Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How to write a self-referencial TM?
Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 14:49:41 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 76
Message-ID: <100laol$30aak$6@dont-email.me>
References: <1e4f1a15826e67e7faf7a3c2104d09e9dadc6f06.camel@gmail.com>
 <10053hb$3759k$1@dont-email.me>
 <879b3c552bad9da9885e41a298b570c92bef1aaf.camel@gmail.com>
 <10061h6$3de5f$1@dont-email.me>
 <4bce5af2b2b8cd198af611e5d8d56598cab15b0a.camel@gmail.com>
 <10067ok$3ib39$1@dont-email.me>
 <e63d3083ddf6b9ab172cc24c07155410d81ce5b4.camel@gmail.com>
 <1007lrp$3r388$1@dont-email.me>
 <0cbe88d46c63af596e4d2ad6a846e61b7efb14bb.camel@gmail.com>
 <1008fhf$53u$1@dont-email.me>
 <cd31647abcc33f0978415df34ec2c8d41d886591.camel@gmail.com>
 <100a7e4$efgi$1@dont-email.me>
 <f94f006b40c3ca204d41be9b4507280a3a4fc17b.camel@gmail.com>
 <100aolc$hq2u$1@dont-email.me>
 <943f3512f1c253f770eb41519145d4159c0cd6aa.camel@gmail.com>
 <100dhiv$167g2$1@dont-email.me> <100dl69$16uka$1@dont-email.me>
 <100dloh$16vdn$2@dont-email.me> <100e840$1e4fq$1@dont-email.me>
 <100eapg$1ee1a$2@dont-email.me> <100f87j$1k6ri$1@dont-email.me>
 <100jl2b$2m26r$1@dont-email.me> <100lad9$30b4k$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 21:49:42 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7faeabb3f4a2e362069c5f0f1728441c";
	logging-data="3156308"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1++imwWbQyYTe4lOcjMouxZ"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:cUsqdG2n8u2RFHiL5mRS0A4iSyY=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250521-10, 5/21/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <100lad9$30b4k$5@dont-email.me>

On 5/21/2025 2:43 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 21.mei.2025 om 06:33 schreef olcott:
>> On 5/19/2025 7:29 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2025-05-19 04:07:11 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 5/18/2025 10:21 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-05-18 16:08, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/18/2025 4:58 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> In English, both 'description' and 'specification' can refer to 
>>>>>>> something which is either complete or only partial.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Description typically means partial and
>>>>>> specification typically means complete.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think you'll find that most people will agree with this. 
>>>>> That might be your usage.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is that 'specification' has already been used in much 
>>>>> of this discussion to mean something else. A TM's specification 
>>>>> outlines what it is that that TM is supposed to do without going 
>>>>> into the details of how it actually does it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When you refer to the spec of an algorithm you
>>>> are correct. When you refer to the every single
>>>> step of the exact behavior that a finite string
>>>> specified you are wrong.
>>>>
>>>>> For example, the specification of a Parity Decider would be a TM 
>>>>> takes a representation of a natural number as its initial tape 
>>>>> content and accepts it only if it is even.
>>>>>
>>>>> The description of that machine, on the other hand, would describe 
>>>>> what the alphabet of this machine is, what it's state transitions 
>>>>> are, etc. i.e. it would give all the information necessary to 
>>>>> actually construct the machine.
>>>>>
>>>>> André
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I already know how TM machine descriptions actually work.
>>>>
>>>> DDD simulated by HHH1 has the exact same
>>>> sequence of steps as the directly executed DDD().
>>>>
>>>> People here think that when DDD is simulated by
>>>> the same simulator that it calls (thus causing
>>>> recursive simulation) that DDD must have the same
>>>> behavior as DDD simulated by HHH1 that DDD does
>>>> not call.
>>>
>>> The behaviour of DDD is the behaviour that DDD specifies. If some
>>> program simulaates differently then it does not simulate the
>>> behaviour of DDD.
>>>
>>
>>
>> It's not that hard really.
>> When an input calls its own simulator with itself as input
>> THIS DOES CHANGE ITS BEHAVIOR.
>>
> 
> There is only one DDD that uses the algorithm of only one HHH. How can 
> that be different? 

Its over-your-head.
You are so indoctrinated with the infallible word
of textbook that you disagree with the verified
facts of actual execution traces.

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer