proven, and u've already gone down >>>>> the moronic hole of "maybe my favorite truth isn't even provable!!!??" >>>>
Comptation Theory was developed to see if "Computations" of this
sort could be used to generate proofs of the great problems of
mathematics and logic.
It was hoped that it would provide a solution to the then curretly
seeming intractable problems that seemed to have an answer, but they
just couldn't be found.
Insteed, it showed that it was a provable fact that some problems
would not have a solution. And thus we had to accept that we
couldn't prove everything we might want.
and that fact was only shown, for computing in regards to itself, by
using self-referential set-classification paradoxes, like the halting
problem
which is the part i'm trying to reconcile, that very specific (but
quite broad within tm computing) problem...
But you are only saying that there must be something else (that is
Russel's teapot must exist) but can't show it.
Thus, it is encumbent on YOU to prove or at least define what you are
claiming to exist.
i'm not here to spoon feed humanity a general decision algo, cause we
assuredly do not have enough number theory to build that at this time.
It seems you are not here to do anything constructive, only engage in
flights of fancy imagining things that are not, but assuming they are.
debunking a widely accepted misproof is constructive in ways neither of
us can imagine
i don't need to make ALL the progress in order to make SOME progress.
i'm *extremely* tired of people spouting perfectionist fallacies at me
(oooo, add that fallacy to list rick! what number are we at???)
i'm trying to deal with all the claims of hubris that such a general
decision algo *cannot* exist, by showing *how* it could exist
alongside the potential for self-referential set-classification
paradoxes:
either by showing that we can just ignore the paradoxes, or by
utilizing reflective turing machines to decide on them in a context
aware manner, both are valid resolutions.
In other words, by ignoring the reality,
gaslighting again
i know u want me to spoon feed you all the answers here, but i'm one
freaking dude, with very limited time, and training, stuck with
discussion that is willfully antagonistic and soaked with fallacy
after fallacy,
turing spend years coming up with his turing jump nonsense, on a
brand new fresh theory, and people that likely actually tried to be
collaborative,
while i've gotta reconcile a massive almost century old bandwagon, /
thru argument alone/
i don't even have the luxury of pointing to an experiment, i've gotta
come up with a set of purely logical arguments that stand entirely on
their own right. einstein had it easier
But, if you listened to people to make sure you were working on solid
ground, and not flights of fancy, it might be easier, or at least
become evident that it is a dead end.
lol, u claim it's a dead end but can't even explain why other repeatedly crying definist fallacy over and over again. heck u can't even explain
to me what i think tbh, and i know u can't.
i refuse to buy into fallacy gishgallop, and that's a good thing
Even Einstein admitted that his theory was likely "wrong", but was
better than what we currently had, and WOULD be refined in the future.
Just like classical mechanics were "wrong" in some cases, but close
enough for most of the work that they were being used for.
In the same way, yes, perhaps there is a refinement needed to the
definition of what a "Computation" is, but just like Einstein's
theory, it doesn't change the results significantly for what we
currently can see.
u haven't acknowledged any specific refinement, so u can't say that it
can or cannot change in terms of results. ur just begging the question
due to hubris.
Your issue is you need to find that "improved" definition that still
works for the common cases that we know about, before you can start to
work out what it implies.
STARTING with assumptions of that implicaion, is like assuming you can
find a road network to drive from New York to Paris, France.
and that potential is well codified by the fact the ct-thesis is >>>>>>> still a thesis and not a law.
It might just be a thesis, because it IS an unprovable truth.
lookie u just accepting things as "muh unprovable truths". holy
fucking hypocritical fucking faggot
It isn't "just accepting", it is looking at the proofs and
understanding the logic of them.
YOU HAVEN'T PROVEN THE CT-THESIS, MY GOD
imagine if i pulled that argument out on you wildly unfair
irrational bastard??
But all you can do is make baseless claims. My statements of
unprovable truths is based on real proofs, that seem to be beyond
you ability to understand.
YOU ALSO HAVEN'T PROVEN THAT THE CT-THESIS IS UNPROVABLE, MY FUCKING GOD >>>
u make a complete mockery of reason with the disgustingly idiot
dogshit u post over and over again...
How is looking at proofs and accepting their results.
