If you tune in to the video from years ago (the one with Vaughn Perling, Szabo, etc…), his description of how BitCoin is Turing-complete is precise. Not sure what’s left to argue, since you already agree here that once looping is satisfied, Script is Turing complete. Case closed.
As for your paper, it was a very bad read — read it before writing my response to your latest. By bad, I mean it didn’t refute the Wright paper. Instead, it was a giant loaf of character assasination turd. For instance: One of you main tenets, which you write in obfuscation (guessing on purpose?), is that CSW didn’t cite his references properly. In fact, he cited Bohm himself. Apparently this wasn’t good enough (for just you). Had he not cited Bohm, your techie-buddy with whom you consulted probably wouldn’t have found the reference material at all!
You might be surprised to know that all the math Einstein used in his world famous Special Theory of Relativity was copied from other academic pages. Line for line.
Direct copy bro.
In fact, maybe worse. It’s hard to know what Einstein read WHEN he read it when his lightbulbs went off, even he may not recall. But his math was copied from Lorentz, the Lorentz factor. Einstein may not have even cited his actual source, it might’ve been Larmor or Cohn or all three? Hard to really say, since when most folks study the great teachings of Albert Einstein, they don’t worry too much about his minute errors, his failures of citation, or other miniscule shortcomings. They focus on the MATERIAL.
Keep in mind, ol’ Einstein began his career not in Physics but at the patent office, perfecting his art of reading other men’s works. This is the nature of research — have you done any? To write original material, you need to read and attest many papers from your ancestors and peers, and decide which is useful and which is garbage. Then you must EXTEND the knowledge of your ancestors and peers. You may not write a paper ONLY on turing completeness which has already been written, but you MAY write one on the BitCoin NETWORK having the ability to run Turing-complete code.
You see, what YOU have gotten wrong, is your terms. “BitCoin” can mean a coin or token, but it can also be used as a term describing the entire NETWORK. It is here where your knowledge has escaped you. As we find in quantum physics as with many much less technical things, boundaries matter. Draw them too small, and you might think quantum mechanics is magic or metaphysics. With proper boundary conditions (something Turing himself wrote about but misunderstood by many) something that is provably correct becomes wrong. A particle which seemingly moves by “spooky” magic at a distance, simply moves because it traverses a field as big as the universe itself which most scientists fail to account in their tiny little labs tucked away in a nook of the Earth.
But don’t take my word for it, listen to the SOURCE:
The following is from Wikipedia’s FORTH article, as I don’t want to be ridiculed for improper citing (but I’m sure you could find a way?)…
“Most programming environments with recursive subroutines use a stack for control flow. This structure typically also stores local variables, including subroutine parameters (in call by value system such as C). Forth often does not have local variables, however, nor is it call-by-value. Instead, intermediate values are kept in another stack, different from the one it uses for return addresses, loop counters, etc. Words operate directly on the topmost values in the first of these two stacks. It may, therefore, be called the “parameter” or “data” stack, but most often simply “the” stack. The second, function-call stack is then called the “linkage” or “return” stack, abbreviated rstack. (linkage? Himm, like CHAIN links? Like perhaps a BLOCK chain? It almost sounds like the “linkage” which contains the STACK of transactions and Scripts within it, doesn’t it? Any you thought you needed a CompuSci degree to understand!) Special rstack manipulation functions provided by the kernel allow it to be used for temporary storage within a word, and it is often used by counted loops, but otherwise it cannot be used to pass parameters or manipulate data.
Most words are specified in terms of their effect on the stack. Typically, parameters are placed on the top of the stack before the word executes. After execution, the parameters have been erased and replaced with any return values. For arithmetic operators, this follows the rule of reverse Polish notation. See below for examples illustrating stack usage.
Forth has been used successfully in large, complex projects, while applications developed by competent, disciplined professionals have proven to be easily maintained on evolving hardware platforms over decades of use. Forth has a niche both in astronomical and space applications. Forth is still used today in many embedded systems (small computerized devices) because of its portability, efficient memory use, short development time, and fast execution speed.”
Hmmm, it’s almost like Satoshi chose a Forth-like language because he thought BitCoin (the network) might need to LAST for a long long time without anyone changing the protocol? eh? It’s all in the material of what someone says, not in the character of the someone or the minutia of that person’s dialect.
And the MATERIAL, is something you failed to focus in your writing. Instead of understanding and digesting the actual MATERIAL, you focus on the fact that CSW’s work is built atop the shoulders of giants. Big whoop, so is everyone’s. Newton didn’t think up Calculus out of thin air, he studied many other men’s work and put it all together. Same for Maxwell, same for Einstein, same for Thomas Edison who perfected the light bulb but really didn’t invent it from scratch.
So recommend you reread the paper, only this time, focus on the math, the computer science, and the particulars of the concepts involved. Hell, maybe you should read Turing himself. Wanna bet who HAS read Turing?
But until then, take your dimestore detectivery and put it to good use chasing politicians or dentists. There’s two industries your brand of journalism seems better apportioned.
“Forth and Forth-like languages use a dual-stack architecture… it’s just going to take people more time to understand it” — CSW 2015
Mr Williams, feel free to take more time…