On 2025-10-31, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:or u and the rest of this industry are actually complete fucking idiotsOn 10/30/25 7:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:The only problem is that nobody has been able to come up with aOn 10/30/25 2:13 PM, dart200 wrote:>On 10/30/25 4:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 10/29/25 11:23 PM, dart200 wrote:>On 10/29/25 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 10/29/25 12:24 PM, dart200 wrote:TMs with a modification, specifically adding full mechanicalOn 10/29/25 4:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 10/28/25 11:23 PM, dart200 wrote:>On 10/28/25 6:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 10/28/25 9:41 PM, dart200 wrote:>On 10/28/25 6:34 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:>On 10/28/2025 5:43 PM, dart200 wrote:>
[...]not my argument u fucking useless boomer>
Well, how do you solve the halting problem?
>
with reflection, something u lack as a useless fucking boomer
>
Which you can't say how to do, because your only answer is to
define that you can.
we haven't even gotten the point of working out the
ramifications of what i've defined,
Because you haven't actually defined what you are doing.
blatant lie
Really, show where you have ACTUALLY fully defined your computation
machine to a level you can actually analyize one.
>
reflection to TMs in order to produce Reflective TMs (RTMs)
But they arn't TMs, and you can't add the feature and maintain them
as having the basic property of TMS.
>
You don't seem to understand that this "simple modification" to a TM
do add this is akin to adding to arithmatic the rule that 1 can be
equal to 2.
>>>
adding full mechanical reflection just means it gets a single
instruction that dumps *all* this information to the tape, at the
head, when that instruction is called:
But TMs don't HAVE that sort of instructions.
>
Their FULL array of operations is the mapping of the current state
and Tape Symbol to the new state and tape symbol, plus a step of the
tape in one direction of the other.
>
There is not place in that format of "instruction" to add such a
feature.
>
That is why I keep telling you that you haven't actually DEFINED how
you system works, as it is based on just assuming that "somehow" you
can do what you want
>>>
1) machine description
2) initial tape state
3) current instruction
4) current tape state
And where does it get that information from to do so?
>
That is like saying there can be a "Get the right answer" instruction
to a deterministic computation devide.
>
Remember, Turing Machines have no memory other than the current state
and the current contents of the tape, which is defined to be the
input to that current state.
>>>
call it REFLECT, if u will... this information allows a computation
to know exactly where it is in the overall runtime of computation,
and with that it can subvert semantic paradoxes like the halting
problem.
>
Call WHAT "REFLECT".
>
Your problem is you don't understand that Turing Machines don't have
the ability to have arbitrary instructions due to how they are define.
>
Just like they don't have instrucitons like Add or Call or Multiply.
>you have to understand this is a *mechanical* modification to turing>
machines, not a computational one. much like how RTMs can move a
head left/right, or write 0/1 to the tape ... they mechanically just
do this operation when the instruction is called.
How?
>
Note, Turing Machine are pure Mathematical constructs, in a system
with defined rules.
>
There is no operation defined to do what you want.
>
All you are doing is showing you are as ignorant of what you are
talking about as Olcot.
>>>
*these mechanics are (relatively) simple and self-evidentially
possible and therefore mathematically feasible.*
There are no "mechanics" to a Turing Machine but state transition,
changing the contents of the tape, and moving it a step.
>>>
BUT, let me try a step deeper, and quote turing at you from his
original paper on computable numbers:
>
/We may compare a man in the process of computing a real number to a
machine which is only capable of a finite number of conditions/ [Tur36]
Right, so, how does that man do that operation?
>
>
>>>
THE ENTIRE JUSTIFICATION FOR TURING MACHINES RESTS SQUARELY ON THE
NOTION OF "CAN A MAN MECHANICALLY UNDERTAKE THESE STATE TRANSITIONS"
Right, so how do you "mechanically" create information from no where.
>
The man has no "memory", except for what is on the papers.
>>>
1) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then
obviously he has access the full machine description, or how else
the fuck is he doing any of these state transitions??? therefore he
obviously can dump the machine description, in whatever format he
has it in, to the tape when REFLECT is encountered.
No, he has the book of instructions. he doesn't necessarily know how
to convert those instructions into the notes he is allowed to write
on the pieces of paper.
>
He also doesn't remember what values the pile of papers had on it
when he started,
>>>
2) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then
obviously he can to the side save the initial tape in a "buffer"
that than cannot be overwritten. with that he can can obviously dump
the initial tape state to the tape whenever REFLECT is encountered.
Right, so even if you gave him a side bucket to put the information
in, when he starts this sub-operation, it begins by telling him to copy
>>>
3) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation, then
obviously he has access input of a particular transition, and
therefore can dump that input to the tape when REFLECT is
encountered, in whatever format he encounters it in.
>
4) if a man is running thru the steps of a computation ... he can
obviously duplicate the tape when REFLECT is called. or more
precisely he can save it into a buffer, and dump from the buffer
after putting 1-3 on the tape.
But to where? Remember, the pile of papers, as a total, is DEFINED to
be the input to the compuation.
>
Thus, if the outer part of the operation made a note of state of the
machine and put it into the pile of paper, it becomes part of the
input to the sub-operation.
>
But the sub-operation wasn't defined to have that as its input.
>
It can't be a "hidden" pile that only comes out with a reflect
instruction as there is defined that there isn't such a pile
>THAT IS THE SAME LEVEL OF FORMAT JUSTIFICATION TURING ULTIMATELY>
GIVES FOR ANY COMPUTING MACHINE. SERIOUSLY READ HIS FUCKING ESSAY
YOU DORK
Nope, because your description changes the input given, and thus is
about lying.
>
Again, HOW does the "machine" do what you want with what Turing gave it.
>
IF it passes that information down from the outer routine to the
inner, then by DEFINITION that inner routine has a diffent input then
before, and thus the program P isn't the required one. The "call" to
the decider that P makes, must have the exact same input as when we
directly call it for the answer.
>
If not, then your system just fails to have proper reuse of
algorithms, which makes it less than Turing Complete.
>>>
please tell me where u are confused, not how u think i'm wrong
>
I am not confused, which is part of your issue, you refuse to look at
the errors ppinted out.
>
You aren't allowed to change the fundamental definitions without
kicking yourself out of the field you claim to be in.
>
Turing Machines have no private memory other than their current state.
>
The question is ONLY a function of the description of the program to
run, and thus the decider CAN'T depend on anything other than that
description, or the decider is by definition incorrect.
>
Thus, even if you could define such a thing as a RTM, and program
that actually tries to use that capability to affect its answer,
couldn't be a correct halt decider.
>
Any attempt to try to define it as such will fundamentally turn your
logic system into an incoherent worthless mess.
>
are you seriously trying to tell me that you don't think it's possible
to design a computer chip that can do simple things like:
>
Didn't say that, I said you couldn't make a Turing Machine do that.
>
I guess you just don't know what those words mean.
>1) dump the program it's running on demand?>
2) save the initial memory to an internal buffer to dump on demand?
3) dump the current instruction address on demand?
4) duplicate memory on demand????
>
cause right now ur saying u can't imagine a computer chip doing that
Nope, I said a Turing Machine, or a Computation couldn't do it.
u can't actually prove the church-turing thesis, so u can't refute RTM
abilities because TMs can't directly compute RTM machine descriptions.
>>>>but that not only can you not imagine a computer chip doing that, ur
apparently also too fucking retarded as a person to follow
instructions like that.
And if you think you have been talking about compuer chips, you are just
showing your utter stupidity.
THE FACT WE CAN OBVIOUSLY DO THE REFLECTION (AS I'VE DEFINED SEVERAL
TIMES NOW) MECHANICALLY, IS WHAT JUSTIFIES RTMs THEORETICAL EXISTENCE
>>>>>
idk richard, are you intelligent enough to write the machine
description to a tape upon seeing a REFLECT command? or is that beyond
ur ability to follow instructions???
It is IMPOSSIBLE, as it requires information not in the machine as defined.
the RTMs are defined to have access to the machine description that's
being run at all times during the confirmation
computational system that hasn't been proven to be Turing equivalent.
It's extremely unlikely that you're the first to invent machines with
magic instructions for reflection and whatnot.
If it were that easy to escape from Turing computation, someone would
have done it.
RTMs relationship with turing computation does not reduce down is or is not a TM computation.not only is this mechanically possible with real hardware, it's possibleAs soon as you have "mechanicaally possible with real hardware"
if a man with a paper and pencil if ur name is retarded richard
you probably have a Turing calculation, especially if the mechanics
is symbol manipulation according to rules.
semantic paradoxes like the halting problem stem from a /mechanical/ limitation of TMs not /computational/
As soon as your system is shown to be Turing, we know it succumbsu would need to show a new form of undecidability
to the undecidability of Turing halting by Turing machines.
You think that if you have certain privilege levels or whateverit's not just "somehow", it follows from the ramifications of being able to decide in a context-aware manner
with restricted access ot the magic instructions that you can somehow
evade attempts at thwarting halting decisions.
One problem is that if you have a Turing computational substrate,RTMs being able to decide on how far down it is in a call chain, allows them to compute thru attempts are forming pathological programs
it can be used to program interpreters. Those interpreters can then
be used to write programs about which we ask, does it halt?
ur not going to understand until u try to understand, which u haven't committed to yet
--
a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve
basic semantic proofs like halting analysis
please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,
~ nick
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.