BECAUSE UR JUST ARBITRARILY OVERGENERALIZING WITHOUT PROOF,
OH MY FUCKING GOD
godel's result is a curse on this species even if he wasn't wrong to
produce it
It is the rejection of proofs and thinking things must be different
that is the mockery.
holy fuck you dude eat a bag of dicks
It seems you have eaten them all already,
sure thing dick ✌️
i will not respond to more comments on this because it's a
boring, lazy, non-argument that is fucking waste of both our time. >>>>>>>
On 1/26/26 8:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/26/26 1:50 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/25/26 2:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/25/26 4:04 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/25/26 10:23 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 9:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 4:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 6:06 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2026 1:47 AM, dart200 wrote:
the CT-thesis is a thesis, not a proof.*I think that I fixed that*
It seems to me that if something cannot be computed
by applying finite string transformation rules to
input finite strings then it cannot be computed.
As soon as this is shown to be categorically impossible
then the thesis turns into a proof.
In other words, you just don't know what you are talking about. >>>>>>>>
The fact that it is impossible to build a computation that,
given a representation of another computation and its input,
determine for all cases if the computation will halt does
nothing to further the question of are Turing Machines the most >>>>>>>> powerful form of computation.
contexts-aware machines compute functions:
(context,input) -> output
And what problems of interest to computation theory are of that form? >>>>>>
Computation Theory was to answer questions of logic and mathematics. >>>>>>
What logic or math is dependent on "context"
*mechanically computing* the answer *generally* is dependent on
context,
Really?
Most problems don't care about the context of the person asking it,
just the context of the thing being looked at.
well, yes, most problems don't involve pathologically querying a
decider specifically for the purpose of then contradicting the
decision... 🙄
Which is a problem that doesn't actually depend on the context of the
asker, so using the context just makes you wrong.
yes it does.
the self-referential set-classification paradox can *only* provably
happen when a decider is called from within a pathological context (the paradoxical input machine), which is why i don't think it over-
generalizes to disproving our ability to compute the answer in non- pathological contexts.
TMs don't have an ability to discern between contexts, which is why
current theory accepts that it does...
the point of my work on RTMs is to grant computation an ability to
discern between contexts so that we can transcend *that* particular limit.
this doesn't remove *all* unknowns, i'm not resolving problems of actual complexity or unknowns due to lack of number theory. i'm resolving the self-referential set-classification paradox that underlies much of uncomputability, and to hopefully put a wrench in this rather odd, paradoxical, and quite frankly fallacy drenched feelings of certainty
about unknowable unknowns.
WHICH IS FINE, i don't need total instant perfection to make significant progress, my fucking god...
and ignoring that is the underlying cause of the halting problem
Nope.
clearly novel techniques will be required to resolve long standing
problems, eh richard???
Or just lying as you try.
I guess you think the speed of light is just a suggestion. (Yes,
there are some thoughts about how to break it, but they require
things totally outside our current physics).
Yes, there may be a new definition of "Computations" that is
actually useful, and generates answers to some things we currently
think as uncomputable, but until you can actually figure out what
that is, assuming it is just science fiction.
or u'd just call it lying over and over again with no serious
consideration to what's really being said ...
Yep, that is a good description of what you are doing.
You forget to consider the topic you are talking about.
Either you accept the current definitions, or you actually supply your
own new ones. Just assuming you can change them without actually doing
so makes your argument baseless.
false dichotomy ...
cause why can't a "new" one just be in fact a rather minor adjustment???
fuck
On 1/26/26 2:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/26/26 8:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/26/26 12:56 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/25/26 2:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/25/26 4:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/25/26 10:21 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 9:24 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 4:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:In other words, you are just saying you don't care about
On 1/24/26 5:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/20/26 8:55 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/20/26 4:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/20/26 1:18 AM, dart200 wrote:no it's just a series of steps to produce some output.
On 1/19/26 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 11:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/18/26 4:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:not-computations
On 1/18/26 4:50 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/18/26 12:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/26 1:15 PM, dart200 wrote:
well it was developed to be a general theory of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computing, and apparently modern computing has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transcended that theory ...On 1/18/26 4:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/18/26 1:05 AM, dart200 wrote:
so ur saying it's outdated and needs updating in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regards to new things we do with computers that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apparently turing machines as a model don't have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> variations of ...On 1/17/26 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/17/26 10:14 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Why?
Good luck starving to death when your money runs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out.
one can only hope for so much sometimes 🙏 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
also not an argument
I guess you don't understand the rules of logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Again, YOUR PROBLEM.
Because you get that result only by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equivocating on your definitions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
it's pretty crazy i can produce a machine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (even if u haven't understood it yet) that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produces a consistent deterministic result >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is "not a computation". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If the context is part of the inpt to make the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> output determistic from the input, then they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail to be usable as sub- computations as we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't control that context part of the input. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When we look at just the controllable input for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a sub- computation, the output is NOT a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deterministic function of that inut. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
not sure what the fuck it's doing if it's not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a computation
Its using hidden inputs that the caller can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> control.
which we do all the time in normal programming, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something which apparently u think the tHeOrY oF >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CoMpUtInG fails to encapsulate
Right, but that isn't about computations. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why?
pretty crazy we do a bunch "non-computating" in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the normal act of programming computers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As I have said, "Computatations" is NOT about how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modern computers work.
I guess you are just showing that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamentally don't understand the problem field >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are betting your life on.
one would presume the fundamental theory of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computing would be general enough to encapsulate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything computed by real world computers, no??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Remember, the fundamental theory of Computing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PREDATES the computer as you know it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No, it still handles that which it was developed for. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not really.
THe way modern processors work, "sub-routines" can fail >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be computations, but whole programs will tend to be. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sub- routines CAN be built with care to fall under its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> guidance.
lol, what are they even if not "computations"??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
great, a set of deterministic steps that produces a result >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but is somehow not a compution!
Because it isn't deterministically based on the INPUT, >>>>>>>>>>>>
Nope, not in the formulation of the theory.
again: YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN THAT TURING MACHINES, OR ANY
EQUIVALENT THEORY, ENCOMPASS ALL POSSIBLE COMPUTATIONS
like holy fuck, how many times will i need to repeat that??? >>>>>>>>>>
it's a ct-THESIS not a ct-LAW
But I can say that Computations as defined, are all that they >>>>>>>>> can do.
i will never care about you complaining about the fact the
computations i'm talking about don't fit within the particular >>>>>>>> box you call a "Computation", because i just doesn't mean anything, >>>>>>>
computation theory, and thus why are you complaining about what >>>>>>> it says about computations.
no i'm saying i don't care about ur particular definition, richard >>>>>>
do better that trying to "define" me as wrong. meaning: put in the >>>>>> work to demonstrate actual contradictions
In other words, you want me to prove there isn't a teapot in the
asteroid belt.
lol, what. asking for a proof of contradiction is now akin to
russel's teapot???
You are asking me to disprove something that you won't (and can't)
define.
i tried to but ur incredibly uncooperative
No, because a PROOF starts with things actually defined, and is not
based on an assumption of something that isn't.
ALL your proofs have been based on the assumption of something being computable that isn't, sometimes being a complete enumeration of a class
or sometimes some operation that isn't computable.
When I point out what isn't computable, rather than showing how it IS conputable, you ask me to prove that it isn't.
THAT is not how a proof goes, YOU need to actually justify all your assumptions, and if one is questioned, show that it is correct.
Sorry, you are just proving you don't understand your task at hand.
so here we are 😵💫😵💫😵💫
#god
are u even doing math here or this just a giant definist fallacy
shitshow???
No, you just don't know what that means.
YOU are the one assuming things can be done, but refuse to actually >>>>> try to define an actual algorithm that does so.
An actual algorithm being an actual sequence of finite atomic
steps, and using bounded loops.
u and the entire field can be wrong about how u specified
"Computation",
No, you just don't understand the WHY of computation theory.
u don't give a why u stupid fucking retarded faggot, and u never
will because the ct-thesis isn't proven, and u've already gone
down the moronic hole of "maybe my favorite truth isn't even
provable!!!??"
I have mentioned it, but have you bothered to look into it?
Comptation Theory was developed to see if "Computations" of this
sort could be used to generate proofs of the great problems of
mathematics and logic.
It was hoped that it would provide a solution to the then curretly
seeming intractable problems that seemed to have an answer, but
they just couldn't be found.
Insteed, it showed that it was a provable fact that some problems
would not have a solution. And thus we had to accept that we
couldn't prove everything we might want.
and that fact was only shown, for computing in regards to itself, by
using self-referential set-classification paradoxes, like the
halting problem
which is the part i'm trying to reconcile, that very specific (but
quite broad within tm computing) problem...
But you are only saying that there must be something else (that is
Russel's teapot must exist) but can't show it.
Thus, it is encumbent on YOU to prove or at least define what you are
claiming to exist.
i'm not here to spoon feed humanity a general decision algo, cause
we assuredly do not have enough number theory to build that at this
time.
