Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Who here understands that the last paragraph is Necessarily true? --- Self-Modifying Turing Machine Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 09:19:10 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 120 Message-ID: References: <58fc6559638120b31e128fe97b5e955248afe218@i2pn2.org> <1173a460ee95e0ca82c08abecdefc80ba86646ac@i2pn2.org> <5f6daf68f1b4ffac854d239282bc811b5b806659@i2pn2.org> <60e7a93cb8cec0afb68b3e40a0e82e9d63fa8e2a@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 16:19:10 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c53d2de4672c698529f342dcfedcfa3a"; logging-data="1295643"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX186/4G242qh+3/O0DhaC9s1" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:IR5mGnk4uP9tD5TLa7MX8Q2Wkws= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 6435 On 7/23/2024 1:40 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-07-22 14:51:57 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 7/22/2024 3:26 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2024-07-21 13:58:56 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> On 7/21/2024 4:52 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 2024-07-20 13:03:50 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> >>>>>> On 7/20/2024 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 2024-07-19 14:18:05 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When a Self-Modifying Turing Machine can change itself to become >>>>>>>> any other Turing Machine then it can eliminate the pathological >>>>>>>> relationship to its input. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It never was a Turing machine. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> A self modifying TM is merely a TM description that is >>>>>> simulated by a UTM and has access to itself on the UTM >>>>>> tape. >>>>> >>>>> No, it is not. >>>> >>>> I invented it thus that is the specification of my invention. >>> >>> The term "Turing machine" is already reserved and your "invention" >>> is not one of the machines that are called "Turing macnines". >>> >>> Besides, you have not shown the "invention" so there is no >>> basis to claim that you have invented anything. >>> >> >> A  Self-Modifying Turing Machine is merely a conventional Turing Machine >> Description x that is being simulated by a conventional Universal Turing >> Machine y such that x is provided access to itself on y's tape. >> >>>>> A TM description describes a TM that does not change itself. >>>> >>>> X is not typically understood to do Y therefore it is >>>> impossible for X to do Y is incorrect reasoning. >>> >>> That is a different situation. If someting is not understood one can be >>> wrong about it. But even a very superficial understanding of Turing >>> machines suffices for determination that a machine that modifis itself >>> is not a Turing machine. >>> >>>> That you fail to understand that an emulated x86 program can >>>> modify itself to change its own behavior as long as it knows >>>> its own machine address is merely ignorance on your part. >>> >>> Your false claim about my understanding reveals that you are a liar. >>> Thank you, but we already knew. >>> >> >> *Ad Hominem attacks are the first resort of clueless wonders* >> >> Anyone with sufficient software engineering skill can write a >> C function that changes its own machine code while it is running. >> That you say that I am lying about this is ridiculously stupid >> on your part. >> >>>> When a simulated Turing Machine Description is provided >>>> access to itself on the UTM tape it can do the same thing. >>>> Rigid minded people incorrectly conflate unconventional >>>> for impossible. >>> >>> It is not a Turing machine desription if it describes a >>> self-modification. >>> >> >> WRONG! >> >> It is not [the conventional notion of] a Turing machine description if >> it describes a self-modification, [yet self-modification is by no means >> impossible]. > > The input language of an UTM does not contain any expression that could > denote self-modification. Tape head move, write value. The new idea is that the TM description has access to its own location on the UTM tape, unconventional not impossible. > In that sense self-modification is inpossible. Not all all in my paper the SMTM merely gets rid of the infinite loop as the accept state. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307509556_Self_Modifying_Turing_Machine_SMTM_Solution_to_the_Halting_Problem_concrete_example Google has lots of hits for [self modifying Turing machine] > It you want to describe a self-modifying machine you need a different > description language. If you want to simulate a self-modifying machine > you need a simulator that can understand a description language for > descriptions of self-modifying machines. > In my example in my paper the tape head simply moves to the state transition to an infinite loop and writes final accept state. Changing this [002]["e"]----->(001, 003) // Transitions to (qa) Into this: [002]["e"]----->(001, 1234) // Recognizes "the" > If the self-modifying machine can be simulated by a Turing machine it > cannot compute anything a Turing machine cannot compute. > It gets rid of the infinite loop at its accept state. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer