On 1/25/26 4:08 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/25/26 10:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 10:30 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 4:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 5:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/23/26 5:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/20/26 8:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/20/26 4:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/20/26 1:46 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/19/26 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/19/26 2:09 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/18/26 12:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 1:44 PM, dart200 wrote:we when write a turing machine description and run it ... >>>>>>>>>>>> the machine description is dumped as it is written
A Reflective Turing Machine is a mathematical model of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine that performs a computation with the following >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pieces:
1) A Tape, infinite in capacity, divided into cells which, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless otherwise specified, initially contain the "empty" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> symbol, and is capable of storing in each cell, one symbol >>>>>>>>>>>>>> from a defined finite set of symbols.
2) A Head, which at any point of time points to a specific >>>>>>>>>>>>>> location on the tape. The head can read the symbol on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tape at its current position, change the symbol at the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> current location as commanded by the state machine defined >>>>>>>>>>>>>> below, and move a step at a time in either direction. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
3) A State Machine, that has a register which store the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> current "state" from among a finite listing of possible >>>>>>>>>>>>>> states, and includes a "program" of tuples of data: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Current state, Current Symbol, Operation, New State) that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> causes the machine when it matches the (Current State, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Current Symbol), updates the tape/ head according to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> operation, and then transitions to the New State, and then >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Begins again. The state machine has a 2ndary temporary >>>>>>>>>>>>>> buffer tape to store a copy of the current tape during >>>>>>>>>>>>>> certain operations.
The list of operations possible:
- HEAD_RIGHT: move the head one cell to the right
- HEAD_LEFT: move the head one cell to the left
- WRITE(SYMBOL): write SYMBOL to the head
- REFLECT: will cause a bunch of machine meta-information >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be written to the tape, starting at the head,
overwriting anything its path. The information written to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tape will include 3 components: the "program" of tuples of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> data, current tuple that the operation is part of, and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> current tape (the tape state before command runs). At the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> end of the Operation, the head will be moved back to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> start of the Operation.
And where does this "meta-information" come from?
How do you translate the mathematical "tuples" that define >>>>>>>>>>>>> the machine into the finite set of symbols of the system. >>>>>>>>>>>>
But you don't write a turing machine description, you create >>>>>>>>>>> a turing machine.
whatever bro ur just being purposefully obtuse
No, it is a key point.
it's a syntax point, which is boring
A Given Turing machine doesn't have *A* description, so what >>>>>>>>> you want it to write out doesn't have a unique definition.
ok, it dumps it out as the *description number* as defined by >>>>>>>> turing in his paper /on computable number/ p240, that can be
uniquely defined for every unique machine
But that page talks about how to get *A* description numbers
based on an arbitrary assignment of symbols to values. Nowhere
does it use *the* as the qualifier.
No where is that number called "unique". Note, page 241 points
out that the number you get here will only produce one computable >>>>>>> sequence.
In fact, he doesn't even qualify "standard form" as being unique, >>>>>>> but it is *a* standard form, as he knows there are many ways to >>>>>>> arbitrarily standardize the form.
literally the last sentence of p240 to the first of p241:
/The D.N determine the S.D and the structure of the machine uniquely/ >>>>>>
but i've quoted that at you before and u denied it before, so ofc... >>>>>>
anyways, if u had more than half a brain u'd know that it doesn't >>>>>> really matter what the specific syntax is ... so long as whatever >>>>>> it dumps consistently determines the structure of the machine
uniquely and completely,
which DNs do, turing demonstrated that with the first paper /on
computable numbers/, so can we move past theory of computing 101, k? >>>>>>
or not i guess, i can hear you angrily typing away a willfully
contrarian response already!! idk Efn+Efn+Efn+ i guess fuck u too eh??? >>>>>>
i'm not really sure why you have trouble accepting this, >>>>>>>>>>>> let's take a really simple machine using REFLECT:
Because it is based on a logical error of confusing the >>>>>>>>>>> turing machine description that can be given to a UTM to >>>>>>>>>>> simulate the machine, and the machine itself.
The problem is there are MANY different UTMs, and different >>>>>>>>>>> UTMs can use different representations, and thus depending on >>>>>>>>>>> which UTM you target, you get different descriptions, many of >>>>>>>>>>> which are not actually in the same alphabet as the machine >>>>>>>>>>> itself.
<q0 0 REFLECT q1>
the machine steps would (format: [state tape], head
indicated by ^:
[q0 0]
-a-a-a-a ^
[q1 <q0 0 REFLECT q1>|<q0 0 REFLECT q1>|0]
-a-a-a-a ^
halt
we can quibble about what the format of that dump should be >>>>>>>>>>>> in, but that's not actually that interesting to me
But it should be. Your problem is you are describing your >>>>>>>>>>> Turing Machine in a language easy for people to read, but >>>>>>>>>>> awful for a UTM to process.
how is that relevant to proving principles with it?
Because it hides the key issue, that there isn't a unique
description for it to write out. If it gets to arbitarily pick >>>>>>>>> one, then your "program" can't process it, as it doesn't know >>>>>>>>> what "language" it needs to interprete.
please do actually read turing's paper sometime
You think I haven't?
yes, i think u haven't. i'm pretty sure u've looked at some of the >>>>>> words i've quoted, but that's not the same as reading.
the (machine, input) specifies a particular computation or
So, you think that *the* tuple (machine, input) means anything
so dump the ASCII in their binary equivalents ...??? i'm not >>>>>>>>>> typing that shit out just to feed ur massive fking ego. like >>>>>>>>>> seriously why do i need to state that to a fucking 70yo chief >>>>>>>>>> engineer???
Most actual work with Turing Machines use very limited
alphabets, while yours looks like it uses near full ASCII. >>>>>>>>>>
Which presumes that this it the proper encoding.
Your problem is you presume that your program is going to be >>>>>>>>> able to process the output, when you don't define what it will >>>>>>>>> look like.
Originally, you talked of putting out the tape at the start >>>>>>>>>>>>> of when the machine ran. Now you just seem to recopy the >>>>>>>>>>>>> tape to avoid overwriting it.
originally i was storing the initial tape so it could be >>>>>>>>>>>> dumped during REFLECT, but i did away with that by just >>>>>>>>>>>> making all tapes start blank, requiring users to use the >>>>>>>>>>>> machine description itself to build the initial tape before >>>>>>>>>>>> running a further computation on it.
it's just simpler, and i think TMs should fundamentally >>>>>>>>>>>> follow this method too
The problem then is your complete machines can't take an >>>>>>>>>>> input, and thus complicate the composition property.
This means you MUST be looking at submachines when you
discuss properties of computations.
we always were.
the semantic properties of a particular computation has always >>>>>>>>>> been defined by the tuple (machine, input)
No, the sematic properties of a particular cokputation has
always been defined by the full process of running the machine. >>>>>>>>>
The "tuple" is a syntax rule. Semantics comes by the complete >>>>>>>>> operation of all the syntax.
i love how you agree with me while making it look like u disagree >>>>>>>
like what happens when you actually RUN the machine on the input? >>>>>>
"sequence of machine configurations", yes, so therefor it
consequentially also specifies the semantics of that particular
computation. whether u determine that specification thru brute
force or some more intelligent method is quite irrelevant (tho i'm >>>>>> sure you'll disagree but idk)
No "machine" here would seem to be the description/definition of
the machine in some form.
That is a syntactic statement.
The RESULT of running that requires the semantic operation of
running the machine,
i don't need to manually compute:
() -> loop()
to figure out what it does. in fact manually computing it would
never figure out what it does. our ability to program relies on an
ability to compute the result of computations without brute force
running them. we just haven't done the work to encode that
understanding into a general algo because sheeple like ur are hell
bent on shooting urself in the foot with endless gishgallop denial.
Sure it can, as a simple loop detector will detect the repeated state,
which requires more than pure brute forcing because at the very least
ur storing and comparing to all past states in order to detect the loop
The classic answer was two simulators simulating the same machine, one stepping two steps at a time, and the other 1 step at a time. If ever
the two simulators are in the same state, check if the tapes are
identical. If so, you have your loop.
Yes, you can define syntactic rules to handle the simpler cases, but
they CAN NOT handle a general program.
why because muh paradox??? lol
No, because you can define a fininte set of syntax rules that detect a finite set of loop constructions.
YEs, a PROVABLY CORRECT program can likely be determined what it does
without running it, *IF* you are given the proof. The issue is that
most programs are not provably correct.
The problem is that proving a given program is provable correct is
generally not computable.
The tuple is just the symbolic expression of the machine and
input. That is SYNTACTIC.
RUNNING the machine is what gets us to the semantics.
And, because if your use of a reflect instruction changes the >>>>>>>>>>> output based on different detected contexts, those
submachines are no longer actually computations.
the context *is* the input,
Then your sub-machines are not fully controlable, as part of >>>>>>>>> their input isn't settable by their caller, but is forced by >>>>>>>>> things beyond its ability to control
before you run any machine you can examine the entire machine >>>>>>>> including the interplay between context-independent and context- >>>>>>>> dependent sub- machines, so idgaf about ur complaints of
"uncontrollable" machines
But that is the problem, you CAN'T do that, as parts of the
semantics are only determinable by running the machine.
begging the question, again
No, seems to be you not knowing what you ara saying.
the formal parameters are just part of the total input
So, your definition is about uncontrollable machines.
the point is indeed to be able to assert correctness even when >>>>>>>> malicious input is given
And how does not being able to fully give the input to an
algorithm help you here?
computations can lie about context in the total enumeration
causing paradoxes,
Computations are soul-less machines, they can't "lie" as that is an >>>>> act of will or judgement.
Since the halting problem doesn't depend on the context we are
asking the decider on, there is no lie about that that can matter.
REFLECT cannot do so by definition.
And thus make the "input" uncontrolled, or the machine not perform
a computation (depending on your definitons)
it's entirely controlled by the context (which include formal
params), which a programmer can account for when programming.
But that only applies to problems based on the context of the program
that is asking, and NOT about problems that are independent of such
context.
Questions like does a given program halt, is not dependent on the
context of the machine that is trying to ask the question.
it's done all the time in react, it's not a big deal.
Because react isn't based on "computations".
Of course, since you don;t understand what that means, it means
nothing to you.
it doesn't mean anything beside it doesn't fit into some weird little
box u keep arguing about that idgaf about because no one's proven that
said little box to actually be all of the box ...
No, you are just showing you don't understand what you are talking
about, and just say anything you don't understand doesn't matter.
Thas is just your "stupid" talking
But since the question doesn't depend on the context it is asked
i cannot define away lies in the total enumeration of all possible >>>>>> input ... i can do so with the mechanisms of machine itself, however >>>>>
in, we can't lie about anything that actually matters.
the ability to compute an accurate response, however, does
Which just means the question isn't computable.
to a reasonable person it would,
Only someone that doesn't know what the word is defined to be in this context.
Of course, Stupid people agree to all sorts of nonsense.
ur concerned about little boxes without actual justified reason. u
never actually put in the work to show contradictions u just complain
about definitions in an endless slop of various definist fallacies.
Nope, but it seems you don't understand the basics to understand what I
am saying.
You don't seem to understand that basic definition of a computation.
Which of course, just means you idea of an expanded theory is almost
certainly worthless.
It says that you can't actually fully test your machine, as you >>>>>>> can't
why even test things when u can prove them instead???
Because it is hard to prove behavior of uncontrollable inputs.
It is also hard to prove something correct, if your API doesn't
even permit asking the question you are supposed to be asking.
And, if the result has one correct answer for the part you can
give, giving two (or more) different answers based on
uncontrollable input makes your machine BY DEFINITION incorrect.
it's incredibly ironic that ur complaining about not being able to >>>>>> test things in discussion i undertake with a goal to replace
testing with proofs...
But, if I can't GIVE the required input to get the results, you
can't prove I can get the right result.
and the pathetic part is ur total lack of ability to have any
foresight or vision
even attempt to generate all classes of input, and you are trying >>>>>>> to define that answers about something can depend on context that >>>>>>> doesn't actually affect that thing, but is the context of the asker. >>>>>>>
i'm still copying the whole tape like before, since that's >>>>>>>>>>>> needed to fully describe the current configuration
Since the length of the tape isn't bounded (but is finite) >>>>>>>>>>>>> how do you go back to the original start of operation? >>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, the "machine" has a fixed definition, and thus >>>>>>>>>>>>> fixed size "registers". Not a problem for a standard Turing >>>>>>>>>>>>> Machine, as the only register is the current state, and we >>>>>>>>>>>>> know how many states are in the design, so how "big" that >>>>>>>>>>>>> register needs to be.
unbounded buffer, just like the tape
And thus NOT a valid computation atom. Sorry.
Fundamental in the definition is its boundedness.
making shit up gish gallop
Nope, maybe you should study the initial problem.
Not following the rules make is just invalid.
heck you could intersperse this buffer among the tape using >>>>>>>>>>>> alternating cells, but it's mentally easier and more
theoretically secure to just keep it metaphysically
separated so it's inaccessible to pathological computations. >>>>>>>>>>>
the thing has an unbounded tape, it can also have an unbounded >>>>>>>>>> portion of that tape sectioned off just for machine-level use, >>>>>>>>>> and still have unbounded space for whatever computation-level >>>>>>>>>> work is done.
Right, but that is the "input" not the algorithm part of the >>>>>>>>> machine.
The ALGORITHM needs to be boundedly described.
THe input just needs to be finite, but can be unbounded.
context is necessarily length, as all individual configurations/ >>>>>>>> steps of the machine are necessarily finite in length.
hilbert's hotel is great, no?
But it is the hotel, not the desk that is infinite.
Learn how to follow the rules.
It seems you still have "bugs" in your finite machine that >>>>>>>>>>>>> is your processing core.
these kinda details kinda bore with me being obvious to me, >>>>>>>>>>>> ya know?
Which is what makes your work just garbage, Good work looks >>>>>>>>>>> at the details.
I thought you wanted provably correct programs. It is the >>>>>>>>>>> ignoring of the details that causes most of the bugs you >>>>>>>>>>> don't want.
none of this gish gallop has anything to do with the
theoretical power of the system
sure it does. A system that doesn't exist can't do anything. >>>>>>>>>
because a machine simulated within a base level machine >>>>>>>>>>>> runtime needs access to the base level machine tape to know >>>>>>>>>>>> where it is in the overall machine execution.
4) A defined starting state, and starting head position >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This list of tuples can only have a single entry for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Current State, Current Symbol), and if no entry matches >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the current condition, the machine halts.
... wow that was extremely boring exercise of futility >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that will convince a certain massive dick of absolutely >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fucking nothing that u already hadn't been convinced of. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
it's funny that richard considers himself too stupid to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> follow the REFLECT operation
You still haven't defined HOW to generate the output, and >>>>>>>>>>>>> you have changed your definition, as originally it put out >>>>>>>>>>>>> the original tape contents.
Why do you need to write out the current tape contents? >>>>>>>>>>>>
WHy do you need to write out the tuple that does the >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Reflect" operation?
because the transition being made is "where" the machine is >>>>>>>>>>>> witin the machine description
ultimately: there is a fixed tuple that describes the >>>>>>>>>>>> overall machine's initial configuration, and there a fixed >>>>>>>>>>>> tuple the described the machine's current configuration, >>>>>>>>>>>>
and REFLECT needs to dump all the information required to >>>>>>>>>>>> build both those tuples so a simulation can be done to >>>>>>>>>>>> generate all the steps between the initial tuple and current >>>>>>>>>>>> tuple, which then allows for computing everything that can >>>>>>>>>>>> be known about "where" that REFLECT was done with respect to >>>>>>>>>>>> the overall machine execution.
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 EfOA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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... EfOa
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 10:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 9:10 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 4:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 5:31 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 2:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 3:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 11:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 1:33 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 9:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 11:45 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 4:17 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 3:03 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/23/26 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/20/26 9:30 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/20/26 4:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
The term *IS* defined, and to change it means you lie. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
doubling down on definist fallacy ehh???
I guess you don't understand the difinist fallacy, as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> using the ACTUAL definition isn't a fallacy.
nah ur just pushing a definition that u've happened latch >>>>>>>>>>>>> onto because it's convenient for u
classic definist fallacy
Nope, you are just stuck in a definist fallacy about what a >>>>>>>>>>>> definist fallacy is.
It seems you don't understand the concept that some things >>>>>>>>>>>> ARE just defined a given way to be in a given context. >>>>>>>>>>>>
and u richard are not the god what that is
But "the field" is, and thus you are just saying it is ok to >>>>>>>>>> change the meaning of words.
i don't believe u represent what "the field" is either
The go to "the field" and see if they disagree.
"the field" can come here if they like,
but as it stands i'm going to call out any more "nOT mUh
CoMpUTaTiOn" arguments as definist fallacy
In other words, you are just admitting, you don't care what the
words mean in the field, you will just continue to be a stupid and >>>>>> ignorant lair about what you are doing.
i just don't care what YOU, richard, says "CoMpUTaTiOn" means. you
aren't "the field" bro, and i just really dgaf about ur endless
definist fallacy
But apperently you do, as you aren't just going to present your
ideas directly to "the field" on a peer-reviewed journal, so
something is telling you that you have something to fix.
or rather the peer-review is so gatekept i don't even get a review
back for my submission, just rejection without review.
the system is broken such that i will take my stance elsewhere.
everyone else can ignore me at all our peril...
WHich just shows that you aren't in step with what theory actually is
talking about.
That is your problem, you assume the world is wrong, and more than
likely it is you that is wrong.
i'm not one continually asserting a bunch of impossible to find teapots floating around in machine space
If you want to break down a "broken" structure, you need to know
enough about it to SHOW it is broken.
Just assuming it is just shows that it is most likely YOU that is wrong.
It is more that the system ignores that which tries to break it,
because getting side tracked on false trails is too damaging.
To me it seems more of a peril to accept your misguided ideas.
The fact that you begin by trying to redefine things out of ignorance
doesn't help your case.
On 1/25/26 1:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/25/26 10:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 9:10 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 4:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 5:31 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 2:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 3:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 11:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 1:33 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 9:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 11:45 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 4:17 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 3:03 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/23/26 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/20/26 9:30 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/20/26 4:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
The term *IS* defined, and to change it means you lie. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
doubling down on definist fallacy ehh???
I guess you don't understand the difinist fallacy, as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using the ACTUAL definition isn't a fallacy.
nah ur just pushing a definition that u've happened latch >>>>>>>>>>>>>> onto because it's convenient for u
classic definist fallacy
Nope, you are just stuck in a definist fallacy about what a >>>>>>>>>>>>> definist fallacy is.
It seems you don't understand the concept that some things >>>>>>>>>>>>> ARE just defined a given way to be in a given context. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
and u richard are not the god what that is
But "the field" is, and thus you are just saying it is ok to >>>>>>>>>>> change the meaning of words.
i don't believe u represent what "the field" is either
The go to "the field" and see if they disagree.
"the field" can come here if they like,
but as it stands i'm going to call out any more "nOT mUh
CoMpUTaTiOn" arguments as definist fallacy
In other words, you are just admitting, you don't care what the >>>>>>> words mean in the field, you will just continue to be a stupid
and ignorant lair about what you are doing.
i just don't care what YOU, richard, says "CoMpUTaTiOn" means. you >>>>>> aren't "the field" bro, and i just really dgaf about ur endless
definist fallacy
But apperently you do, as you aren't just going to present your
ideas directly to "the field" on a peer-reviewed journal, so
something is telling you that you have something to fix.
or rather the peer-review is so gatekept i don't even get a review
back for my submission, just rejection without review.
the system is broken such that i will take my stance elsewhere.
everyone else can ignore me at all our peril...
WHich just shows that you aren't in step with what theory actually is
talking about.
That is your problem, you assume the world is wrong, and more than
likely it is you that is wrong.
i'm not one continually asserting a bunch of impossible to find
teapots floating around in machine space
by "teapots" i mean unidentifiably undecidable machine ghosts that apparently are all non-halting,
and by "machine space" i mean the full enumeration of turing machines
just to be clear, eh???
If you want to break down a "broken" structure, you need to know
enough about it to SHOW it is broken.
Just assuming it is just shows that it is most likely YOU that is wrong. >>>
It is more that the system ignores that which tries to break it,
because getting side tracked on false trails is too damaging.
To me it seems more of a peril to accept your misguided ideas.
The fact that you begin by trying to redefine things out of ignorance
doesn't help your case.
On 1/25/26 2:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/25/26 4:08 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/25/26 10:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 10:30 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 4:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 5:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/23/26 5:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/20/26 8:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/20/26 4:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/20/26 1:46 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/19/26 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/19/26 2:09 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/18/26 12:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 1:44 PM, dart200 wrote:we when write a turing machine description and run it ... >>>>>>>>>>>>> the machine description is dumped as it is written
A Reflective Turing Machine is a mathematical model of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine that performs a computation with the following >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pieces:
1) A Tape, infinite in capacity, divided into cells >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which, unless otherwise specified, initially contain the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "empty" symbol, and is capable of storing in each cell, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one symbol from a defined finite set of symbols. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2) A Head, which at any point of time points to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific location on the tape. The head can read the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> symbol on the tape at its current position, change the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> symbol at the current location as commanded by the state >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine defined below, and move a step at a time in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either direction.
3) A State Machine, that has a register which store the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current "state" from among a finite listing of possible >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> states, and includes a "program" of tuples of data: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Current state, Current Symbol, Operation, New State) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that causes the machine when it matches the (Current >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> State, Current Symbol), updates the tape/ head according >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the operation, and then transitions to the New State, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and then Begins again. The state machine has a 2ndary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> temporary buffer tape to store a copy of the current tape >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> during certain operations.
The list of operations possible:
- HEAD_RIGHT: move the head one cell to the right >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
- HEAD_LEFT: move the head one cell to the left
- WRITE(SYMBOL): write SYMBOL to the head
- REFLECT: will cause a bunch of machine meta-information >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be written to the tape, starting at the head, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overwriting anything its path. The information written to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tape will include 3 components: the "program" of tuples >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of data, current tuple that the operation is part of, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the current tape (the tape state before command runs). At >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the end of the Operation, the head will be moved back to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the start of the Operation.
And where does this "meta-information" come from?
How do you translate the mathematical "tuples" that define >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the machine into the finite set of symbols of the system. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
But you don't write a turing machine description, you create >>>>>>>>>>>> a turing machine.
whatever bro ur just being purposefully obtuse
No, it is a key point.
it's a syntax point, which is boring
A Given Turing machine doesn't have *A* description, so what >>>>>>>>>> you want it to write out doesn't have a unique definition.
ok, it dumps it out as the *description number* as defined by >>>>>>>>> turing in his paper /on computable number/ p240, that can be >>>>>>>>> uniquely defined for every unique machine
But that page talks about how to get *A* description numbers
based on an arbitrary assignment of symbols to values. Nowhere >>>>>>>> does it use *the* as the qualifier.
No where is that number called "unique". Note, page 241 points >>>>>>>> out that the number you get here will only produce one
computable sequence.
In fact, he doesn't even qualify "standard form" as being
unique, but it is *a* standard form, as he knows there are many >>>>>>>> ways to arbitrarily standardize the form.
literally the last sentence of p240 to the first of p241:
/The D.N determine the S.D and the structure of the machine
uniquely/
but i've quoted that at you before and u denied it before, so ofc... >>>>>>>
anyways, if u had more than half a brain u'd know that it doesn't >>>>>>> really matter what the specific syntax is ... so long as whatever >>>>>>> it dumps consistently determines the structure of the machine
uniquely and completely,
which DNs do, turing demonstrated that with the first paper /on >>>>>>> computable numbers/, so can we move past theory of computing 101, k? >>>>>>>
or not i guess, i can hear you angrily typing away a willfully
contrarian response already!! idk Efn+Efn+Efn+ i guess fuck u too eh??? >>>>>>>
i'm not really sure why you have trouble accepting this, >>>>>>>>>>>>> let's take a really simple machine using REFLECT:
Because it is based on a logical error of confusing the >>>>>>>>>>>> turing machine description that can be given to a UTM to >>>>>>>>>>>> simulate the machine, and the machine itself.
The problem is there are MANY different UTMs, and different >>>>>>>>>>>> UTMs can use different representations, and thus depending >>>>>>>>>>>> on which UTM you target, you get different descriptions, >>>>>>>>>>>> many of which are not actually in the same alphabet as the >>>>>>>>>>>> machine itself.
<q0 0 REFLECT q1>
the machine steps would (format: [state tape], head >>>>>>>>>>>>> indicated by ^:
[q0 0]
-a-a-a-a ^
[q1 <q0 0 REFLECT q1>|<q0 0 REFLECT q1>|0]
-a-a-a-a ^
halt
we can quibble about what the format of that dump should be >>>>>>>>>>>>> in, but that's not actually that interesting to me
But it should be. Your problem is you are describing your >>>>>>>>>>>> Turing Machine in a language easy for people to read, but >>>>>>>>>>>> awful for a UTM to process.
how is that relevant to proving principles with it?
Because it hides the key issue, that there isn't a unique >>>>>>>>>> description for it to write out. If it gets to arbitarily pick >>>>>>>>>> one, then your "program" can't process it, as it doesn't know >>>>>>>>>> what "language" it needs to interprete.
please do actually read turing's paper sometime
You think I haven't?
yes, i think u haven't. i'm pretty sure u've looked at some of
the words i've quoted, but that's not the same as reading.
the (machine, input) specifies a particular computation or
So, you think that *the* tuple (machine, input) means anything >>>>>>>> like what happens when you actually RUN the machine on the input? >>>>>>>
so dump the ASCII in their binary equivalents ...??? i'm not >>>>>>>>>>> typing that shit out just to feed ur massive fking ego. like >>>>>>>>>>> seriously why do i need to state that to a fucking 70yo chief >>>>>>>>>>> engineer???
Most actual work with Turing Machines use very limited >>>>>>>>>>>> alphabets, while yours looks like it uses near full ASCII. >>>>>>>>>>>
Which presumes that this it the proper encoding.
Your problem is you presume that your program is going to be >>>>>>>>>> able to process the output, when you don't define what it will >>>>>>>>>> look like.
Originally, you talked of putting out the tape at the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> start of when the machine ran. Now you just seem to recopy >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the tape to avoid overwriting it.
originally i was storing the initial tape so it could be >>>>>>>>>>>>> dumped during REFLECT, but i did away with that by just >>>>>>>>>>>>> making all tapes start blank, requiring users to use the >>>>>>>>>>>>> machine description itself to build the initial tape before >>>>>>>>>>>>> running a further computation on it.
it's just simpler, and i think TMs should fundamentally >>>>>>>>>>>>> follow this method too
The problem then is your complete machines can't take an >>>>>>>>>>>> input, and thus complicate the composition property.
This means you MUST be looking at submachines when you >>>>>>>>>>>> discuss properties of computations.
we always were.
the semantic properties of a particular computation has >>>>>>>>>>> always been defined by the tuple (machine, input)
No, the sematic properties of a particular cokputation has >>>>>>>>>> always been defined by the full process of running the machine. >>>>>>>>>>
The "tuple" is a syntax rule. Semantics comes by the complete >>>>>>>>>> operation of all the syntax.
i love how you agree with me while making it look like u disagree >>>>>>>>
"sequence of machine configurations", yes, so therefor it
consequentially also specifies the semantics of that particular >>>>>>> computation. whether u determine that specification thru brute
force or some more intelligent method is quite irrelevant (tho
i'm sure you'll disagree but idk)
No "machine" here would seem to be the description/definition of
the machine in some form.
That is a syntactic statement.
The RESULT of running that requires the semantic operation of
running the machine,
i don't need to manually compute:
() -> loop()
to figure out what it does. in fact manually computing it would
never figure out what it does. our ability to program relies on an
ability to compute the result of computations without brute force
running them. we just haven't done the work to encode that
understanding into a general algo because sheeple like ur are hell
bent on shooting urself in the foot with endless gishgallop denial.
Sure it can, as a simple loop detector will detect the repeated state,
which requires more than pure brute forcing because at the very least
ur storing and comparing to all past states in order to detect the loop
The classic answer was two simulators simulating the same machine, one
stepping two steps at a time, and the other 1 step at a time. If ever
the two simulators are in the same state, check if the tapes are
identical. If so, you have your loop.
ah yeah i do remember that
Yes, you can define syntactic rules to handle the simpler cases, but
they CAN NOT handle a general program.
why because muh paradox??? lol
No, because you can define a fininte set of syntax rules that detect a
finite set of loop constructions.
it's definitely at least an infinite set, just not as infinite as a
turing complete one ...
YEs, a PROVABLY CORRECT program can likely be determined what it
does without running it, *IF* you are given the proof. The issue is
that most programs are not provably correct.
The problem is that proving a given program is provable correct is
generally not computable.
The tuple is just the symbolic expression of the machine and
input. That is SYNTACTIC.
RUNNING the machine is what gets us to the semantics.
And, because if your use of a reflect instruction changes >>>>>>>>>>>> the output based on different detected contexts, those >>>>>>>>>>>> submachines are no longer actually computations.
the context *is* the input,
Then your sub-machines are not fully controlable, as part of >>>>>>>>>> their input isn't settable by their caller, but is forced by >>>>>>>>>> things beyond its ability to control
before you run any machine you can examine the entire machine >>>>>>>>> including the interplay between context-independent and
context- dependent sub- machines, so idgaf about ur complaints >>>>>>>>> of "uncontrollable" machines
But that is the problem, you CAN'T do that, as parts of the
semantics are only determinable by running the machine.
begging the question, again
No, seems to be you not knowing what you ara saying.
the formal parameters are just part of the total input
So, your definition is about uncontrollable machines.
the point is indeed to be able to assert correctness even when >>>>>>>>> malicious input is given
And how does not being able to fully give the input to an
algorithm help you here?
computations can lie about context in the total enumeration
causing paradoxes,
Computations are soul-less machines, they can't "lie" as that is
an act of will or judgement.
Since the halting problem doesn't depend on the context we are
asking the decider on, there is no lie about that that can matter. >>>>>>
REFLECT cannot do so by definition.
And thus make the "input" uncontrolled, or the machine not perform >>>>>> a computation (depending on your definitons)
it's entirely controlled by the context (which include formal
params), which a programmer can account for when programming.
But that only applies to problems based on the context of the
program that is asking, and NOT about problems that are independent
of such context.
Questions like does a given program halt, is not dependent on the
context of the machine that is trying to ask the question.
it's done all the time in react, it's not a big deal.
Because react isn't based on "computations".
Of course, since you don;t understand what that means, it means
nothing to you.
it doesn't mean anything beside it doesn't fit into some weird little
box u keep arguing about that idgaf about because no one's proven
that said little box to actually be all of the box ...
No, you are just showing you don't understand what you are talking
about, and just say anything you don't understand doesn't matter.
Thas is just your "stupid" talking
not an argument, just continued definist fallacy.
post actual contradiction or shut the fuck up tbh.
i cannot define away lies in the total enumeration of all
possible input ... i can do so with the mechanisms of machine
itself, however
But since the question doesn't depend on the context it is asked
in, we can't lie about anything that actually matters.
the ability to compute an accurate response, however, does
Which just means the question isn't computable.
to a reasonable person it would,
Only someone that doesn't know what the word is defined to be in this
context.
more definist fallacy
Of course, Stupid people agree to all sorts of nonsense.
ad hominem
ur concerned about little boxes without actual justified reason. u
never actually put in the work to show contradictions u just complain
about definitions in an endless slop of various definist fallacies.
Nope, but it seems you don't understand the basics to understand what
I am saying.
definist fallacy
You don't seem to understand that basic definition of a computation.
Which of course, just means you idea of an expanded theory is almost
certainly worthless.
It says that you can't actually fully test your machine, as you >>>>>>>> can't
why even test things when u can prove them instead???
Because it is hard to prove behavior of uncontrollable inputs.
It is also hard to prove something correct, if your API doesn't
even permit asking the question you are supposed to be asking.
And, if the result has one correct answer for the part you can
give, giving two (or more) different answers based on
uncontrollable input makes your machine BY DEFINITION incorrect.
it's incredibly ironic that ur complaining about not being able >>>>>>> to test things in discussion i undertake with a goal to replace >>>>>>> testing with proofs...
But, if I can't GIVE the required input to get the results, you
can't prove I can get the right result.
and the pathetic part is ur total lack of ability to have any
foresight or vision
even attempt to generate all classes of input, and you are
trying to define that answers about something can depend on
context that doesn't actually affect that thing, but is the
context of the asker.
i'm still copying the whole tape like before, since that's >>>>>>>>>>>>> needed to fully describe the current configuration
Since the length of the tape isn't bounded (but is finite) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> how do you go back to the original start of operation? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Remember, the "machine" has a fixed definition, and thus >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixed size "registers". Not a problem for a standard >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing Machine, as the only register is the current state, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and we know how many states are in the design, so how >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "big" that register needs to be.
unbounded buffer, just like the tape
And thus NOT a valid computation atom. Sorry.
Fundamental in the definition is its boundedness.
making shit up gish gallop
Nope, maybe you should study the initial problem.
Not following the rules make is just invalid.
heck you could intersperse this buffer among the tape using >>>>>>>>>>>>> alternating cells, but it's mentally easier and more >>>>>>>>>>>>> theoretically secure to just keep it metaphysically >>>>>>>>>>>>> separated so it's inaccessible to pathological computations. >>>>>>>>>>>>
the thing has an unbounded tape, it can also have an
unbounded portion of that tape sectioned off just for
machine-level use, and still have unbounded space for
whatever computation-level work is done.
Right, but that is the "input" not the algorithm part of the >>>>>>>>>> machine.
The ALGORITHM needs to be boundedly described.
THe input just needs to be finite, but can be unbounded.
context is necessarily length, as all individual
configurations/ steps of the machine are necessarily finite in >>>>>>>>> length.
hilbert's hotel is great, no?
But it is the hotel, not the desk that is infinite.
Learn how to follow the rules.
It seems you still have "bugs" in your finite machine that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is your processing core.
these kinda details kinda bore with me being obvious to me, >>>>>>>>>>>>> ya know?
Which is what makes your work just garbage, Good work looks >>>>>>>>>>>> at the details.
I thought you wanted provably correct programs. It is the >>>>>>>>>>>> ignoring of the details that causes most of the bugs you >>>>>>>>>>>> don't want.
none of this gish gallop has anything to do with the
theoretical power of the system
sure it does. A system that doesn't exist can't do anything. >>>>>>>>>>
because a machine simulated within a base level machine >>>>>>>>>>>>> runtime needs access to the base level machine tape to know >>>>>>>>>>>>> where it is in the overall machine execution.
4) A defined starting state, and starting head position >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This list of tuples can only have a single entry for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Current State, Current Symbol), and if no entry matches >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the current condition, the machine halts.
... wow that was extremely boring exercise of futility >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that will convince a certain massive dick of absolutely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fucking nothing that u already hadn't been convinced of. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
it's funny that richard considers himself too stupid to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> follow the REFLECT operation
You still haven't defined HOW to generate the output, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you have changed your definition, as originally it put out >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the original tape contents.
Why do you need to write out the current tape contents? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
WHy do you need to write out the tuple that does the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Reflect" operation?
because the transition being made is "where" the machine is >>>>>>>>>>>>> witin the machine description
ultimately: there is a fixed tuple that describes the >>>>>>>>>>>>> overall machine's initial configuration, and there a fixed >>>>>>>>>>>>> tuple the described the machine's current configuration, >>>>>>>>>>>>>
and REFLECT needs to dump all the information required to >>>>>>>>>>>>> build both those tuples so a simulation can be done to >>>>>>>>>>>>> generate all the steps between the initial tuple and >>>>>>>>>>>>> current tuple, which then allows for computing everything >>>>>>>>>>>>> that can be known about "where" that REFLECT was done with >>>>>>>>>>>>> respect to the overall machine execution.
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 EfOA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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 rLiN+A
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... EfOa
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 11:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/25/26 2:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/25/26 4:08 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/25/26 10:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 10:30 PM, dart200 wrote:which requires more than pure brute forcing because at the very
On 1/24/26 4:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:Sure it can, as a simple loop detector will detect the repeated state, >>>>
On 1/24/26 5:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/23/26 5:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/20/26 8:36 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/20/26 4:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/20/26 1:46 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/19/26 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/19/26 2:09 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/18/26 12:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/18/26 1:44 PM, dart200 wrote:
A Reflective Turing Machine is a mathematical model of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine that performs a computation with the following >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pieces:And where does this "meta-information" come from? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1) A Tape, infinite in capacity, divided into cells >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which, unless otherwise specified, initially contain the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "empty" symbol, and is capable of storing in each cell, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one symbol from a defined finite set of symbols. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
2) A Head, which at any point of time points to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific location on the tape. The head can read the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> symbol on the tape at its current position, change the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> symbol at the current location as commanded by the state >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine defined below, and move a step at a time in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either direction.
3) A State Machine, that has a register which store the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current "state" from among a finite listing of possible >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> states, and includes a "program" of tuples of data: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Current state, Current Symbol, Operation, New State) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that causes the machine when it matches the (Current >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> State, Current Symbol), updates the tape/ head according >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the operation, and then transitions to the New State, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and then Begins again. The state machine has a 2ndary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> temporary buffer tape to store a copy of the current >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tape during certain operations.
The list of operations possible:
- HEAD_RIGHT: move the head one cell to the right >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
- HEAD_LEFT: move the head one cell to the left >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
- WRITE(SYMBOL): write SYMBOL to the head
- REFLECT: will cause a bunch of machine meta- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information to be written to the tape, starting at the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> head, overwriting anything its path. The information >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> written to tape will include 3 components: the "program" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of tuples of data, current tuple that the operation is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> part of, and the current tape (the tape state before >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> command runs). At the end of the Operation, the head >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be moved back to the start of the Operation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How do you translate the mathematical "tuples" that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> define the machine into the finite set of symbols of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> system.
we when write a turing machine description and run it ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the machine description is dumped as it is written
But you don't write a turing machine description, you >>>>>>>>>>>>> create a turing machine.
whatever bro ur just being purposefully obtuse
No, it is a key point.
it's a syntax point, which is boring
ok, it dumps it out as the *description number* as defined by >>>>>>>>>> turing in his paper /on computable number/ p240, that can be >>>>>>>>>> uniquely defined for every unique machine
A Given Turing machine doesn't have *A* description, so what >>>>>>>>>>> you want it to write out doesn't have a unique definition. >>>>>>>>>>
But that page talks about how to get *A* description numbers >>>>>>>>> based on an arbitrary assignment of symbols to values. Nowhere >>>>>>>>> does it use *the* as the qualifier.
No where is that number called "unique". Note, page 241 points >>>>>>>>> out that the number you get here will only produce one
computable sequence.
In fact, he doesn't even qualify "standard form" as being
unique, but it is *a* standard form, as he knows there are many >>>>>>>>> ways to arbitrarily standardize the form.
literally the last sentence of p240 to the first of p241:
/The D.N determine the S.D and the structure of the machine
uniquely/
but i've quoted that at you before and u denied it before, so >>>>>>>> ofc...
anyways, if u had more than half a brain u'd know that it
doesn't really matter what the specific syntax is ... so long as >>>>>>>> whatever it dumps consistently determines the structure of the >>>>>>>> machine uniquely and completely,
which DNs do, turing demonstrated that with the first paper /on >>>>>>>> computable numbers/, so can we move past theory of computing
101, k?
or not i guess, i can hear you angrily typing away a willfully >>>>>>>> contrarian response already!! idk Efn+Efn+Efn+ i guess fuck u too eh???
i'm not really sure why you have trouble accepting this, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> let's take a really simple machine using REFLECT:
Because it is based on a logical error of confusing the >>>>>>>>>>>>> turing machine description that can be given to a UTM to >>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate the machine, and the machine itself.
The problem is there are MANY different UTMs, and different >>>>>>>>>>>>> UTMs can use different representations, and thus depending >>>>>>>>>>>>> on which UTM you target, you get different descriptions, >>>>>>>>>>>>> many of which are not actually in the same alphabet as the >>>>>>>>>>>>> machine itself.
But it should be. Your problem is you are describing your >>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing Machine in a language easy for people to read, but >>>>>>>>>>>>> awful for a UTM to process.
<q0 0 REFLECT q1>
the machine steps would (format: [state tape], head >>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicated by ^:
[q0 0]
-a-a-a-a ^
[q1 <q0 0 REFLECT q1>|<q0 0 REFLECT q1>|0]
-a-a-a-a ^
halt
we can quibble about what the format of that dump should >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be in, but that's not actually that interesting to me >>>>>>>>>>>>>
how is that relevant to proving principles with it?
Because it hides the key issue, that there isn't a unique >>>>>>>>>>> description for it to write out. If it gets to arbitarily >>>>>>>>>>> pick one, then your "program" can't process it, as it doesn't >>>>>>>>>>> know what "language" it needs to interprete.
please do actually read turing's paper sometime
You think I haven't?
yes, i think u haven't. i'm pretty sure u've looked at some of >>>>>>>> the words i've quoted, but that's not the same as reading.
the (machine, input) specifies a particular computation or
So, you think that *the* tuple (machine, input) means anything >>>>>>>>> like what happens when you actually RUN the machine on the input? >>>>>>>>
so dump the ASCII in their binary equivalents ...??? i'm not >>>>>>>>>>>> typing that shit out just to feed ur massive fking ego. like >>>>>>>>>>>> seriously why do i need to state that to a fucking 70yo >>>>>>>>>>>> chief engineer???
Most actual work with Turing Machines use very limited >>>>>>>>>>>>> alphabets, while yours looks like it uses near full ASCII. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Which presumes that this it the proper encoding.
Your problem is you presume that your program is going to be >>>>>>>>>>> able to process the output, when you don't define what it >>>>>>>>>>> will look like.
Originally, you talked of putting out the tape at the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start of when the machine ran. Now you just seem to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recopy the tape to avoid overwriting it.
originally i was storing the initial tape so it could be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dumped during REFLECT, but i did away with that by just >>>>>>>>>>>>>> making all tapes start blank, requiring users to use the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine description itself to build the initial tape >>>>>>>>>>>>>> before running a further computation on it.
it's just simpler, and i think TMs should fundamentally >>>>>>>>>>>>>> follow this method too
The problem then is your complete machines can't take an >>>>>>>>>>>>> input, and thus complicate the composition property. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
This means you MUST be looking at submachines when you >>>>>>>>>>>>> discuss properties of computations.
we always were.
the semantic properties of a particular computation has >>>>>>>>>>>> always been defined by the tuple (machine, input)
No, the sematic properties of a particular cokputation has >>>>>>>>>>> always been defined by the full process of running the machine. >>>>>>>>>>>
The "tuple" is a syntax rule. Semantics comes by the complete >>>>>>>>>>> operation of all the syntax.
i love how you agree with me while making it look like u disagree >>>>>>>>>
"sequence of machine configurations", yes, so therefor it
consequentially also specifies the semantics of that particular >>>>>>>> computation. whether u determine that specification thru brute >>>>>>>> force or some more intelligent method is quite irrelevant (tho >>>>>>>> i'm sure you'll disagree but idk)
No "machine" here would seem to be the description/definition of >>>>>>> the machine in some form.
That is a syntactic statement.
The RESULT of running that requires the semantic operation of
running the machine,
i don't need to manually compute:
() -> loop()
to figure out what it does. in fact manually computing it would
never figure out what it does. our ability to program relies on an >>>>>> ability to compute the result of computations without brute force >>>>>> running them. we just haven't done the work to encode that
understanding into a general algo because sheeple like ur are hell >>>>>> bent on shooting urself in the foot with endless gishgallop denial. >>>>>
least ur storing and comparing to all past states in order to detect
the loop
The classic answer was two simulators simulating the same machine,
one stepping two steps at a time, and the other 1 step at a time. If
ever the two simulators are in the same state, check if the tapes are
identical. If so, you have your loop.
ah yeah i do remember that
Which shows how much you get your exercise by leaping to false conclusions,
Yes, you can define syntactic rules to handle the simpler cases,
but they CAN NOT handle a general program.
why because muh paradox??? lol
No, because you can define a fininte set of syntax rules that detect
a finite set of loop constructions.
it's definitely at least an infinite set, just not as infinite as a
turing complete one ...
No, I said for a FINITE set of loop constructions. Of course the
complete set of loop constructions is infinite, but we can make a finite sub-set of them, and detect that with a finite set of syntax rules,
It is the fact that there are an infinite set of loop constructions that means you can't completely detect behavior with syntactic analysis, but
need to run/simulate the machine.
YEs, a PROVABLY CORRECT program can likely be determined what it
does without running it, *IF* you are given the proof. The issue is >>>>> that most programs are not provably correct.
The problem is that proving a given program is provable correct is
generally not computable.
The tuple is just the symbolic expression of the machine and >>>>>>>>> input. That is SYNTACTIC.
RUNNING the machine is what gets us to the semantics.
And, because if your use of a reflect instruction changes >>>>>>>>>>>>> the output based on different detected contexts, those >>>>>>>>>>>>> submachines are no longer actually computations.
the context *is* the input,
Then your sub-machines are not fully controlable, as part of >>>>>>>>>>> their input isn't settable by their caller, but is forced by >>>>>>>>>>> things beyond its ability to control
before you run any machine you can examine the entire machine >>>>>>>>>> including the interplay between context-independent and
context- dependent sub- machines, so idgaf about ur complaints >>>>>>>>>> of "uncontrollable" machines
But that is the problem, you CAN'T do that, as parts of the >>>>>>>>> semantics are only determinable by running the machine.
begging the question, again
No, seems to be you not knowing what you ara saying.
the formal parameters are just part of the total input
So, your definition is about uncontrollable machines.
the point is indeed to be able to assert correctness even when >>>>>>>>>> malicious input is given
And how does not being able to fully give the input to an
algorithm help you here?
computations can lie about context in the total enumeration
causing paradoxes,
Computations are soul-less machines, they can't "lie" as that is >>>>>>> an act of will or judgement.
Since the halting problem doesn't depend on the context we are
asking the decider on, there is no lie about that that can matter. >>>>>>>
REFLECT cannot do so by definition.
And thus make the "input" uncontrolled, or the machine not
perform a computation (depending on your definitons)
it's entirely controlled by the context (which include formal
params), which a programmer can account for when programming.
But that only applies to problems based on the context of the
program that is asking, and NOT about problems that are independent >>>>> of such context.
Questions like does a given program halt, is not dependent on the
context of the machine that is trying to ask the question.
it's done all the time in react, it's not a big deal.
Because react isn't based on "computations".
Of course, since you don;t understand what that means, it means
nothing to you.
it doesn't mean anything beside it doesn't fit into some weird
little box u keep arguing about that idgaf about because no one's
proven that said little box to actually be all of the box ...
No, you are just showing you don't understand what you are talking
about, and just say anything you don't understand doesn't matter.
Thas is just your "stupid" talking
not an argument, just continued definist fallacy.
post actual contradiction or shut the fuck up tbh.
i cannot define away lies in the total enumeration of all
possible input ... i can do so with the mechanisms of machine >>>>>>>> itself, however
But since the question doesn't depend on the context it is asked >>>>>>> in, we can't lie about anything that actually matters.
the ability to compute an accurate response, however, does
Which just means the question isn't computable.
to a reasonable person it would,
Only someone that doesn't know what the word is defined to be in this
context.
more definist fallacy
Of course, Stupid people agree to all sorts of nonsense.
ad hominem
ur concerned about little boxes without actual justified reason. u
never actually put in the work to show contradictions u just
complain about definitions in an endless slop of various definist
fallacies.
Nope, but it seems you don't understand the basics to understand what
I am saying.
definist fallacy
You don't seem to understand that basic definition of a computation. >>>>>
Which of course, just means you idea of an expanded theory is
almost certainly worthless.
It says that you can't actually fully test your machine, as you >>>>>>>>> can't
why even test things when u can prove them instead???
Because it is hard to prove behavior of uncontrollable inputs.
It is also hard to prove something correct, if your API doesn't >>>>>>> even permit asking the question you are supposed to be asking.
And, if the result has one correct answer for the part you can
give, giving two (or more) different answers based on
uncontrollable input makes your machine BY DEFINITION incorrect. >>>>>>>
it's incredibly ironic that ur complaining about not being able >>>>>>>> to test things in discussion i undertake with a goal to replace >>>>>>>> testing with proofs...
But, if I can't GIVE the required input to get the results, you >>>>>>> can't prove I can get the right result.
and the pathetic part is ur total lack of ability to have any >>>>>>>> foresight or vision
even attempt to generate all classes of input, and you are
trying to define that answers about something can depend on >>>>>>>>> context that doesn't actually affect that thing, but is the >>>>>>>>> context of the asker.
i'm still copying the whole tape like before, since that's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed to fully describe the current configuration >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Since the length of the tape isn't bounded (but is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finite) how do you go back to the original start of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operation? Remember, the "machine" has a fixed
definition, and thus fixed size "registers". Not a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem for a standard Turing Machine, as the only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> register is the current state, and we know how many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> states are in the design, so how "big" that register >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needs to be.
unbounded buffer, just like the tape
And thus NOT a valid computation atom. Sorry.
Fundamental in the definition is its boundedness.
making shit up gish gallop
Nope, maybe you should study the initial problem.
Not following the rules make is just invalid.
heck you could intersperse this buffer among the tape >>>>>>>>>>>>>> using alternating cells, but it's mentally easier and more >>>>>>>>>>>>>> theoretically secure to just keep it metaphysically >>>>>>>>>>>>>> separated so it's inaccessible to pathological computations. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
the thing has an unbounded tape, it can also have an
unbounded portion of that tape sectioned off just for >>>>>>>>>>>> machine-level use, and still have unbounded space for >>>>>>>>>>>> whatever computation-level work is done.
Right, but that is the "input" not the algorithm part of the >>>>>>>>>>> machine.
The ALGORITHM needs to be boundedly described.
THe input just needs to be finite, but can be unbounded.
context is necessarily length, as all individual
configurations/ steps of the machine are necessarily finite in >>>>>>>>>> length.
hilbert's hotel is great, no?
But it is the hotel, not the desk that is infinite.
Learn how to follow the rules.
It seems you still have "bugs" in your finite machine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is your processing core.
these kinda details kinda bore with me being obvious to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> me, ya know?
Which is what makes your work just garbage, Good work looks >>>>>>>>>>>>> at the details.
I thought you wanted provably correct programs. It is the >>>>>>>>>>>>> ignoring of the details that causes most of the bugs you >>>>>>>>>>>>> don't want.
none of this gish gallop has anything to do with the
theoretical power of the system
sure it does. A system that doesn't exist can't do anything. >>>>>>>>>>>
because a machine simulated within a base level machine >>>>>>>>>>>>>> runtime needs access to the base level machine tape to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> know where it is in the overall machine execution. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
4) A defined starting state, and starting head position >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This list of tuples can only have a single entry for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Current State, Current Symbol), and if no entry matches >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the current condition, the machine halts.
... wow that was extremely boring exercise of futility >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that will convince a certain massive dick of absolutely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fucking nothing that u already hadn't been convinced of. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
it's funny that richard considers himself too stupid to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> follow the REFLECT operation
You still haven't defined HOW to generate the output, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you have changed your definition, as originally it put >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out the original tape contents.
Why do you need to write out the current tape contents? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
WHy do you need to write out the tuple that does the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Reflect" operation?
because the transition being made is "where" the machine >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is witin the machine description
ultimately: there is a fixed tuple that describes the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> overall machine's initial configuration, and there a fixed >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tuple the described the machine's current configuration, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
and REFLECT needs to dump all the information required to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> build both those tuples so a simulation can be done to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> generate all the steps between the initial tuple and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> current tuple, which then allows for computing everything >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can be known about "where" that REFLECT was done with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> respect to the overall machine execution.
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 EfOA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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 rLiN+A
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... EfOa
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 1/25/26 1:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/25/26 4:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/25/26 10:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 9:10 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 4:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 5:31 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 2:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 3:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 11:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 1:33 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 9:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 11:45 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 4:17 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 3:03 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/23/26 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/20/26 9:30 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/20/26 4:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
The term *IS* defined, and to change it means you lie. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
doubling down on definist fallacy ehh???
I guess you don't understand the difinist fallacy, as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using the ACTUAL definition isn't a fallacy.
nah ur just pushing a definition that u've happened latch >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> onto because it's convenient for u
classic definist fallacy
Nope, you are just stuck in a definist fallacy about what >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a definist fallacy is.
It seems you don't understand the concept that some things >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ARE just defined a given way to be in a given context. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
and u richard are not the god what that is
But "the field" is, and thus you are just saying it is ok to >>>>>>>>>>>> change the meaning of words.
i don't believe u represent what "the field" is either
The go to "the field" and see if they disagree.
"the field" can come here if they like,
but as it stands i'm going to call out any more "nOT mUh
CoMpUTaTiOn" arguments as definist fallacy
In other words, you are just admitting, you don't care what the >>>>>>>> words mean in the field, you will just continue to be a stupid >>>>>>>> and ignorant lair about what you are doing.
i just don't care what YOU, richard, says "CoMpUTaTiOn" means.
you aren't "the field" bro, and i just really dgaf about ur
endless definist fallacy
But apperently you do, as you aren't just going to present your
ideas directly to "the field" on a peer-reviewed journal, so
something is telling you that you have something to fix.
or rather the peer-review is so gatekept i don't even get a review
back for my submission, just rejection without review.
the system is broken such that i will take my stance elsewhere.
everyone else can ignore me at all our peril...
WHich just shows that you aren't in step with what theory actually
is talking about.
That is your problem, you assume the world is wrong, and more than
likely it is you that is wrong.
i'm not one continually asserting a bunch of impossible to find
teapots floating around in machine space
No, you just keep asserting that you compute impossible to compute
results.
while u just keep ignoring how i'm avoiding the pitfalls u use to claim impossibility
And, the possibility of unknowable things hiding in machine space
isn't as crasy at it might seem, as there are an infinite number of
machines for them to hide with.
i just love how godel convinced u to believe russel's teapot certainly exists
If you want to break down a "broken" structure, you need to know
enough about it to SHOW it is broken.
Just assuming it is just shows that it is most likely YOU that is
wrong.
It is more that the system ignores that which tries to break it,
because getting side tracked on false trails is too damaging.
To me it seems more of a peril to accept your misguided ideas.
The fact that you begin by trying to redefine things out of
ignorance doesn't help your case.
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 EfOA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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 rLiN+A
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... EfOa
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 EfOA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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 Efy|rCiEfA2Efy|rCiEfA2Efy|rCiEfA2
#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 rLiN+A
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 4:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/25/26 1:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/25/26 4:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/25/26 10:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 9:10 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 4:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 5:31 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 2:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 3:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 11:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 1:33 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 9:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 11:45 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 4:17 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 3:03 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/23/26 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/20/26 9:30 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/20/26 4:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
The term *IS* defined, and to change it means you lie. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
doubling down on definist fallacy ehh???
I guess you don't understand the difinist fallacy, as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using the ACTUAL definition isn't a fallacy.
nah ur just pushing a definition that u've happened >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latch onto because it's convenient for u
classic definist fallacy
Nope, you are just stuck in a definist fallacy about what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a definist fallacy is.
It seems you don't understand the concept that some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things ARE just defined a given way to be in a given >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context.
and u richard are not the god what that is
But "the field" is, and thus you are just saying it is ok >>>>>>>>>>>>> to change the meaning of words.
i don't believe u represent what "the field" is either >>>>>>>>>>>>
The go to "the field" and see if they disagree.
"the field" can come here if they like,
but as it stands i'm going to call out any more "nOT mUh
CoMpUTaTiOn" arguments as definist fallacy
In other words, you are just admitting, you don't care what the >>>>>>>>> words mean in the field, you will just continue to be a stupid >>>>>>>>> and ignorant lair about what you are doing.
i just don't care what YOU, richard, says "CoMpUTaTiOn" means. >>>>>>>> you aren't "the field" bro, and i just really dgaf about ur
endless definist fallacy
But apperently you do, as you aren't just going to present your >>>>>>> ideas directly to "the field" on a peer-reviewed journal, so
something is telling you that you have something to fix.
or rather the peer-review is so gatekept i don't even get a review >>>>>> back for my submission, just rejection without review.
the system is broken such that i will take my stance elsewhere.
everyone else can ignore me at all our peril...
WHich just shows that you aren't in step with what theory actually
is talking about.
That is your problem, you assume the world is wrong, and more than
likely it is you that is wrong.
i'm not one continually asserting a bunch of impossible to find
teapots floating around in machine space
No, you just keep asserting that you compute impossible to compute
results.
while u just keep ignoring how i'm avoiding the pitfalls u use to
claim impossibility
No, you use an assumption that requires something proved impossible that
you want to claim is possible because it might be.
Sorry, you need to actually SHOW how to do what you want to claim with actual realizable steps.
And that means you need a COMPUTABLE method to generate you enumerations that you iterate through that is complete.
And, the possibility of unknowable things hiding in machine space
isn't as crasy at it might seem, as there are an infinite number of
machines for them to hide with.
i just love how godel convinced u to believe russel's teapot certainly
exists
He didn't. But Russel shows that claims we need to prove it doesn't are invalid.
I have shown you the proof that unknowable things must exist. You claim
they can't, but your only reasoning is based on there being something
new that we don't know about that you can't actually prove.
Which of those is a claim of the existance of a Russel's Teapot?
The thing with a proof, or the things just assumed?
If you want to break down a "broken" structure, you need to know
enough about it to SHOW it is broken.
Just assuming it is just shows that it is most likely YOU that is
wrong.
It is more that the system ignores that which tries to break it,
because getting side tracked on false trails is too damaging.
To me it seems more of a peril to accept your misguided ideas.
The fact that you begin by trying to redefine things out of
ignorance doesn't help your case.
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... EfOa
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 rLiN+A
An actual algorithm being an actual sequence of finite atomic steps, and using bounded loops.
On 1/26/2026 9:48 PM, dart200 wrote:
[...]
u haven't proven my proposed interfaces impossible because u haven't
generated a contradiction with them
You need to code up the programs behind those interfaces, no?
[...]
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 rLiN+A
On 1/27/26 12:48 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/26/26 12:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/25/26 4:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/25/26 1:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/25/26 4:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/25/26 10:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 9:10 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 4:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 5:31 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 2:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 3:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 11:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 1:33 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 9:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 11:45 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 4:17 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 3:03 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/23/26 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/20/26 9:30 PM, dart200 wrote:nah ur just pushing a definition that u've happened >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latch onto because it's convenient for u
On 1/20/26 4:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I guess you don't understand the difinist fallacy, as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using the ACTUAL definition isn't a fallacy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The term *IS* defined, and to change it means you lie. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
doubling down on definist fallacy ehh??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
classic definist fallacy
Nope, you are just stuck in a definist fallacy about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what a definist fallacy is.
It seems you don't understand the concept that some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things ARE just defined a given way to be in a given >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context.
and u richard are not the god what that is
But "the field" is, and thus you are just saying it is ok >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to change the meaning of words.
i don't believe u represent what "the field" is either >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The go to "the field" and see if they disagree.
"the field" can come here if they like,
but as it stands i'm going to call out any more "nOT mUh >>>>>>>>>>>> CoMpUTaTiOn" arguments as definist fallacy
In other words, you are just admitting, you don't care what >>>>>>>>>>> the words mean in the field, you will just continue to be a >>>>>>>>>>> stupid and ignorant lair about what you are doing.
i just don't care what YOU, richard, says "CoMpUTaTiOn" means. >>>>>>>>>> you aren't "the field" bro, and i just really dgaf about ur >>>>>>>>>> endless definist fallacy
But apperently you do, as you aren't just going to present your >>>>>>>>> ideas directly to "the field" on a peer-reviewed journal, so >>>>>>>>> something is telling you that you have something to fix.
or rather the peer-review is so gatekept i don't even get a
review back for my submission, just rejection without review.
the system is broken such that i will take my stance elsewhere. >>>>>>>>
everyone else can ignore me at all our peril...
WHich just shows that you aren't in step with what theory
actually is talking about.
That is your problem, you assume the world is wrong, and more
than likely it is you that is wrong.
i'm not one continually asserting a bunch of impossible to find
teapots floating around in machine space
No, you just keep asserting that you compute impossible to compute
results.
while u just keep ignoring how i'm avoiding the pitfalls u use to
claim impossibility
No, you use an assumption that requires something proved impossible
that you want to claim is possible because it might be.
u haven't proven my proposed interfaces impossible because u haven't
generated a contradiction with them
But you haven't proven them possible either.
I guess you don't understand Russel's teapot.
Sorry, you need to actually SHOW how to do what you want to claim
with actual realizable steps.
And that means you need a COMPUTABLE method to generate you
enumerations that you iterate through that is complete.
i don't need to do that to undercut the proof
Sure you do.
Since your proof assumes a non-existant thing exists, it isn't a proof
or an undercut.
Whatever the specific implementation of the inteface returns, it will be wrong, by the specific implementaiton of the "pathological" program.
That program has a definite result, so there *IS* a correct answer that
the inteface SHOULD have returned, but didn't.
Thus "Pathological" is NOT a correct response, as EVERY machine that we
can make will either Halt or Not Halt. ITS behavior is definite.
Your problem is you confuse the individual definite machines for the templates that generate them. But we aren't asking about the templates,
only individual machines, as templates don't necessarily have a uniform answer. (Some halt, some don't, depending on which error in implementing
the proposed interface was made). All we do is prove by that is that the interface is, in fact, unimplementable for FULL deciding.
Since that IS the Halting Problem, it makes the proof.
When you relax to just partial deciders, it is a well know solvable
problem, where work just continues to improve what classes of inputs can
be decided on, which is a quantitative problem, not a qualitative one.
And, the possibility of unknowable things hiding in machine space
isn't as crasy at it might seem, as there are an infinite number of >>>>> machines for them to hide with.
i just love how godel convinced u to believe russel's teapot
certainly exists
He didn't. But Russel shows that claims we need to prove it doesn't
are invalid.
yes i don't need to prove ur ghosts don't exist. they don't because u
can't even know about them
Sure we know a bit about them, like they exist.
Your problem is you don't understand what you are talking about and
assume you can make unfounded assumptions.
I have shown you the proof that unknowable things must exist. You
claim they can't, but your only reasoning is based on there being
something new that we don't know about that you can't actually prove.
Which of those is a claim of the existance of a Russel's Teapot?
The thing with a proof, or the things just assumed?
If you want to break down a "broken" structure, you need to know >>>>>>> enough about it to SHOW it is broken.
Just assuming it is just shows that it is most likely YOU that is >>>>>>> wrong.
It is more that the system ignores that which tries to break it, >>>>>>> because getting side tracked on false trails is too damaging.
To me it seems more of a peril to accept your misguided ideas.
The fact that you begin by trying to redefine things out of
ignorance doesn't help your case.
On 1/25/26 1:10 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 1/25/2026 1:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/25/26 1:04 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 1/24/2026 2:20 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 1:42 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 1/24/2026 9:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 11:45 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 4:17 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 3:03 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/23/26 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/20/26 9:30 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/20/26 4:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
The term *IS* defined, and to change it means you lie. >>>>>>>>>>>>
doubling down on definist fallacy ehh???
I guess you don't understand the difinist fallacy, as using >>>>>>>>>>> the ACTUAL definition isn't a fallacy.
nah ur just pushing a definition that u've happened latch onto >>>>>>>>>> because it's convenient for u
classic definist fallacy
Nope, you are just stuck in a definist fallacy about what a >>>>>>>>> definist fallacy is.
It seems you don't understand the concept that some things ARE >>>>>>>>> just defined a given way to be in a given context.
and u richard are not the god what that is
But "the field" is, and thus you are just saying it is ok to
change the meaning of words.
Arguing with them is pointless. Almost akin to this moron:
https://youtu.be/hymaQWjBOqM
yeah fuck u too bro!
Spoken like a true genius.
trolls deserve nothing more than insults
Are you a troll?
no
On 1/25/2026 1:11 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/25/26 1:10 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 1/25/2026 1:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/25/26 1:04 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 1/24/2026 2:20 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 1:42 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 1/24/2026 9:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 11:45 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 4:17 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 3:03 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/23/26 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/20/26 9:30 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/20/26 4:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
The term *IS* defined, and to change it means you lie. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
doubling down on definist fallacy ehh???
I guess you don't understand the difinist fallacy, as using >>>>>>>>>>>> the ACTUAL definition isn't a fallacy.
nah ur just pushing a definition that u've happened latch >>>>>>>>>>> onto because it's convenient for u
classic definist fallacy
Nope, you are just stuck in a definist fallacy about what a >>>>>>>>>> definist fallacy is.
It seems you don't understand the concept that some things ARE >>>>>>>>>> just defined a given way to be in a given context.
and u richard are not the god what that is
But "the field" is, and thus you are just saying it is ok to
change the meaning of words.
Arguing with them is pointless. Almost akin to this moron:
https://youtu.be/hymaQWjBOqM
yeah fuck u too bro!
Spoken like a true genius.
trolls deserve nothing more than insults
Are you a troll?
no
Well, show us how to implement the logic behind your interfaces...
On 1/28/26 12:43 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 1/25/2026 1:11 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/25/26 1:10 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 1/25/2026 1:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/25/26 1:04 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 1/24/2026 2:20 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 1:42 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 1/24/2026 9:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 11:45 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 4:17 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 3:03 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/23/26 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/20/26 9:30 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/20/26 4:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
The term *IS* defined, and to change it means you lie. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
doubling down on definist fallacy ehh???
I guess you don't understand the difinist fallacy, as using >>>>>>>>>>>>> the ACTUAL definition isn't a fallacy.
nah ur just pushing a definition that u've happened latch >>>>>>>>>>>> onto because it's convenient for u
classic definist fallacy
Nope, you are just stuck in a definist fallacy about what a >>>>>>>>>>> definist fallacy is.
It seems you don't understand the concept that some things >>>>>>>>>>> ARE just defined a given way to be in a given context.
and u richard are not the god what that is
But "the field" is, and thus you are just saying it is ok to >>>>>>>>> change the meaning of words.
Arguing with them is pointless. Almost akin to this moron:
https://youtu.be/hymaQWjBOqM
yeah fuck u too bro!
Spoken like a true genius.
trolls deserve nothing more than insults
Are you a troll?
no
Well, show us how to implement the logic behind your interfaces...
not until i'm granted the funding to take on a project like that
like i've told u *specifically* many times before:
proving an algo *could* exist is orders of magnitude less complicated
than actually constructing said algo.
ur just committing the perfectionist fallacy because u've been spoon fed
too much tv reality where some protagonist is always able to solve arbitrarily complex problems. real progress ain't like that bro
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 rLiN+A
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 rLiN+A
On 1/28/2026 1:16 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/28/26 12:43 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 1/25/2026 1:11 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/25/26 1:10 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 1/25/2026 1:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/25/26 1:04 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 1/24/2026 2:20 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 1:42 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 1/24/2026 9:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 11:45 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 4:17 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 3:03 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/23/26 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/20/26 9:30 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/20/26 4:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
The term *IS* defined, and to change it means you lie. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
doubling down on definist fallacy ehh???
I guess you don't understand the difinist fallacy, as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> using the ACTUAL definition isn't a fallacy.
nah ur just pushing a definition that u've happened latch >>>>>>>>>>>>> onto because it's convenient for u
classic definist fallacy
Nope, you are just stuck in a definist fallacy about what a >>>>>>>>>>>> definist fallacy is.
It seems you don't understand the concept that some things >>>>>>>>>>>> ARE just defined a given way to be in a given context. >>>>>>>>>>>>
and u richard are not the god what that is
But "the field" is, and thus you are just saying it is ok to >>>>>>>>>> change the meaning of words.
Arguing with them is pointless. Almost akin to this moron:
https://youtu.be/hymaQWjBOqM
yeah fuck u too bro!
Spoken like a true genius.
trolls deserve nothing more than insults
Are you a troll?
no
Well, show us how to implement the logic behind your interfaces...
not until i'm granted the funding to take on a project like that
Apply for a grant?
like i've told u *specifically* many times before:
proving an algo *could* exist is orders of magnitude less complicated
than actually constructing said algo.
ur just committing the perfectionist fallacy because u've been spoon
fed too much tv reality where some protagonist is always able to solve
arbitrarily complex problems. real progress ain't like that bro
On 1/28/26 4:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/27/26 12:48 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/26/26 12:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/25/26 4:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/25/26 1:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/25/26 4:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/25/26 10:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 9:10 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 4:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 5:31 PM, dart200 wrote:or rather the peer-review is so gatekept i don't even get a >>>>>>>>> review back for my submission, just rejection without review. >>>>>>>>>
On 1/24/26 2:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 3:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 11:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 1:33 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 9:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 11:45 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 4:17 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 3:03 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/23/26 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/20/26 9:30 PM, dart200 wrote:
nah ur just pushing a definition that u've happened >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latch onto because it's convenient for u >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 1/20/26 4:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I guess you don't understand the difinist fallacy, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as using the ACTUAL definition isn't a fallacy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The term *IS* defined, and to change it means you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie.
doubling down on definist fallacy ehh??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
classic definist fallacy
Nope, you are just stuck in a definist fallacy about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what a definist fallacy is.
It seems you don't understand the concept that some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things ARE just defined a given way to be in a given >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context.
and u richard are not the god what that is
But "the field" is, and thus you are just saying it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ok to change the meaning of words.
i don't believe u represent what "the field" is either >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The go to "the field" and see if they disagree.
"the field" can come here if they like,
but as it stands i'm going to call out any more "nOT mUh >>>>>>>>>>>>> CoMpUTaTiOn" arguments as definist fallacy
In other words, you are just admitting, you don't care what >>>>>>>>>>>> the words mean in the field, you will just continue to be a >>>>>>>>>>>> stupid and ignorant lair about what you are doing.
i just don't care what YOU, richard, says "CoMpUTaTiOn" >>>>>>>>>>> means. you aren't "the field" bro, and i just really dgaf >>>>>>>>>>> about ur endless definist fallacy
But apperently you do, as you aren't just going to present >>>>>>>>>> your ideas directly to "the field" on a peer-reviewed journal, >>>>>>>>>> so something is telling you that you have something to fix. >>>>>>>>>
the system is broken such that i will take my stance elsewhere. >>>>>>>>>
everyone else can ignore me at all our peril...
WHich just shows that you aren't in step with what theory
actually is talking about.
That is your problem, you assume the world is wrong, and more >>>>>>>> than likely it is you that is wrong.
i'm not one continually asserting a bunch of impossible to find >>>>>>> teapots floating around in machine space
No, you just keep asserting that you compute impossible to compute >>>>>> results.
while u just keep ignoring how i'm avoiding the pitfalls u use to
claim impossibility
No, you use an assumption that requires something proved impossible
that you want to claim is possible because it might be.
u haven't proven my proposed interfaces impossible because u haven't
generated a contradiction with them
But you haven't proven them possible either.
I guess you don't understand Russel's teapot.
Sorry, you need to actually SHOW how to do what you want to claim
with actual realizable steps.
And that means you need a COMPUTABLE method to generate you
enumerations that you iterate through that is complete.
i don't need to do that to undercut the proof
Sure you do.
Since your proof assumes a non-existant thing exists, it isn't a proof
or an undercut.
i'm showing it *can* exist with the possibility of self-referential set- classification paradoxes...
and u've lost ur proof it can't exist due to self-referential set- classification paradoxes, which is a major pillar of undecidability arguments.
i don't need to show that is *does* exist, i just need to show it *can* exist to make progress here
Whatever the specific implementation of the inteface returns, it will
be wrong, by the specific implementaiton of the "pathological" program.
That program has a definite result, so there *IS* a correct answer
that the inteface SHOULD have returned, but didn't.
i have two proposals now which are you trying to critique? cause one of
them doesn't involve any incorrect answers.
Thus "Pathological" is NOT a correct response, as EVERY machine that
we can make will either Halt or Not Halt. ITS behavior is definite.
Your problem is you confuse the individual definite machines for the
templates that generate them. But we aren't asking about the
templates, only individual machines, as templates don't necessarily
have a uniform answer. (Some halt, some don't, depending on which
error in implementing the proposed interface was made). All we do is
prove by that is that the interface is, in fact, unimplementable for
FULL deciding.
Since that IS the Halting Problem, it makes the proof.
When you relax to just partial deciders, it is a well know solvable
problem, where work just continues to improve what classes of inputs
can be decided on, which is a quantitative problem, not a qualitative
one.
And, the possibility of unknowable things hiding in machine space >>>>>> isn't as crasy at it might seem, as there are an infinite number
of machines for them to hide with.
i just love how godel convinced u to believe russel's teapot
certainly exists
He didn't. But Russel shows that claims we need to prove it doesn't
are invalid.
yes i don't need to prove ur ghosts don't exist. they don't because u
can't even know about them
Sure we know a bit about them, like they exist.
bare assertion
Your problem is you don't understand what you are talking about and
assume you can make unfounded assumptions.
gaslighting
I have shown you the proof that unknowable things must exist. You
claim they can't, but your only reasoning is based on there being
something new that we don't know about that you can't actually prove.
Which of those is a claim of the existance of a Russel's Teapot?
The thing with a proof, or the things just assumed?
If you want to break down a "broken" structure, you need to know >>>>>>>> enough about it to SHOW it is broken.
Just assuming it is just shows that it is most likely YOU that >>>>>>>> is wrong.
It is more that the system ignores that which tries to break it, >>>>>>>> because getting side tracked on false trails is too damaging.
To me it seems more of a peril to accept your misguided ideas. >>>>>>>>
The fact that you begin by trying to redefine things out of
ignorance doesn't help your case.
On 1/28/26 12:43 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 1/25/2026 1:11 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/25/26 1:10 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 1/25/2026 1:09 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/25/26 1:04 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 1/24/2026 2:20 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 1:42 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 1/24/2026 9:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 11:45 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 4:17 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 3:03 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/23/26 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/20/26 9:30 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/20/26 4:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
The term *IS* defined, and to change it means you lie. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
doubling down on definist fallacy ehh???
I guess you don't understand the difinist fallacy, as using >>>>>>>>>>>>> the ACTUAL definition isn't a fallacy.
nah ur just pushing a definition that u've happened latch >>>>>>>>>>>> onto because it's convenient for u
classic definist fallacy
Nope, you are just stuck in a definist fallacy about what a >>>>>>>>>>> definist fallacy is.
It seems you don't understand the concept that some things >>>>>>>>>>> ARE just defined a given way to be in a given context.
and u richard are not the god what that is
But "the field" is, and thus you are just saying it is ok to >>>>>>>>> change the meaning of words.
Arguing with them is pointless. Almost akin to this moron:
https://youtu.be/hymaQWjBOqM
yeah fuck u too bro!
Spoken like a true genius.
trolls deserve nothing more than insults
Are you a troll?
no
Well, show us how to implement the logic behind your interfaces...
not until i'm granted the funding to take on a project like that
like i've told u *specifically* many times before:
proving an algo *could* exist is orders of magnitude less complicated
than actually constructing said algo.
ur just committing the perfectionist fallacy because u've been spoon fed
too much tv reality where some protagonist is always able to solve arbitrarily complex problems. real progress ain't like that bro
On 1/28/26 1:33 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/28/26 4:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/27/26 12:48 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/26/26 12:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/25/26 4:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/25/26 1:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/25/26 4:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/25/26 10:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 9:10 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 4:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 5:31 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 2:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 3:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 11:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 1:33 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 9:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 11:45 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 4:17 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 3:03 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/23/26 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/20/26 9:30 PM, dart200 wrote:
nah ur just pushing a definition that u've happened >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latch onto because it's convenient for u >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 1/20/26 4:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I guess you don't understand the difinist fallacy, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as using the ACTUAL definition isn't a fallacy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The term *IS* defined, and to change it means you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lie.
doubling down on definist fallacy ehh??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
classic definist fallacy
Nope, you are just stuck in a definist fallacy about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what a definist fallacy is.
It seems you don't understand the concept that some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things ARE just defined a given way to be in a given >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context.
and u richard are not the god what that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But "the field" is, and thus you are just saying it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ok to change the meaning of words.
i don't believe u represent what "the field" is either >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The go to "the field" and see if they disagree.
"the field" can come here if they like,
but as it stands i'm going to call out any more "nOT mUh >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CoMpUTaTiOn" arguments as definist fallacy
In other words, you are just admitting, you don't care what >>>>>>>>>>>>> the words mean in the field, you will just continue to be a >>>>>>>>>>>>> stupid and ignorant lair about what you are doing.
i just don't care what YOU, richard, says "CoMpUTaTiOn" >>>>>>>>>>>> means. you aren't "the field" bro, and i just really dgaf >>>>>>>>>>>> about ur endless definist fallacy
But apperently you do, as you aren't just going to present >>>>>>>>>>> your ideas directly to "the field" on a peer-reviewed
journal, so something is telling you that you have something >>>>>>>>>>> to fix.
or rather the peer-review is so gatekept i don't even get a >>>>>>>>>> review back for my submission, just rejection without review. >>>>>>>>>>
the system is broken such that i will take my stance elsewhere. >>>>>>>>>>
everyone else can ignore me at all our peril...
WHich just shows that you aren't in step with what theory
actually is talking about.
That is your problem, you assume the world is wrong, and more >>>>>>>>> than likely it is you that is wrong.
i'm not one continually asserting a bunch of impossible to find >>>>>>>> teapots floating around in machine space
No, you just keep asserting that you compute impossible to
compute results.
while u just keep ignoring how i'm avoiding the pitfalls u use to >>>>>> claim impossibility
No, you use an assumption that requires something proved impossible >>>>> that you want to claim is possible because it might be.
u haven't proven my proposed interfaces impossible because u haven't
generated a contradiction with them
But you haven't proven them possible either.
I guess you don't understand Russel's teapot.
Sorry, you need to actually SHOW how to do what you want to claim
with actual realizable steps.
And that means you need a COMPUTABLE method to generate you
enumerations that you iterate through that is complete.
i don't need to do that to undercut the proof
Sure you do.
Since your proof assumes a non-existant thing exists, it isn't a
proof or an undercut.
i'm showing it *can* exist with the possibility of self-referential
set- classification paradoxes...
No, you are trying to show that "if you assume you can do the
impossible" then you can do the impossible.
To show you CAN do something, you need to demonstrate how to do it,.
and u've lost ur proof it can't exist due to self-referential set-
classification paradoxes, which is a major pillar of undecidability
arguments.
No, because your "Proof", doesn't proof anything as it is based on an unsound assumption.
All you have done is proven you can make circular arguments.
i don't need to show that is *does* exist, i just need to show it
*can* exist to make progress here
Nope. Fallacy of assuming the conclusion. A REAL logical fallacy.
Whatever the specific implementation of the inteface returns, it will
be wrong, by the specific implementaiton of the "pathological" program.
That program has a definite result, so there *IS* a correct answer
that the inteface SHOULD have returned, but didn't.
i have two proposals now which are you trying to critique? cause one
of them doesn't involve any incorrect answers.
Both of which are based on assuming the ability to compute the non- computable.
Thus "Pathological" is NOT a correct response, as EVERY machine that
we can make will either Halt or Not Halt. ITS behavior is definite.
Your problem is you confuse the individual definite machines for the
templates that generate them. But we aren't asking about the
templates, only individual machines, as templates don't necessarily
have a uniform answer. (Some halt, some don't, depending on which
error in implementing the proposed interface was made). All we do is
prove by that is that the interface is, in fact, unimplementable for
FULL deciding.
Since that IS the Halting Problem, it makes the proof.
When you relax to just partial deciders, it is a well know solvable
problem, where work just continues to improve what classes of inputs
can be decided on, which is a quantitative problem, not a qualitative
one.
And, the possibility of unknowable things hiding in machine space >>>>>>> isn't as crasy at it might seem, as there are an infinite number >>>>>>> of machines for them to hide with.
i just love how godel convinced u to believe russel's teapot
certainly exists
He didn't. But Russel shows that claims we need to prove it doesn't >>>>> are invalid.
yes i don't need to prove ur ghosts don't exist. they don't because
u can't even know about them
Sure we know a bit about them, like they exist.
bare assertion
Your problem is you don't understand what you are talking about and
assume you can make unfounded assumptions.
gaslighting
I have shown you the proof that unknowable things must exist. You
claim they can't, but your only reasoning is based on there being
something new that we don't know about that you can't actually prove. >>>>>
Which of those is a claim of the existance of a Russel's Teapot?
The thing with a proof, or the things just assumed?
If you want to break down a "broken" structure, you need to >>>>>>>>> know enough about it to SHOW it is broken.
Just assuming it is just shows that it is most likely YOU that >>>>>>>>> is wrong.
It is more that the system ignores that which tries to break >>>>>>>>> it, because getting side tracked on false trails is too damaging. >>>>>>>>>
To me it seems more of a peril to accept your misguided ideas. >>>>>>>>>
The fact that you begin by trying to redefine things out of >>>>>>>>> ignorance doesn't help your case.
On 2/1/26 4:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/26 1:33 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/28/26 4:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/27/26 12:48 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/26/26 12:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/25/26 4:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/25/26 1:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/25/26 4:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/25/26 10:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 9:10 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 4:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 5:31 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 2:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 3:56 PM, dart200 wrote:i just don't care what YOU, richard, says "CoMpUTaTiOn" >>>>>>>>>>>>> means. you aren't "the field" bro, and i just really dgaf >>>>>>>>>>>>> about ur endless definist fallacy
On 1/24/26 11:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 1:33 PM, dart200 wrote:"the field" can come here if they like,
On 1/24/26 9:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 11:45 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 4:17 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/24/26 3:03 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/23/26 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/20/26 9:30 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/20/26 4:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
nah ur just pushing a definition that u've happened >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latch onto because it's convenient for u >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I guess you don't understand the difinist fallacy, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as using the ACTUAL definition isn't a fallacy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The term *IS* defined, and to change it means >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you lie.
doubling down on definist fallacy ehh??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
classic definist fallacy
Nope, you are just stuck in a definist fallacy about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what a definist fallacy is.
It seems you don't understand the concept that some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things ARE just defined a given way to be in a given >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context.
and u richard are not the god what that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But "the field" is, and thus you are just saying it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ok to change the meaning of words.
i don't believe u represent what "the field" is either >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The go to "the field" and see if they disagree. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but as it stands i'm going to call out any more "nOT mUh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CoMpUTaTiOn" arguments as definist fallacy
In other words, you are just admitting, you don't care >>>>>>>>>>>>>> what the words mean in the field, you will just continue >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be a stupid and ignorant lair about what you are doing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
But apperently you do, as you aren't just going to present >>>>>>>>>>>> your ideas directly to "the field" on a peer-reviewed >>>>>>>>>>>> journal, so something is telling you that you have something >>>>>>>>>>>> to fix.
or rather the peer-review is so gatekept i don't even get a >>>>>>>>>>> review back for my submission, just rejection without review. >>>>>>>>>>>
the system is broken such that i will take my stance elsewhere. >>>>>>>>>>>
everyone else can ignore me at all our peril...
WHich just shows that you aren't in step with what theory >>>>>>>>>> actually is talking about.
That is your problem, you assume the world is wrong, and more >>>>>>>>>> than likely it is you that is wrong.
i'm not one continually asserting a bunch of impossible to find >>>>>>>>> teapots floating around in machine space
No, you just keep asserting that you compute impossible to
compute results.
while u just keep ignoring how i'm avoiding the pitfalls u use to >>>>>>> claim impossibility
No, you use an assumption that requires something proved
impossible that you want to claim is possible because it might be.
u haven't proven my proposed interfaces impossible because u
haven't generated a contradiction with them
But you haven't proven them possible either.
I guess you don't understand Russel's teapot.
Sorry, you need to actually SHOW how to do what you want to claim >>>>>> with actual realizable steps.
And that means you need a COMPUTABLE method to generate you
enumerations that you iterate through that is complete.
i don't need to do that to undercut the proof
Sure you do.
Since your proof assumes a non-existant thing exists, it isn't a
proof or an undercut.
i'm showing it *can* exist with the possibility of self-referential
set- classification paradoxes...
No, you are trying to show that "if you assume you can do the
impossible" then you can do the impossible.
normally these proofs go (after we stop begging the question):
"assume you can do x, x produces contradiction, and therefore x is impossible"
what i'm trying to show:
"assume you can do x, x ... doesn't produce a contradiction??? therefor
x *might* be possible"
To show you CAN do something, you need to demonstrate how to do it,.
no, i'm trying to move the needle from CANNOT do something to MIGHT do something, as that open up the motivation for further research to reach
CAN do something
disentangling the logical interface is a one man job. actually
implementing is much greater than a one man job. and i sill stand by that.
and u've lost ur proof it can't exist due to self-referential set-
classification paradoxes, which is a major pillar of undecidability
arguments.
No, because your "Proof", doesn't proof anything as it is based on an
unsound assumption.
All you have done is proven you can make circular arguments.
which is an improvement over the contradictions that previously were demonstrated
being twice my age, u may be too old to ever understand the significance
of such, but ur inability will not deter me
i don't need to show that is *does* exist, i just need to show it
*can* exist to make progress here
Nope. Fallacy of assuming the conclusion. A REAL logical fallacy.
Whatever the specific implementation of the inteface returns, it
will be wrong, by the specific implementaiton of the "pathological"
program.
That program has a definite result, so there *IS* a correct answer
that the inteface SHOULD have returned, but didn't.
i have two proposals now which are you trying to critique? cause one
of them doesn't involve any incorrect answers.
Both of which are based on assuming the ability to compute the non-
computable.
Thus "Pathological" is NOT a correct response, as EVERY machine that
we can make will either Halt or Not Halt. ITS behavior is definite.
Your problem is you confuse the individual definite machines for the
templates that generate them. But we aren't asking about the
templates, only individual machines, as templates don't necessarily
have a uniform answer. (Some halt, some don't, depending on which
error in implementing the proposed interface was made). All we do is
prove by that is that the interface is, in fact, unimplementable for
FULL deciding.
Since that IS the Halting Problem, it makes the proof.
When you relax to just partial deciders, it is a well know solvable
problem, where work just continues to improve what classes of inputs
can be decided on, which is a quantitative problem, not a
qualitative one.
And, the possibility of unknowable things hiding in machine
space isn't as crasy at it might seem, as there are an infinite >>>>>>>> number of machines for them to hide with.
i just love how godel convinced u to believe russel's teapot
certainly exists
He didn't. But Russel shows that claims we need to prove it
doesn't are invalid.
yes i don't need to prove ur ghosts don't exist. they don't because >>>>> u can't even know about them
Sure we know a bit about them, like they exist.
bare assertion
Your problem is you don't understand what you are talking about and
assume you can make unfounded assumptions.
gaslighting
I have shown you the proof that unknowable things must exist. You >>>>>> claim they can't, but your only reasoning is based on there being >>>>>> something new that we don't know about that you can't actually prove. >>>>>>
Which of those is a claim of the existance of a Russel's Teapot?
The thing with a proof, or the things just assumed?
If you want to break down a "broken" structure, you need to >>>>>>>>>> know enough about it to SHOW it is broken.
Just assuming it is just shows that it is most likely YOU that >>>>>>>>>> is wrong.
It is more that the system ignores that which tries to break >>>>>>>>>> it, because getting side tracked on false trails is too damaging. >>>>>>>>>>
To me it seems more of a peril to accept your misguided ideas. >>>>>>>>>>
The fact that you begin by trying to redefine things out of >>>>>>>>>> ignorance doesn't help your case.
On 2/2/26 1:11 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/1/26 4:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/26 1:33 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/28/26 4:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/27/26 12:48 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/26/26 12:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/25/26 4:28 PM, dart200 wrote:u haven't proven my proposed interfaces impossible because u
On 1/25/26 1:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/25/26 4:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/25/26 10:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 9:10 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 4:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 5:31 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 2:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 3:56 PM, dart200 wrote:i just don't care what YOU, richard, says "CoMpUTaTiOn" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> means. you aren't "the field" bro, and i just really dgaf >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about ur endless definist fallacy
On 1/24/26 11:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 1:33 PM, dart200 wrote:"the field" can come here if they like,
On 1/24/26 9:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 11:45 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 4:17 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/24/26 3:03 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/23/26 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/20/26 9:30 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/20/26 4:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I guess you don't understand the difinist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallacy, as using the ACTUAL definition isn't a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallacy.The term *IS* defined, and to change it means >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you lie.
doubling down on definist fallacy ehh??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
nah ur just pushing a definition that u've >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened latch onto because it's convenient for u >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
classic definist fallacy
Nope, you are just stuck in a definist fallacy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about what a definist fallacy is.
It seems you don't understand the concept that some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things ARE just defined a given way to be in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given context.
and u richard are not the god what that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But "the field" is, and thus you are just saying it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is ok to change the meaning of words.
i don't believe u represent what "the field" is either >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The go to "the field" and see if they disagree. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but as it stands i'm going to call out any more "nOT mUh >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CoMpUTaTiOn" arguments as definist fallacy
In other words, you are just admitting, you don't care >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what the words mean in the field, you will just continue >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be a stupid and ignorant lair about what you are doing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But apperently you do, as you aren't just going to present >>>>>>>>>>>>> your ideas directly to "the field" on a peer-reviewed >>>>>>>>>>>>> journal, so something is telling you that you have
something to fix.
or rather the peer-review is so gatekept i don't even get a >>>>>>>>>>>> review back for my submission, just rejection without review. >>>>>>>>>>>>
the system is broken such that i will take my stance elsewhere. >>>>>>>>>>>>
everyone else can ignore me at all our peril...
WHich just shows that you aren't in step with what theory >>>>>>>>>>> actually is talking about.
That is your problem, you assume the world is wrong, and more >>>>>>>>>>> than likely it is you that is wrong.
i'm not one continually asserting a bunch of impossible to >>>>>>>>>> find teapots floating around in machine space
No, you just keep asserting that you compute impossible to
compute results.
while u just keep ignoring how i'm avoiding the pitfalls u use >>>>>>>> to claim impossibility
No, you use an assumption that requires something proved
impossible that you want to claim is possible because it might be. >>>>>>
haven't generated a contradiction with them
But you haven't proven them possible either.
I guess you don't understand Russel's teapot.
Sorry, you need to actually SHOW how to do what you want to claim >>>>>>> with actual realizable steps.
And that means you need a COMPUTABLE method to generate you
enumerations that you iterate through that is complete.
i don't need to do that to undercut the proof
Sure you do.
Since your proof assumes a non-existant thing exists, it isn't a
proof or an undercut.
i'm showing it *can* exist with the possibility of self-referential
set- classification paradoxes...
No, you are trying to show that "if you assume you can do the
impossible" then you can do the impossible.
normally these proofs go (after we stop begging the question):
"assume you can do x, x produces contradiction, and therefore x is
impossible"
what i'm trying to show:
"assume you can do x, x ... doesn't produce a contradiction???
therefor x *might* be possible"
But that isn't sound logic, as x *might* have been possible without the
assumption, and if you actually can't do x, all you have done is showed
you use unsound logic.
You need to understand how logic actually works, your argument is
actually one of the real classical fallicy.
To show you CAN do something, you need to demonstrate how to do it,.
no, i'm trying to move the needle from CANNOT do something to MIGHT do
something, as that open up the motivation for further research to
reach CAN do something
Which assuming something that you can't show doesn't do.
disentangling the logical interface is a one man job. actually
implementing is much greater than a one man job. and i sill stand by
that.
All you are doing is disintergrating your repuation for doing logic.
and u've lost ur proof it can't exist due to self-referential set-
classification paradoxes, which is a major pillar of undecidability
arguments.
No, because your "Proof", doesn't proof anything as it is based on an
unsound assumption.
All you have done is proven you can make circular arguments.
which is an improvement over the contradictions that previously were
demonstrated
Only for someone who can't do logic.
being twice my age, u may be too old to ever understand the
significance of such, but ur inability will not deter me
All you are doing is proving you aren't as smart as you think you are,
as you don't understand the basics of logic.
Anyone who reads this arguement will know better that even think of supporting your work.
i don't need to show that is *does* exist, i just need to show it
*can* exist to make progress here
Nope. Fallacy of assuming the conclusion. A REAL logical fallacy.
Whatever the specific implementation of the inteface returns, it
will be wrong, by the specific implementaiton of the "pathological" >>>>> program.
That program has a definite result, so there *IS* a correct answer
that the inteface SHOULD have returned, but didn't.
i have two proposals now which are you trying to critique? cause one
of them doesn't involve any incorrect answers.
Both of which are based on assuming the ability to compute the non-
computable.
Thus "Pathological" is NOT a correct response, as EVERY machine
that we can make will either Halt or Not Halt. ITS behavior is
definite.
Your problem is you confuse the individual definite machines for
the templates that generate them. But we aren't asking about the
templates, only individual machines, as templates don't necessarily >>>>> have a uniform answer. (Some halt, some don't, depending on which
error in implementing the proposed interface was made). All we do
is prove by that is that the interface is, in fact, unimplementable >>>>> for FULL deciding.
Since that IS the Halting Problem, it makes the proof.
When you relax to just partial deciders, it is a well know solvable >>>>> problem, where work just continues to improve what classes of
inputs can be decided on, which is a quantitative problem, not a
qualitative one.
And, the possibility of unknowable things hiding in machine >>>>>>>>> space isn't as crasy at it might seem, as there are an infinite >>>>>>>>> number of machines for them to hide with.
i just love how godel convinced u to believe russel's teapot
certainly exists
He didn't. But Russel shows that claims we need to prove it
doesn't are invalid.
yes i don't need to prove ur ghosts don't exist. they don't
because u can't even know about them
Sure we know a bit about them, like they exist.
bare assertion
Your problem is you don't understand what you are talking about and >>>>> assume you can make unfounded assumptions.
gaslighting
I have shown you the proof that unknowable things must exist. You >>>>>>> claim they can't, but your only reasoning is based on there being >>>>>>> something new that we don't know about that you can't actually
prove.
Which of those is a claim of the existance of a Russel's Teapot? >>>>>>>
The thing with a proof, or the things just assumed?
If you want to break down a "broken" structure, you need to >>>>>>>>>>> know enough about it to SHOW it is broken.
Just assuming it is just shows that it is most likely YOU >>>>>>>>>>> that is wrong.
It is more that the system ignores that which tries to break >>>>>>>>>>> it, because getting side tracked on false trails is too >>>>>>>>>>> damaging.
To me it seems more of a peril to accept your misguided ideas. >>>>>>>>>>>
The fact that you begin by trying to redefine things out of >>>>>>>>>>> ignorance doesn't help your case.
On 2/2/26 3:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/2/26 1:11 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/1/26 4:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/26 1:33 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/28/26 4:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/27/26 12:48 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/26/26 12:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/25/26 4:28 PM, dart200 wrote:u haven't proven my proposed interfaces impossible because u
On 1/25/26 1:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/25/26 4:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/25/26 10:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 9:10 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 4:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 5:31 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 2:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 3:56 PM, dart200 wrote:i just don't care what YOU, richard, says "CoMpUTaTiOn" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means. you aren't "the field" bro, and i just really dgaf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about ur endless definist fallacy
On 1/24/26 11:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 1:33 PM, dart200 wrote:"the field" can come here if they like,
On 1/24/26 9:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/24/26 11:45 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 4:17 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/24/26 3:03 AM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/23/26 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/20/26 9:30 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/20/26 4:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I guess you don't understand the difinist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallacy, as using the ACTUAL definition isn't a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallacy.The term *IS* defined, and to change it means >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you lie.
doubling down on definist fallacy ehh??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
nah ur just pushing a definition that u've >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened latch onto because it's convenient for u >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
classic definist fallacy
Nope, you are just stuck in a definist fallacy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about what a definist fallacy is.
It seems you don't understand the concept that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some things ARE just defined a given way to be in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a given context.
and u richard are not the god what that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But "the field" is, and thus you are just saying it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is ok to change the meaning of words.
i don't believe u represent what "the field" is either >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The go to "the field" and see if they disagree. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but as it stands i'm going to call out any more "nOT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mUh CoMpUTaTiOn" arguments as definist fallacy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In other words, you are just admitting, you don't care >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what the words mean in the field, you will just continue >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be a stupid and ignorant lair about what you are doing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But apperently you do, as you aren't just going to present >>>>>>>>>>>>>> your ideas directly to "the field" on a peer-reviewed >>>>>>>>>>>>>> journal, so something is telling you that you have >>>>>>>>>>>>>> something to fix.
or rather the peer-review is so gatekept i don't even get a >>>>>>>>>>>>> review back for my submission, just rejection without review. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
the system is broken such that i will take my stance >>>>>>>>>>>>> elsewhere.
everyone else can ignore me at all our peril...
WHich just shows that you aren't in step with what theory >>>>>>>>>>>> actually is talking about.
That is your problem, you assume the world is wrong, and >>>>>>>>>>>> more than likely it is you that is wrong.
i'm not one continually asserting a bunch of impossible to >>>>>>>>>>> find teapots floating around in machine space
No, you just keep asserting that you compute impossible to >>>>>>>>>> compute results.
while u just keep ignoring how i'm avoiding the pitfalls u use >>>>>>>>> to claim impossibility
No, you use an assumption that requires something proved
impossible that you want to claim is possible because it might be. >>>>>>>
haven't generated a contradiction with them
But you haven't proven them possible either.
I guess you don't understand Russel's teapot.
Sorry, you need to actually SHOW how to do what you want to
claim with actual realizable steps.
And that means you need a COMPUTABLE method to generate you
enumerations that you iterate through that is complete.
i don't need to do that to undercut the proof
Sure you do.
Since your proof assumes a non-existant thing exists, it isn't a
proof or an undercut.
i'm showing it *can* exist with the possibility of self-referential >>>>> set- classification paradoxes...
No, you are trying to show that "if you assume you can do the
impossible" then you can do the impossible.
normally these proofs go (after we stop begging the question):
"assume you can do x, x produces contradiction, and therefore x is
impossible"
what i'm trying to show:
"assume you can do x, x ... doesn't produce a contradiction???
therefor x *might* be possible"
But that isn't sound logic, as x *might* have been possible without the
see x was previously thought to be impossible due to a specific proof,
but that proof evaporates when we frame the problem correctly, and so u
have lost ur proof that x is impossible. that's really what i'm trying
to get at here Efn+Efn+Efn+
u can't cope with that so u'll just continue to deny. none of the rest
of this gish gallop is worthy my of time responding to. it contains
nothing that inspires me further because ur just repeating urself ad nauseam, mostly via insults Efn<Efn<Efn<
assumption, and if you actually can't do x, all you have done is
showed you use unsound logic.
You need to understand how logic actually works, your argument is
actually one of the real classical fallicy.
To show you CAN do something, you need to demonstrate how to do it,.
no, i'm trying to move the needle from CANNOT do something to MIGHT
do something, as that open up the motivation for further research to
reach CAN do something
Which assuming something that you can't show doesn't do.
disentangling the logical interface is a one man job. actually
implementing is much greater than a one man job. and i sill stand by
that.
All you are doing is disintergrating your repuation for doing logic.
and u've lost ur proof it can't exist due to self-referential set-
classification paradoxes, which is a major pillar of undecidability >>>>> arguments.
No, because your "Proof", doesn't proof anything as it is based on
an unsound assumption.
All you have done is proven you can make circular arguments.
which is an improvement over the contradictions that previously were
demonstrated
Only for someone who can't do logic.
being twice my age, u may be too old to ever understand the
significance of such, but ur inability will not deter me
All you are doing is proving you aren't as smart as you think you are,
as you don't understand the basics of logic.
Anyone who reads this arguement will know better that even think of
supporting your work.
i don't need to show that is *does* exist, i just need to show it
*can* exist to make progress here
Nope. Fallacy of assuming the conclusion. A REAL logical fallacy.
Whatever the specific implementation of the inteface returns, it
will be wrong, by the specific implementaiton of the
"pathological" program.
That program has a definite result, so there *IS* a correct answer >>>>>> that the inteface SHOULD have returned, but didn't.
i have two proposals now which are you trying to critique? cause
one of them doesn't involve any incorrect answers.
Both of which are based on assuming the ability to compute the non-
computable.
Thus "Pathological" is NOT a correct response, as EVERY machine
that we can make will either Halt or Not Halt. ITS behavior is
definite.
Your problem is you confuse the individual definite machines for
the templates that generate them. But we aren't asking about the
templates, only individual machines, as templates don't
necessarily have a uniform answer. (Some halt, some don't,
depending on which error in implementing the proposed interface
was made). All we do is prove by that is that the interface is, in >>>>>> fact, unimplementable for FULL deciding.
Since that IS the Halting Problem, it makes the proof.
When you relax to just partial deciders, it is a well know
solvable problem, where work just continues to improve what
classes of inputs can be decided on, which is a quantitative
problem, not a qualitative one.
And, the possibility of unknowable things hiding in machine >>>>>>>>>> space isn't as crasy at it might seem, as there are an
infinite number of machines for them to hide with.
i just love how godel convinced u to believe russel's teapot >>>>>>>>> certainly exists
He didn't. But Russel shows that claims we need to prove it
doesn't are invalid.
yes i don't need to prove ur ghosts don't exist. they don't
because u can't even know about them
Sure we know a bit about them, like they exist.
bare assertion
Your problem is you don't understand what you are talking about
and assume you can make unfounded assumptions.
gaslighting
I have shown you the proof that unknowable things must exist. >>>>>>>> You claim they can't, but your only reasoning is based on there >>>>>>>> being something new that we don't know about that you can't
actually prove.
Which of those is a claim of the existance of a Russel's Teapot? >>>>>>>>
The thing with a proof, or the things just assumed?
If you want to break down a "broken" structure, you need to >>>>>>>>>>>> know enough about it to SHOW it is broken.
Just assuming it is just shows that it is most likely YOU >>>>>>>>>>>> that is wrong.
It is more that the system ignores that which tries to break >>>>>>>>>>>> it, because getting side tracked on false trails is too >>>>>>>>>>>> damaging.
To me it seems more of a peril to accept your misguided ideas. >>>>>>>>>>>>
The fact that you begin by trying to redefine things out of >>>>>>>>>>>> ignorance doesn't help your case.
On 2/3/26 2:53 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/2/26 3:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/2/26 1:11 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/1/26 4:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/26 1:33 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/28/26 4:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/27/26 12:48 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/26/26 12:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/25/26 4:28 PM, dart200 wrote:u haven't proven my proposed interfaces impossible because u
On 1/25/26 1:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/25/26 4:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/25/26 10:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 9:10 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 4:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 5:31 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 2:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 3:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 11:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/24/26 1:33 PM, dart200 wrote:
"the field" can come here if they like,On 1/24/26 9:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/24/26 11:45 AM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/24/26 4:17 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/24/26 3:03 AM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/23/26 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/20/26 9:30 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/20/26 4:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
i don't believe u represent what "the field" is either >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I guess you don't understand the difinist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallacy, as using the ACTUAL definition isn't a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallacy.The term *IS* defined, and to change it means >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you lie.
doubling down on definist fallacy ehh??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
nah ur just pushing a definition that u've >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened latch onto because it's convenient for u >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
classic definist fallacy
Nope, you are just stuck in a definist fallacy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about what a definist fallacy is. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It seems you don't understand the concept that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some things ARE just defined a given way to be in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a given context.
and u richard are not the god what that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But "the field" is, and thus you are just saying it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is ok to change the meaning of words. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The go to "the field" and see if they disagree. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but as it stands i'm going to call out any more "nOT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mUh CoMpUTaTiOn" arguments as definist fallacy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In other words, you are just admitting, you don't care >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what the words mean in the field, you will just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continue to be a stupid and ignorant lair about what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are doing.
i just don't care what YOU, richard, says "CoMpUTaTiOn" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means. you aren't "the field" bro, and i just really >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dgaf about ur endless definist fallacy
But apperently you do, as you aren't just going to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> present your ideas directly to "the field" on a peer- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reviewed journal, so something is telling you that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have something to fix.
or rather the peer-review is so gatekept i don't even get >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a review back for my submission, just rejection without >>>>>>>>>>>>>> review.
the system is broken such that i will take my stance >>>>>>>>>>>>>> elsewhere.
everyone else can ignore me at all our peril...
WHich just shows that you aren't in step with what theory >>>>>>>>>>>>> actually is talking about.
That is your problem, you assume the world is wrong, and >>>>>>>>>>>>> more than likely it is you that is wrong.
i'm not one continually asserting a bunch of impossible to >>>>>>>>>>>> find teapots floating around in machine space
No, you just keep asserting that you compute impossible to >>>>>>>>>>> compute results.
while u just keep ignoring how i'm avoiding the pitfalls u use >>>>>>>>>> to claim impossibility
No, you use an assumption that requires something proved
impossible that you want to claim is possible because it might be. >>>>>>>>
haven't generated a contradiction with them
But you haven't proven them possible either.
I guess you don't understand Russel's teapot.
Sorry, you need to actually SHOW how to do what you want to >>>>>>>>> claim with actual realizable steps.
And that means you need a COMPUTABLE method to generate you >>>>>>>>> enumerations that you iterate through that is complete.
i don't need to do that to undercut the proof
Sure you do.
Since your proof assumes a non-existant thing exists, it isn't a >>>>>>> proof or an undercut.
i'm showing it *can* exist with the possibility of self-
referential set- classification paradoxes...
No, you are trying to show that "if you assume you can do the
impossible" then you can do the impossible.
normally these proofs go (after we stop begging the question):
"assume you can do x, x produces contradiction, and therefore x is
impossible"
what i'm trying to show:
"assume you can do x, x ... doesn't produce a contradiction???
therefor x *might* be possible"
But that isn't sound logic, as x *might* have been possible without the
see x was previously thought to be impossible due to a specific proof,
but that proof evaporates when we frame the problem correctly, and so
u have lost ur proof that x is impossible. that's really what i'm
trying to get at here Efn+Efn+Efn+
Nope, the assumption of the impossible just makes your proof unsound.
Your continuing to do that shows that YOU are unsound.
You just don't undetstand how logic works.
u can't cope with that so u'll just continue to deny. none of the rest
of this gish gallop is worthy my of time responding to. it contains
nothing that inspires me further because ur just repeating urself ad
nauseam, mostly via insults Efn<Efn<Efn<
Go ahead, deny truth, that just puts you into Peter's world of fantasy.
A world where nothing, and everything is true, because truth has lost
its meaning.
assumption, and if you actually can't do x, all you have done is
showed you use unsound logic.
You need to understand how logic actually works, your argument is
actually one of the real classical fallicy.
To show you CAN do something, you need to demonstrate how to do it,. >>>>>
no, i'm trying to move the needle from CANNOT do something to MIGHT
do something, as that open up the motivation for further research to
reach CAN do something
Which assuming something that you can't show doesn't do.
disentangling the logical interface is a one man job. actually
implementing is much greater than a one man job. and i sill stand by
that.
All you are doing is disintergrating your repuation for doing logic.
and u've lost ur proof it can't exist due to self-referential set- >>>>>> classification paradoxes, which is a major pillar of
undecidability arguments.
No, because your "Proof", doesn't proof anything as it is based on
an unsound assumption.
All you have done is proven you can make circular arguments.
which is an improvement over the contradictions that previously were
demonstrated
Only for someone who can't do logic.
being twice my age, u may be too old to ever understand the
significance of such, but ur inability will not deter me
All you are doing is proving you aren't as smart as you think you
are, as you don't understand the basics of logic.
Anyone who reads this arguement will know better that even think of
supporting your work.
i don't need to show that is *does* exist, i just need to show it >>>>>> *can* exist to make progress here
Nope. Fallacy of assuming the conclusion. A REAL logical fallacy.
Whatever the specific implementation of the inteface returns, it >>>>>>> will be wrong, by the specific implementaiton of the
"pathological" program.
That program has a definite result, so there *IS* a correct
answer that the inteface SHOULD have returned, but didn't.
i have two proposals now which are you trying to critique? cause
one of them doesn't involve any incorrect answers.
Both of which are based on assuming the ability to compute the non- >>>>> computable.
Thus "Pathological" is NOT a correct response, as EVERY machine >>>>>>> that we can make will either Halt or Not Halt. ITS behavior is
definite.
Your problem is you confuse the individual definite machines for >>>>>>> the templates that generate them. But we aren't asking about the >>>>>>> templates, only individual machines, as templates don't
necessarily have a uniform answer. (Some halt, some don't,
depending on which error in implementing the proposed interface >>>>>>> was made). All we do is prove by that is that the interface is, >>>>>>> in fact, unimplementable for FULL deciding.
Since that IS the Halting Problem, it makes the proof.
When you relax to just partial deciders, it is a well know
solvable problem, where work just continues to improve what
classes of inputs can be decided on, which is a quantitative
problem, not a qualitative one.
And, the possibility of unknowable things hiding in machine >>>>>>>>>>> space isn't as crasy at it might seem, as there are an
infinite number of machines for them to hide with.
i just love how godel convinced u to believe russel's teapot >>>>>>>>>> certainly exists
He didn't. But Russel shows that claims we need to prove it >>>>>>>>> doesn't are invalid.
yes i don't need to prove ur ghosts don't exist. they don't
because u can't even know about them
Sure we know a bit about them, like they exist.
bare assertion
Your problem is you don't understand what you are talking about >>>>>>> and assume you can make unfounded assumptions.
gaslighting
I have shown you the proof that unknowable things must exist. >>>>>>>>> You claim they can't, but your only reasoning is based on there >>>>>>>>> being something new that we don't know about that you can't >>>>>>>>> actually prove.
Which of those is a claim of the existance of a Russel's Teapot? >>>>>>>>>
The thing with a proof, or the things just assumed?
If you want to break down a "broken" structure, you need to >>>>>>>>>>>>> know enough about it to SHOW it is broken.
Just assuming it is just shows that it is most likely YOU >>>>>>>>>>>>> that is wrong.
It is more that the system ignores that which tries to >>>>>>>>>>>>> break it, because getting side tracked on false trails is >>>>>>>>>>>>> too damaging.
To me it seems more of a peril to accept your misguided ideas. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
The fact that you begin by trying to redefine things out of >>>>>>>>>>>>> ignorance doesn't help your case.
On 2/3/26 4:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/3/26 2:53 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/2/26 3:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/2/26 1:11 PM, dart200 wrote:see x was previously thought to be impossible due to a specific
On 2/1/26 4:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/26 1:33 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/28/26 4:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/27/26 12:48 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/26/26 12:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/25/26 4:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/25/26 1:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/25/26 4:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/25/26 10:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 9:10 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 4:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 5:31 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 2:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 3:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 11:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/24/26 1:33 PM, dart200 wrote:
"the field" can come here if they like,On 1/24/26 9:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/24/26 11:45 AM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/24/26 4:17 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/24/26 3:03 AM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/23/26 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/20/26 9:30 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/20/26 4:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
i don't believe u represent what "the field" is either >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I guess you don't understand the difinist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallacy, as using the ACTUAL definition isn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a fallacy.The term *IS* defined, and to change it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means you lie.
doubling down on definist fallacy ehh??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
nah ur just pushing a definition that u've >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened latch onto because it's convenient for u >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
classic definist fallacy
Nope, you are just stuck in a definist fallacy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about what a definist fallacy is. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It seems you don't understand the concept that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some things ARE just defined a given way to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a given context.
and u richard are not the god what that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But "the field" is, and thus you are just saying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is ok to change the meaning of words. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The go to "the field" and see if they disagree. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but as it stands i'm going to call out any more "nOT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mUh CoMpUTaTiOn" arguments as definist fallacy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In other words, you are just admitting, you don't care >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what the words mean in the field, you will just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continue to be a stupid and ignorant lair about what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are doing.
i just don't care what YOU, richard, says "CoMpUTaTiOn" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means. you aren't "the field" bro, and i just really >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dgaf about ur endless definist fallacy
But apperently you do, as you aren't just going to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> present your ideas directly to "the field" on a peer- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reviewed journal, so something is telling you that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have something to fix.
or rather the peer-review is so gatekept i don't even get >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a review back for my submission, just rejection without >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review.
the system is broken such that i will take my stance >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elsewhere.
everyone else can ignore me at all our peril...
WHich just shows that you aren't in step with what theory >>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually is talking about.
That is your problem, you assume the world is wrong, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> more than likely it is you that is wrong.
i'm not one continually asserting a bunch of impossible to >>>>>>>>>>>>> find teapots floating around in machine space
No, you just keep asserting that you compute impossible to >>>>>>>>>>>> compute results.
while u just keep ignoring how i'm avoiding the pitfalls u >>>>>>>>>>> use to claim impossibility
No, you use an assumption that requires something proved
impossible that you want to claim is possible because it might >>>>>>>>>> be.
u haven't proven my proposed interfaces impossible because u >>>>>>>>> haven't generated a contradiction with them
But you haven't proven them possible either.
I guess you don't understand Russel's teapot.
Sorry, you need to actually SHOW how to do what you want to >>>>>>>>>> claim with actual realizable steps.
And that means you need a COMPUTABLE method to generate you >>>>>>>>>> enumerations that you iterate through that is complete.
i don't need to do that to undercut the proof
Sure you do.
Since your proof assumes a non-existant thing exists, it isn't a >>>>>>>> proof or an undercut.
i'm showing it *can* exist with the possibility of self-
referential set- classification paradoxes...
No, you are trying to show that "if you assume you can do the
impossible" then you can do the impossible.
normally these proofs go (after we stop begging the question):
"assume you can do x, x produces contradiction, and therefore x is
impossible"
what i'm trying to show:
"assume you can do x, x ... doesn't produce a contradiction???
therefor x *might* be possible"
But that isn't sound logic, as x *might* have been possible without the >>>
proof, but that proof evaporates when we frame the problem correctly,
and so u have lost ur proof that x is impossible. that's really what
i'm trying to get at here Efn+Efn+Efn+
Nope, the assumption of the impossible just makes your proof unsound.
that repeated presumption of supposed impossibility is founded on the
proof that disappears when we frame the problem correctly,
so like i've said a bunch of times: begging the question
Your continuing to do that shows that YOU are unsound.
You just don't undetstand how logic works.
u can't cope with that so u'll just continue to deny. none of the
rest of this gish gallop is worthy my of time responding to. it
contains nothing that inspires me further because ur just repeating
urself ad nauseam, mostly via insults Efn<Efn<Efn<
Go ahead, deny truth, that just puts you into Peter's world of fantasy.
A world where nothing, and everything is true, because truth has lost
its meaning.
assumption, and if you actually can't do x, all you have done is
showed you use unsound logic.
You need to understand how logic actually works, your argument is
actually one of the real classical fallicy.
To show you CAN do something, you need to demonstrate how to do it,. >>>>>>
no, i'm trying to move the needle from CANNOT do something to MIGHT >>>>> do something, as that open up the motivation for further research
to reach CAN do something
Which assuming something that you can't show doesn't do.
disentangling the logical interface is a one man job. actually
implementing is much greater than a one man job. and i sill stand
by that.
All you are doing is disintergrating your repuation for doing logic.
and u've lost ur proof it can't exist due to self-referential
set- classification paradoxes, which is a major pillar of
undecidability arguments.
No, because your "Proof", doesn't proof anything as it is based on >>>>>> an unsound assumption.
All you have done is proven you can make circular arguments.
which is an improvement over the contradictions that previously
were demonstrated
Only for someone who can't do logic.
being twice my age, u may be too old to ever understand the
significance of such, but ur inability will not deter me
All you are doing is proving you aren't as smart as you think you
are, as you don't understand the basics of logic.
Anyone who reads this arguement will know better that even think of
supporting your work.
i don't need to show that is *does* exist, i just need to show it >>>>>>> *can* exist to make progress here
Nope. Fallacy of assuming the conclusion. A REAL logical fallacy.
Whatever the specific implementation of the inteface returns, it >>>>>>>> will be wrong, by the specific implementaiton of the
"pathological" program.
That program has a definite result, so there *IS* a correct
answer that the inteface SHOULD have returned, but didn't.
i have two proposals now which are you trying to critique? cause >>>>>>> one of them doesn't involve any incorrect answers.
Both of which are based on assuming the ability to compute the
non- computable.
Thus "Pathological" is NOT a correct response, as EVERY machine >>>>>>>> that we can make will either Halt or Not Halt. ITS behavior is >>>>>>>> definite.
Your problem is you confuse the individual definite machines for >>>>>>>> the templates that generate them. But we aren't asking about the >>>>>>>> templates, only individual machines, as templates don't
necessarily have a uniform answer. (Some halt, some don't,
depending on which error in implementing the proposed interface >>>>>>>> was made). All we do is prove by that is that the interface is, >>>>>>>> in fact, unimplementable for FULL deciding.
Since that IS the Halting Problem, it makes the proof.
When you relax to just partial deciders, it is a well know
solvable problem, where work just continues to improve what
classes of inputs can be decided on, which is a quantitative
problem, not a qualitative one.
And, the possibility of unknowable things hiding in machine >>>>>>>>>>>> space isn't as crasy at it might seem, as there are an >>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of machines for them to hide with.
i just love how godel convinced u to believe russel's teapot >>>>>>>>>>> certainly exists
He didn't. But Russel shows that claims we need to prove it >>>>>>>>>> doesn't are invalid.
yes i don't need to prove ur ghosts don't exist. they don't >>>>>>>>> because u can't even know about them
Sure we know a bit about them, like they exist.
bare assertion
Your problem is you don't understand what you are talking about >>>>>>>> and assume you can make unfounded assumptions.
gaslighting
I have shown you the proof that unknowable things must exist. >>>>>>>>>> You claim they can't, but your only reasoning is based on >>>>>>>>>> there being something new that we don't know about that you >>>>>>>>>> can't actually prove.
Which of those is a claim of the existance of a Russel's Teapot? >>>>>>>>>>
The thing with a proof, or the things just assumed?
If you want to break down a "broken" structure, you need >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to know enough about it to SHOW it is broken.
Just assuming it is just shows that it is most likely YOU >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is wrong.
It is more that the system ignores that which tries to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> break it, because getting side tracked on false trails is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> too damaging.
To me it seems more of a peril to accept your misguided >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas.
The fact that you begin by trying to redefine things out >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of ignorance doesn't help your case.
On 2/3/26 2:33 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/3/26 4:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/3/26 2:53 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/2/26 3:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/2/26 1:11 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/1/26 4:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/28/26 1:33 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/28/26 4:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/27/26 12:48 AM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/26/26 12:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/25/26 4:28 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/25/26 1:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/25/26 4:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/25/26 10:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 9:10 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 4:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 5:31 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 2:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 1/24/26 3:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 1/24/26 11:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/24/26 1:33 PM, dart200 wrote:
"the field" can come here if they like, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 1/24/26 9:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/24/26 11:45 AM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/24/26 4:17 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/24/26 3:03 AM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/23/26 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/20/26 9:30 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/20/26 4:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
i don't believe u represent what "the field" is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eitherI guess you don't understand the difinist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fallacy, as using the ACTUAL definition isn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a fallacy.The term *IS* defined, and to change it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means you lie.
doubling down on definist fallacy ehh??? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
nah ur just pushing a definition that u've >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened latch onto because it's convenient for u >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
classic definist fallacy
Nope, you are just stuck in a definist fallacy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about what a definist fallacy is. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It seems you don't understand the concept that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some things ARE just defined a given way to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a given context.
and u richard are not the god what that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But "the field" is, and thus you are just saying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is ok to change the meaning of words. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The go to "the field" and see if they disagree. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but as it stands i'm going to call out any more "nOT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mUh CoMpUTaTiOn" arguments as definist fallacy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In other words, you are just admitting, you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> care what the words mean in the field, you will just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continue to be a stupid and ignorant lair about what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are doing.
i just don't care what YOU, richard, says >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "CoMpUTaTiOn" means. you aren't "the field" bro, and i >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just really dgaf about ur endless definist fallacy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But apperently you do, as you aren't just going to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> present your ideas directly to "the field" on a peer- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reviewed journal, so something is telling you that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have something to fix.
or rather the peer-review is so gatekept i don't even >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get a review back for my submission, just rejection >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without review.
the system is broken such that i will take my stance >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elsewhere.
everyone else can ignore me at all our peril... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
WHich just shows that you aren't in step with what theory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually is talking about.
That is your problem, you assume the world is wrong, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more than likely it is you that is wrong.
i'm not one continually asserting a bunch of impossible to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> find teapots floating around in machine space
No, you just keep asserting that you compute impossible to >>>>>>>>>>>>> compute results.
while u just keep ignoring how i'm avoiding the pitfalls u >>>>>>>>>>>> use to claim impossibility
No, you use an assumption that requires something proved >>>>>>>>>>> impossible that you want to claim is possible because it >>>>>>>>>>> might be.
u haven't proven my proposed interfaces impossible because u >>>>>>>>>> haven't generated a contradiction with them
But you haven't proven them possible either.
I guess you don't understand Russel's teapot.
Sorry, you need to actually SHOW how to do what you want to >>>>>>>>>>> claim with actual realizable steps.
And that means you need a COMPUTABLE method to generate you >>>>>>>>>>> enumerations that you iterate through that is complete.
i don't need to do that to undercut the proof
Sure you do.
Since your proof assumes a non-existant thing exists, it isn't >>>>>>>>> a proof or an undercut.
i'm showing it *can* exist with the possibility of self-
referential set- classification paradoxes...
No, you are trying to show that "if you assume you can do the
impossible" then you can do the impossible.
normally these proofs go (after we stop begging the question):
"assume you can do x, x produces contradiction, and therefore x is >>>>>> impossible"
what i'm trying to show:
"assume you can do x, x ... doesn't produce a contradiction???
therefor x *might* be possible"
But that isn't sound logic, as x *might* have been possible without >>>>> the
see x was previously thought to be impossible due to a specific
proof, but that proof evaporates when we frame the problem
correctly, and so u have lost ur proof that x is impossible. that's
really what i'm trying to get at here Efn+Efn+Efn+
Nope, the assumption of the impossible just makes your proof unsound.
that repeated presumption of supposed impossibility is founded on the
proof that disappears when we frame the problem correctly,
Nope, your problem is you don't knwo what you are talking about because
you don't know what the words actually mean.
so like i've said a bunch of times: begging the question
Nope, YOU are the one "begging the quesiton" since you don't even know
what the question actually is.
All you are doing is proving you are just unqualified to be considered
for the research you want people to, for some crazy reasob, pay you to
do it.
Your continuing to do that shows that YOU are unsound.
You just don't undetstand how logic works.
u can't cope with that so u'll just continue to deny. none of the
rest of this gish gallop is worthy my of time responding to. it
contains nothing that inspires me further because ur just repeating
urself ad nauseam, mostly via insults Efn<Efn<Efn<
Go ahead, deny truth, that just puts you into Peter's world of fantasy.
A world where nothing, and everything is true, because truth has lost
its meaning.
assumption, and if you actually can't do x, all you have done is
showed you use unsound logic.
You need to understand how logic actually works, your argument is
actually one of the real classical fallicy.
To show you CAN do something, you need to demonstrate how to do it,. >>>>>>>
no, i'm trying to move the needle from CANNOT do something to
MIGHT do something, as that open up the motivation for further
research to reach CAN do something
Which assuming something that you can't show doesn't do.
disentangling the logical interface is a one man job. actually
implementing is much greater than a one man job. and i sill stand >>>>>> by that.
All you are doing is disintergrating your repuation for doing logic. >>>>>
and u've lost ur proof it can't exist due to self-referential >>>>>>>> set- classification paradoxes, which is a major pillar of
undecidability arguments.
No, because your "Proof", doesn't proof anything as it is based >>>>>>> on an unsound assumption.
All you have done is proven you can make circular arguments.
which is an improvement over the contradictions that previously
were demonstrated
Only for someone who can't do logic.
being twice my age, u may be too old to ever understand the
significance of such, but ur inability will not deter me
All you are doing is proving you aren't as smart as you think you
are, as you don't understand the basics of logic.
Anyone who reads this arguement will know better that even think of >>>>> supporting your work.
i don't need to show that is *does* exist, i just need to show >>>>>>>> it *can* exist to make progress here
Nope. Fallacy of assuming the conclusion. A REAL logical fallacy. >>>>>>>
Whatever the specific implementation of the inteface returns, >>>>>>>>> it will be wrong, by the specific implementaiton of the
"pathological" program.
That program has a definite result, so there *IS* a correct >>>>>>>>> answer that the inteface SHOULD have returned, but didn't.
i have two proposals now which are you trying to critique? cause >>>>>>>> one of them doesn't involve any incorrect answers.
Both of which are based on assuming the ability to compute the
non- computable.
Thus "Pathological" is NOT a correct response, as EVERY machine >>>>>>>>> that we can make will either Halt or Not Halt. ITS behavior is >>>>>>>>> definite.
Your problem is you confuse the individual definite machines >>>>>>>>> for the templates that generate them. But we aren't asking
about the templates, only individual machines, as templates >>>>>>>>> don't necessarily have a uniform answer. (Some halt, some
don't, depending on which error in implementing the proposed >>>>>>>>> interface was made). All we do is prove by that is that the >>>>>>>>> interface is, in fact, unimplementable for FULL deciding.
Since that IS the Halting Problem, it makes the proof.
When you relax to just partial deciders, it is a well know
solvable problem, where work just continues to improve what >>>>>>>>> classes of inputs can be decided on, which is a quantitative >>>>>>>>> problem, not a qualitative one.
And, the possibility of unknowable things hiding in machine >>>>>>>>>>>>> space isn't as crasy at it might seem, as there are an >>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite number of machines for them to hide with.
i just love how godel convinced u to believe russel's teapot >>>>>>>>>>>> certainly exists
He didn't. But Russel shows that claims we need to prove it >>>>>>>>>>> doesn't are invalid.
yes i don't need to prove ur ghosts don't exist. they don't >>>>>>>>>> because u can't even know about them
Sure we know a bit about them, like they exist.
bare assertion
Your problem is you don't understand what you are talking about >>>>>>>>> and assume you can make unfounded assumptions.
gaslighting
I have shown you the proof that unknowable things must exist. >>>>>>>>>>> You claim they can't, but your only reasoning is based on >>>>>>>>>>> there being something new that we don't know about that you >>>>>>>>>>> can't actually prove.
Which of those is a claim of the existance of a Russel's Teapot? >>>>>>>>>>>
The thing with a proof, or the things just assumed?
If you want to break down a "broken" structure, you need >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to know enough about it to SHOW it is broken.
Just assuming it is just shows that it is most likely YOU >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is wrong.
It is more that the system ignores that which tries to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> break it, because getting side tracked on false trails is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too damaging.
To me it seems more of a peril to accept your misguided >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas.
The fact that you begin by trying to redefine things out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of ignorance doesn't help your case.
clearly ur just willfully disregarding whatever i say for repeatedly asserting that i'm dumb and ur right
kinda sad to see a 70 yo chief engineer stoop to that level of arguing
on the internet. one would think shit posting on usenet for decades
would have taught u better, but i suppose intent and just basic moral decency matters as much as time spent
On 2/4/26 10:30 AM, dart200 wrote:
clearly ur just willfully disregarding whatever i say for repeatedly
asserting that i'm dumb and ur right
Clearly, the problem is you don't understand how logic works, and ignore
its basic rules.
kinda sad to see a 70 yo chief engineer stoop to that level of arguing
on the internet. one would think shit posting on usenet for decades
would have taught u better, but i suppose intent and just basic moral
decency matters as much as time spent
Your the one posting "shit", because you just refuse to understand the
rules of logic.
I am just pointing yout your ignornace.
On 2/4/26 6:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/4/26 10:30 AM, dart200 wrote:
clearly ur just willfully disregarding whatever i say for repeatedly
asserting that i'm dumb and ur right
Clearly, the problem is you don't understand how logic works, and
ignore its basic rules.
and clearly ur just willfully disregarding
kinda sad to see a 70 yo chief engineer stoop to that level of
arguing on the internet. one would think shit posting on usenet for
decades would have taught u better, but i suppose intent and just
basic moral decency matters as much as time spent
Your the one posting "shit", because you just refuse to understand the
rules of logic.
I am just pointing yout your ignornace.
talk about shitposting
On 2/4/26 9:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/4/26 6:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/4/26 10:30 AM, dart200 wrote:
clearly ur just willfully disregarding whatever i say for repeatedly
asserting that i'm dumb and ur right
Clearly, the problem is you don't understand how logic works, and
ignore its basic rules.
and clearly ur just willfully disregarding
Nope. You just refuse to understand the words being used.
kinda sad to see a 70 yo chief engineer stoop to that level of
arguing on the internet. one would think shit posting on usenet for
decades would have taught u better, but i suppose intent and just
basic moral decency matters as much as time spent
Your the one posting "shit", because you just refuse to understand
the rules of logic.
I am just pointing yout your ignornace.
talk about shitposting
No, the only "shitposting" is being done by the one that doesn't know
shit, which is you.
It seems you don't know enough of logic to have a filter to remove the
shit from what you take in, so you have poisoned your mind.
On 2/5/26 4:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/4/26 9:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/4/26 6:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/4/26 10:30 AM, dart200 wrote:
clearly ur just willfully disregarding whatever i say for
repeatedly asserting that i'm dumb and ur right
Clearly, the problem is you don't understand how logic works, and
ignore its basic rules.
and clearly ur just willfully disregarding
Nope. You just refuse to understand the words being used.
and u just refuse to understand the concepts i'm responding with
kinda sad to see a 70 yo chief engineer stoop to that level of
arguing on the internet. one would think shit posting on usenet for >>>>> decades would have taught u better, but i suppose intent and just
basic moral decency matters as much as time spent
Your the one posting "shit", because you just refuse to understand
the rules of logic.
I am just pointing yout your ignornace.
talk about shitposting
No, the only "shitposting" is being done by the one that doesn't know
shit, which is you.
It seems you don't know enough of logic to have a filter to remove the
shit from what you take in, so you have poisoned your mind.
gaslighting
On 2/5/26 1:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/5/26 4:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/4/26 9:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/4/26 6:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/4/26 10:30 AM, dart200 wrote:
clearly ur just willfully disregarding whatever i say for
repeatedly asserting that i'm dumb and ur right
Clearly, the problem is you don't understand how logic works, and
ignore its basic rules.
and clearly ur just willfully disregarding
Nope. You just refuse to understand the words being used.
and u just refuse to understand the concepts i'm responding with
Because they are just based on nonsense and illogic.
There is NOTHING TO "understand", as they are based on being allowed to assume the impossible can happen.
kinda sad to see a 70 yo chief engineer stoop to that level of
arguing on the internet. one would think shit posting on usenet
for decades would have taught u better, but i suppose intent and
just basic moral decency matters as much as time spent
Your the one posting "shit", because you just refuse to understand
the rules of logic.
I am just pointing yout your ignornace.
talk about shitposting
No, the only "shitposting" is being done by the one that doesn't know
shit, which is you.
It seems you don't know enough of logic to have a filter to remove
the shit from what you take in, so you have poisoned your mind.
gaslighting
No, your Stupidity.
On 2/5/26 4:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/5/26 1:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/5/26 4:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/4/26 9:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/4/26 6:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/4/26 10:30 AM, dart200 wrote:
clearly ur just willfully disregarding whatever i say for
repeatedly asserting that i'm dumb and ur right
Clearly, the problem is you don't understand how logic works, and >>>>>> ignore its basic rules.
and clearly ur just willfully disregarding
Nope. You just refuse to understand the words being used.
and u just refuse to understand the concepts i'm responding with
Because they are just based on nonsense and illogic.
There is NOTHING TO "understand", as they are based on being allowed
to assume the impossible can happen.
i'm not assuming it is, i'm supposing it and then showing that the proof
of impossibility disappears when the problem is framed correctly. that's
the kind of insight that should matter, but ur quite clearly not the
right person to receive it at this time
kinda sad to see a 70 yo chief engineer stoop to that level of
arguing on the internet. one would think shit posting on usenet >>>>>>> for decades would have taught u better, but i suppose intent and >>>>>>> just basic moral decency matters as much as time spent
Your the one posting "shit", because you just refuse to understand >>>>>> the rules of logic.
I am just pointing yout your ignornace.
talk about shitposting
No, the only "shitposting" is being done by the one that doesn't
know shit, which is you.
It seems you don't know enough of logic to have a filter to remove
the shit from what you take in, so you have poisoned your mind.
gaslighting
No, your Stupidity.
gaslighting
On 2/5/26 9:47 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/5/26 4:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/5/26 1:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/5/26 4:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/4/26 9:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/4/26 6:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/4/26 10:30 AM, dart200 wrote:
clearly ur just willfully disregarding whatever i say for
repeatedly asserting that i'm dumb and ur right
Clearly, the problem is you don't understand how logic works, and >>>>>>> ignore its basic rules.
and clearly ur just willfully disregarding
Nope. You just refuse to understand the words being used.
and u just refuse to understand the concepts i'm responding with
Because they are just based on nonsense and illogic.
There is NOTHING TO "understand", as they are based on being allowed
to assume the impossible can happen.
i'm not assuming it is, i'm supposing it and then showing that the
proof of impossibility disappears when the problem is framed
correctly. that's the kind of insight that should matter, but ur quite
clearly not the right person to receive it at this time
What is supposing other than an unwarrented assumption.
You can't assume the existance of something to prove that it exists.
You just don't understand how logic works.
The Impossibility didn't disappear, you are just closing your eyes in ignorance saying you don't beleive the truth so will just lie to yourself.--
kinda sad to see a 70 yo chief engineer stoop to that level of >>>>>>>> arguing on the internet. one would think shit posting on usenet >>>>>>>> for decades would have taught u better, but i suppose intent and >>>>>>>> just basic moral decency matters as much as time spent
Your the one posting "shit", because you just refuse to
understand the rules of logic.
I am just pointing yout your ignornace.
talk about shitposting
No, the only "shitposting" is being done by the one that doesn't
know shit, which is you.
It seems you don't know enough of logic to have a filter to remove
the shit from what you take in, so you have poisoned your mind.
gaslighting
No, your Stupidity.
gaslighting
Yes, by you to yourself.
It seems you are as stupid as Olcott.
On 2/6/26 6:50 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/5/26 9:47 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/5/26 4:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/5/26 1:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/5/26 4:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/4/26 9:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/4/26 6:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/4/26 10:30 AM, dart200 wrote:
clearly ur just willfully disregarding whatever i say for
repeatedly asserting that i'm dumb and ur right
Clearly, the problem is you don't understand how logic works, >>>>>>>> and ignore its basic rules.
and clearly ur just willfully disregarding
Nope. You just refuse to understand the words being used.
and u just refuse to understand the concepts i'm responding with
Because they are just based on nonsense and illogic.
There is NOTHING TO "understand", as they are based on being allowed
to assume the impossible can happen.
i'm not assuming it is, i'm supposing it and then showing that the
proof of impossibility disappears when the problem is framed
correctly. that's the kind of insight that should matter, but ur
quite clearly not the right person to receive it at this time
What is supposing other than an unwarrented assumption.
You can't assume the existance of something to prove that it exists.
that's not what i'm proving smh
You just don't understand how logic works.
and u don't know what a strawman fallacy is
The Impossibility didn't disappear, you are just closing your eyes in
ignorance saying you don't beleive the truth so will just lie to
yourself.
kinda sad to see a 70 yo chief engineer stoop to that level of >>>>>>>>> arguing on the internet. one would think shit posting on usenet >>>>>>>>> for decades would have taught u better, but i suppose intent >>>>>>>>> and just basic moral decency matters as much as time spent
Your the one posting "shit", because you just refuse to
understand the rules of logic.
I am just pointing yout your ignornace.
talk about shitposting
No, the only "shitposting" is being done by the one that doesn't
know shit, which is you.
It seems you don't know enough of logic to have a filter to remove >>>>>> the shit from what you take in, so you have poisoned your mind.
gaslighting
No, your Stupidity.
gaslighting
Yes, by you to yourself.
It seems you are as stupid as Olcott.
On 2/6/26 1:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/6/26 6:50 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/5/26 9:47 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/5/26 4:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/5/26 1:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/5/26 4:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/4/26 9:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/4/26 6:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/4/26 10:30 AM, dart200 wrote:
clearly ur just willfully disregarding whatever i say for >>>>>>>>>> repeatedly asserting that i'm dumb and ur right
Clearly, the problem is you don't understand how logic works, >>>>>>>>> and ignore its basic rules.
and clearly ur just willfully disregarding
Nope. You just refuse to understand the words being used.
and u just refuse to understand the concepts i'm responding with
Because they are just based on nonsense and illogic.
There is NOTHING TO "understand", as they are based on being
allowed to assume the impossible can happen.
i'm not assuming it is, i'm supposing it and then showing that the
proof of impossibility disappears when the problem is framed
correctly. that's the kind of insight that should matter, but ur
quite clearly not the right person to receive it at this time
What is supposing other than an unwarrented assumption.
You can't assume the existance of something to prove that it exists.
that's not what i'm proving smh
You are not proving ANYTHING, as you start from false assumptions.
You just don't understand how logic works.
and u don't know what a strawman fallacy is
It seems you don't know what logic is.
The Impossibility didn't disappear, you are just closing your eyes in
ignorance saying you don't beleive the truth so will just lie to
yourself.
Your the one posting "shit", because you just refuse to
kinda sad to see a 70 yo chief engineer stoop to that level of >>>>>>>>>> arguing on the internet. one would think shit posting on
usenet for decades would have taught u better, but i suppose >>>>>>>>>> intent and just basic moral decency matters as much as time spent >>>>>>>>>
understand the rules of logic.
I am just pointing yout your ignornace.
talk about shitposting
No, the only "shitposting" is being done by the one that doesn't >>>>>>> know shit, which is you.
It seems you don't know enough of logic to have a filter to
remove the shit from what you take in, so you have poisoned your >>>>>>> mind.
gaslighting
No, your Stupidity.
gaslighting
Yes, by you to yourself.
It seems you are as stupid as Olcott.
On 2/6/26 3:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/6/26 1:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/6/26 6:50 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/5/26 9:47 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/5/26 4:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/5/26 1:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/5/26 4:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/4/26 9:41 PM, dart200 wrote:
On 2/4/26 6:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/4/26 10:30 AM, dart200 wrote:
clearly ur just willfully disregarding whatever i say for >>>>>>>>>>> repeatedly asserting that i'm dumb and ur right
Clearly, the problem is you don't understand how logic works, >>>>>>>>>> and ignore its basic rules.
and clearly ur just willfully disregarding
Nope. You just refuse to understand the words being used.
and u just refuse to understand the concepts i'm responding with
Because they are just based on nonsense and illogic.
There is NOTHING TO "understand", as they are based on being
allowed to assume the impossible can happen.
i'm not assuming it is, i'm supposing it and then showing that the
proof of impossibility disappears when the problem is framed
correctly. that's the kind of insight that should matter, but ur
quite clearly not the right person to receive it at this time
What is supposing other than an unwarrented assumption.
You can't assume the existance of something to prove that it exists.
that's not what i'm proving smh
You are not proving ANYTHING, as you start from false assumptions.
can u even state what i'm *trying* to prove???
You just don't understand how logic works.
and u don't know what a strawman fallacy is
It seems you don't know what logic is.
The Impossibility didn't disappear, you are just closing your eyes
in ignorance saying you don't beleive the truth so will just lie to
yourself.
kinda sad to see a 70 yo chief engineer stoop to that level >>>>>>>>>>> of arguing on the internet. one would think shit posting on >>>>>>>>>>> usenet for decades would have taught u better, but i suppose >>>>>>>>>>> intent and just basic moral decency matters as much as time >>>>>>>>>>> spent
Your the one posting "shit", because you just refuse to
understand the rules of logic.
I am just pointing yout your ignornace.
talk about shitposting
No, the only "shitposting" is being done by the one that doesn't >>>>>>>> know shit, which is you.
It seems you don't know enough of logic to have a filter to
remove the shit from what you take in, so you have poisoned your >>>>>>>> mind.
gaslighting
No, your Stupidity.
gaslighting
Yes, by you to yourself.
It seems you are as stupid as Olcott.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 24:14:51 |
| Calls: | 810 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| D/L today: |
12 files (21,036K bytes) |
| Messages: | 195,978 |