Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Who here understands that the last paragraph is Necessarily true?
 --- Self-Modifying Turing Machine
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 19:35:55 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <dbb30915e47bc88ed3d6bf08e62dd46bd35ead5c@i2pn2.org>
References: <v6un9t$3nufp$1@dont-email.me>
 <58fc6559638120b31e128fe97b5e955248afe218@i2pn2.org>
 <v71mjh$bp3i$1@dont-email.me>
 <1173a460ee95e0ca82c08abecdefc80ba86646ac@i2pn2.org>
 <v71okl$bvm2$1@dont-email.me>
 <5f6daf68f1b4ffac854d239282bc811b5b806659@i2pn2.org>
 <v71ttb$crk4$1@dont-email.me>
 <60e7a93cb8cec0afb68b3e40a0e82e9d63fa8e2a@i2pn2.org>
 <v721po$h4kr$1@dont-email.me> <v73td3$qkp2$6@dont-email.me>
 <v73tvs$qpi9$1@dont-email.me> <v74n81$13bn1$1@dont-email.me>
 <fafa57d75cf800c930c76530acd72148c77fff87@i2pn2.org>
 <v75ul2$19j7l$5@dont-email.me> <v77s2f$1o4oh$1@dont-email.me>
 <v78gi1$1rc43$6@dont-email.me> <v7d5r0$2t5hr$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7dsit$30pvh$4@dont-email.me> <v7fucc$3fh57$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7gcjm$3hlc2$1@dont-email.me> <v7ilo8$1pf7$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7j470$3o7r$5@dont-email.me> <v7l54c$indv$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7lrmd$luh0$4@dont-email.me> <v7nj86$13itb$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7oe4u$17h8r$2@dont-email.me> <v7t6hs$27p0k$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7tm39$2acgd$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 23:35:55 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="358775"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v7tm39$2acgd$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 8519
Lines: 167

On 7/25/24 10:05 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/25/2024 4:40 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-07-23 14:19:10 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> And not a Turing machine. 
> 
> It is an ordinary UTM and an ordinary TM description that is simulated
> in the conventional way and the UTM provides the portion of its own tape
> having this same TM description and the input data to this TMD as the
> tape for this TMD. Not at all impossible merely a new idea that no one
> ever thought of before.

Which is a contradiction of terms, proving your stupidity.

> 
> I am going to stop here because this is a mandatory prerequisite.
> Once you agree that you fully understand that all of the above
> is correct we can move on to the next point.

That seems right, it is a mandatory prerequiste to believe inconsistant 
statements to understand what you are saying.

YOU ARE JUST PROVING YOU ARE AN IDIOT.

> 
>> And there must be a way to indicate in the
>> description of the machine when the head shall move to the code of the
>> machine. How is that done? And how is the code interpreted when it is
>> partially updated?
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> As the input language of a UTM does not permit self-modification,
>> a UTM cannot simulate a self-modifying program. If you want to
>> simulate a self-modifying program you need a simulator that is not
>> a UTM.
>>
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307509556_Self_Modifying_Turing_Machine_SMTM_Solution_to_the_Halting_Problem_concrete_example
>>
>> Not concrete enough to prove anything important.
>>
>>> Google has lots of hits for [self modifying Turing machine]
>>
>> Most of which don't mention "self modifying Turing machine" and those
>> that do don't claim that it is a 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.
>>
>> Then a part of the tape must be reserved for the transitions and is
>> not available for other purposes as it is in a Turing machine.
>> Can your machine add more states or transition rules to the description?
>>
>>> 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
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========