It seems you are not here to do anything constructive, only engage in
flights of fancy imagining things that are not, but assuming they are.
debunking a widely accepted misproof is constructive in ways neither
of us can imagine
Then try to show where the ERROR in the proof is.
If there isn't an error, it isn't a "misproof"
i don't need to make ALL the progress in order to make SOME progress.
i'm *extremely* tired of people spouting perfectionist fallacies at me
But to claim you can handle the actual Halting problem, YOU NEED to be perfect.
I guess you just are doing your lying definitions again.
(oooo, add that fallacy to list rick! what number are we at???)
i'm trying to deal with all the claims of hubris that such a general
decision algo *cannot* exist, by showing *how* it could exist
alongside the potential for self-referential set-classification
paradoxes:
either by showing that we can just ignore the paradoxes, or by
utilizing reflective turing machines to decide on them in a context
aware manner, both are valid resolutions.
In other words, by ignoring the reality,
gaslighting again
Nope, but I think your brain went to sleep from the gas.
i know u want me to spoon feed you all the answers here, but i'm one
freaking dude, with very limited time, and training, stuck with
discussion that is willfully antagonistic and soaked with fallacy
after fallacy,
turing spend years coming up with his turing jump nonsense, on a
brand new fresh theory, and people that likely actually tried to be
collaborative,
while i've gotta reconcile a massive almost century old bandwagon, /
thru argument alone/
i don't even have the luxury of pointing to an experiment, i've
gotta come up with a set of purely logical arguments that stand
entirely on their own right. einstein had it easier
But, if you listened to people to make sure you were working on solid
ground, and not flights of fancy, it might be easier, or at least
become evident that it is a dead end.
lol, u claim it's a dead end but can't even explain why other
repeatedly crying definist fallacy over and over again. heck u can't
even explain to me what i think tbh, and i know u can't.
It isn't "definist fallacy" to quote the actual definition.
In fact to try to use that label on the actual definition is the
definist fallacy.
i refuse to buy into fallacy gishgallop, and that's a good thing
Nope, you refuse to face reality, and it is slapping you in the face silly.
Even Einstein admitted that his theory was likely "wrong", but was
better than what we currently had, and WOULD be refined in the
future. Just like classical mechanics were "wrong" in some cases, but
close enough for most of the work that they were being used for.
In the same way, yes, perhaps there is a refinement needed to the
definition of what a "Computation" is, but just like Einstein's
theory, it doesn't change the results significantly for what we
currently can see.
u haven't acknowledged any specific refinement, so u can't say that it
can or cannot change in terms of results. ur just begging the question
due to hubris.
You haven't given a SPECIFIC refinement, just vague claims with no backing.
Results based on false premises are not valid,
If you want to change the rules, you need to actually define your new game.
So far, its just, lets assume things can be different.
Your issue is you need to find that "improved" definition that still
works for the common cases that we know about, before you can start
to work out what it implies.
STARTING with assumptions of that implicaion, is like assuming you
can find a road network to drive from New York to Paris, France.
and that potential is well codified by the fact the ct-thesis is >>>>>>>> still a thesis and not a law.
It might just be a thesis, because it IS an unprovable truth.
lookie u just accepting things as "muh unprovable truths". holy
fucking hypocritical fucking faggot
It isn't "just accepting", it is looking at the proofs and
understanding the logic of them.
YOU HAVEN'T PROVEN THE CT-THESIS, MY GOD
imagine if i pulled that argument out on you wildly unfair
irrational bastard??
But all you can do is make baseless claims. My statements of
unprovable truths is based on real proofs, that seem to be beyond
you ability to understand.
YOU ALSO HAVEN'T PROVEN THAT THE CT-THESIS IS UNPROVABLE, MY FUCKING
GOD
u make a complete mockery of reason with the disgustingly idiot
dogshit u post over and over again...
How is looking at proofs and accepting their results.
BECAUSE UR JUST ARBITRARILY OVERGENERALIZING WITHOUT PROOF,
OH MY FUCKING GOD
godel's result is a curse on this species even if he wasn't wrong to
produce it
It is the rejection of proofs and thinking things must be different >>>>> that is the mockery.
holy fuck you dude eat a bag of dicks
It seems you have eaten them all already,
sure thing dick ✌️
i will not respond to more comments on this because it's a
boring, lazy, non-argument that is fucking waste of both our time. >>>>>>>>
On 1/26/26 2:45 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/26/26 8:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/26/26 1:50 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/25/26 2:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/25/26 4:04 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/25/26 10:23 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 9:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 4:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 6:06 PM, olcott wrote:
On 1/6/2026 1:47 AM, dart200 wrote:
the CT-thesis is a thesis, not a proof.*I think that I fixed that*
It seems to me that if something cannot be computed
by applying finite string transformation rules to
input finite strings then it cannot be computed.
As soon as this is shown to be categorically impossible
then the thesis turns into a proof.
In other words, you just don't know what you are talking about. >>>>>>>>>
The fact that it is impossible to build a computation that, >>>>>>>>> given a representation of another computation and its input, >>>>>>>>> determine for all cases if the computation will halt does
nothing to further the question of are Turing Machines the most >>>>>>>>> powerful form of computation.
contexts-aware machines compute functions:
(context,input) -> output
And what problems of interest to computation theory are of that >>>>>>> form?
Computation Theory was to answer questions of logic and mathematics. >>>>>>>
What logic or math is dependent on "context"
*mechanically computing* the answer *generally* is dependent on
context,
Really?
Most problems don't care about the context of the person asking it, >>>>> just the context of the thing being looked at.
well, yes, most problems don't involve pathologically querying a
decider specifically for the purpose of then contradicting the
decision... 🙄
Which is a problem that doesn't actually depend on the context of the
asker, so using the context just makes you wrong.
yes it does.
the self-referential set-classification paradox can *only* provably
happen when a decider is called from within a pathological context
(the paradoxical input machine), which is why i don't think it over-
generalizes to disproving our ability to compute the answer in non-
pathological contexts.
No, becuase the machine in questions halting behavior is fully defined, since the SPECIFIC machine it was built on had to be defined.
Thus, the "paradox", like all real paradoxes is only apparent, as in
only when we think of the "generalized" template, not the actual machine that is the input.
You have your problem because you think of the machine as being built to
an API, but it isn't, it is built to a SPECIFIC decider, or it isn't actually a computation. As a part of being a computation is having an explicit and complete listing of the algorithm used, which can't just reference an "API", but needs the implementation of it.
The "Template" is built to the API, but the input isn't the template,
but the actual machine, which means the specific decider, and thus there
is no real paradox, only an incorrect machine, as all the other ones
have a chance of being correct (if they are correct partial deciders)
TMs don't have an ability to discern between contexts, which is why
current theory accepts that it does...
And neither do computations as defined.
Even in your model, you try to
call the context part of the input becuase you know it has to be.
the point of my work on RTMs is to grant computation an ability to
discern between contexts so that we can transcend *that* particular
limit.
And the problem is that the problem space doesn't see past that limit.
If you want to talk about context dependent computations, you need to
work out how you are going to actually define that, then figure out what
you can possibly say about them.
this doesn't remove *all* unknowns, i'm not resolving problems of
actual complexity or unknowns due to lack of number theory. i'm
resolving the self-referential set-classification paradox that
underlies much of uncomputability, and to hopefully put a wrench in
this rather odd, paradoxical, and quite frankly fallacy drenched
feelings of certainty about unknowable unknowns.
WHICH IS FINE, i don't need total instant perfection to make
significant progress, my fucking god...
So, tackle the part that you can, and not the part that even your
context dependent part doesn't help with,
After all, the "Halting Problem" ask a question that is NOT dependent on
the context it is being asked in, as that machines behavior was defined
not to so depend on it. Thus a "Context Dependent Compuation" can't use context to help answer it, at best it might help a partial decider be
able to answer a biger slice of the pie.
and ignoring that is the underlying cause of the halting problem
Nope.
clearly novel techniques will be required to resolve long standing >>>>>> problems, eh richard???
Or just lying as you try.
I guess you think the speed of light is just a suggestion. (Yes,
there are some thoughts about how to break it, but they require
things totally outside our current physics).
Yes, there may be a new definition of "Computations" that is
actually useful, and generates answers to some things we currently
think as uncomputable, but until you can actually figure out what
that is, assuming it is just science fiction.
or u'd just call it lying over and over again with no serious
consideration to what's really being said ...
Yep, that is a good description of what you are doing.
You forget to consider the topic you are talking about.
Either you accept the current definitions, or you actually supply
your own new ones. Just assuming you can change them without actually
doing so makes your argument baseless.
false dichotomy ...
cause why can't a "new" one just be in fact a rather minor adjustment???
You can't make a "minor adjustment" to a fixed system.
That is like saying that 22/7 is close enough to the value of Pi to be
pi for all uses.
fuck
On 1/26/26 2:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/26/26 2:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/26/26 8:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/26/26 12:56 AM, dart200 wrote:
You haven't given a SPECIFIC refinement, just vague claims with no
backing.
i gave a *very* specific *additional* operation for the machine,
specified exactly what it does, and gave a demonstration of it in a
simple case.
could you even begin to tell me what that was? like what was the name of that operation even??? see if u can't even name me what the operation
was...
that is a definitive sign of an entirely antagonistic attitude
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
holy fuck you dude eat a bag of dicks
It seems you have eaten them all already,
sure thing dick ✌️
An actual algorithm being an actual sequence of finite atomic steps, and using bounded loops.
On 1/26/2026 2:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/26/26 2:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:So, I'm not sure you've thought this through. It may not be that simple
On 1/26/26 2:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/26/26 8:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/26/26 12:56 AM, dart200 wrote:
You haven't given a SPECIFIC refinement, just vague claims with no
backing.
i gave a *very* specific *additional* operation for the machine,
specified exactly what it does, and gave a demonstration of it in a
simple case.
to open the door, Nick. There might be a ghost in the machine.
"I'm sorry, Dave. I can't do that." - HAL
could you even begin to tell me what that was? like what was the nameLet's be clear: You still haven't explained why that dude rode his horse
of that operation even??? see if u can't even name me what the
operation was...
all the way through a desert without giving the old mare a name?
that is a definitive sign of an entirely antagonistic attitudeLet's not get too personal, Nick!
--
holy fuck you dude eat a bag of dicks
It seems you have eaten them all already,
sure thing dick ✌️
On 1/25/2026 2:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
[...]
An actual algorithm being an actual sequence of finite atomic steps,
and using bounded loops.
Why must an algorithm use bounded loops? It can run and run...
generating results along the way...
[...]
On 1/27/26 1:31 PM, Dude wrote:
On 1/26/2026 2:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/26/26 2:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:So, I'm not sure you've thought this through. It may not be that
On 1/26/26 2:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/26/26 8:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/26/26 12:56 AM, dart200 wrote:
You haven't given a SPECIFIC refinement, just vague claims with no
backing.
i gave a *very* specific *additional* operation for the machine,
specified exactly what it does, and gave a demonstration of it in a
simple case.
simple to open the door, Nick. There might be a ghost in the machine.
"I'm sorry, Dave. I can't do that." - HAL
;Let's be clear: You still haven't explained why that dude rode his
could you even begin to tell me what that was? like what was the name
of that operation even??? see if u can't even name me what the
operation was...
horse all the way through a desert without giving the old mare a name?
;Let's not get too personal, Nick!
that is a definitive sign of an entirely antagonistic attitude
tbh, i'm fairly personally offended at the lack of cooperation dude
holy fuck you dude eat a bag of dicks
It seems you have eaten them all already,
sure thing dick ✌️
On 1/28/2026 1:12 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/27/26 1:31 PM, Dude wrote:What I'm personally offended about is all the electricity you're using
On 1/26/2026 2:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/26/26 2:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:So, I'm not sure you've thought this through. It may not be that
On 1/26/26 2:43 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/26/26 8:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/26/26 12:56 AM, dart200 wrote:
You haven't given a SPECIFIC refinement, just vague claims with no
backing.
i gave a *very* specific *additional* operation for the machine,
specified exactly what it does, and gave a demonstration of it in a
simple case.
simple to open the door, Nick. There might be a ghost in the machine.
"I'm sorry, Dave. I can't do that." - HAL
;Let's be clear: You still haven't explained why that dude rode his
could you even begin to tell me what that was? like what was the
name of that operation even??? see if u can't even name me what the
operation was...
horse all the way through a desert without giving the old mare a name?
;Let's not get too personal, Nick!
that is a definitive sign of an entirely antagonistic attitude
tbh, i'm fairly personally offended at the lack of cooperation dude
every day to send texts to total strangers. You cooking with gas?
Let me remind you again, that incense you see at your local convenience store is not real herbal incense. It may look like Indian Incense and
the label may even say Indian Incense, but they are probably just punk sticks and glue.
Don't be deceived!
holy fuck you dude eat a bag of dicks
It seems you have eaten them all already,
sure thing dick ✌️
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,096 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 397:50:31 |
| Calls: | 14,036 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 187,082 |
| D/L today: |
2,427 files (1,569M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,479,079 |