Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: How to write a self-referencial TM?
Date: Fri, 16 May 2025 04:08:54 +0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 91
Message-ID: <fc1c33876fb2863cf4b3976a243042e11b8529cc.camel@gmail.com>
References: <1e4f1a15826e67e7faf7a3c2104d09e9dadc6f06.camel@gmail.com>
	 <1002akp$2i4bk$2@dont-email.me>
	 <479eebef3bd93e82c8fe363908b254b11d15a799.camel@gmail.com>
	 <1002jkk$2k00a$3@dont-email.me>
	 <05e306f20fcb7c88c497e353aaecd36b30fc752a.camel@gmail.com>
	 <10053hb$3759k$1@dont-email.me>
	 <879b3c552bad9da9885e41a298b570c92bef1aaf.camel@gmail.com>
	 <1005egk$39app$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Injection-Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 22:08:57 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b7c2e7cb48bac1670f833664c84ad09e";
	logging-data="3442297"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18SfzcgLMvyOciWiHKsrFC5"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.54.3 (3.54.3-1.fc41)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:fmq5HWSF/vy9Td+H+xeNpsCxOj4=
In-Reply-To: <1005egk$39app$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4555

On Thu, 2025-05-15 at 14:15 -0500, olcott wrote:
> On 5/15/2025 1:49 PM, wij wrote:
> > On Thu, 2025-05-15 at 17:08 +0100, Mike Terry wrote:
> > > On 14/05/2025 18:53, wij wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2025-05-14 at 12:24 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > > > > On 5/14/2025 11:43 AM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, 2025-05-14 at 09:51 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > > > > > > On 5/14/2025 12:13 AM, wij wrote:
> > > > > > > > Q: Write a turing machine that performs D function (which c=
alls itself):
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > void D() {
> > > > > > > > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 D();
> > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > > Easy?
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > That is not a TM.
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > It is a C program that exists. Therefore, there must be a equiv=
alent TM.
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > > To make a TM that references itself the closest
> > > > > > > thing is a UTM that simulates its own TM source-code.
> > > > > >=20
> > > > > > How does a UTM simulate its own TM source-code?
> > > > > >=20
> > > > >=20
> > > > > You run a UTM that has its own source-code on its tape.
> > > >=20
> > > > What is exactly the source-code on its tape?
> > > >=20
> > >=20
> > > Every UTM has some scheme which can be applied to a (TM & input tape)=
 that is to be simulated.=C2=A0
> > > The
> > > scheme says how to turn the (TM + input tape) into a string of symbol=
s that represent that
> > > computation.
> > >=20
> > > So to answer your question, the "source-code on its tape" is the resu=
lt of applying the UTM's
> > > particular scheme to the combination (UTM, input tape) that is to be =
simulated.
> > >=20
> > > If you're looking for the exact string symbols, obviously you would n=
eed to specify the exact
> > > UTM
> > > being used, because every UTM will have a different answer to your qu=
estion.
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > > Mike.
> >=20
> > People used to say UTM can simulate all TM. I was questing such a UTM.
> > Because you said "Every UTM ...", so what is the source of such UTM?
> >=20
> >=20
>=20
> The TM description language is more accurately
> referred to as the TM specification language.
>=20
> A UTM is a hypothetical thing that is specified
> to have some source source-code that it operates
> on yet none of the details of this are ever
> fully elaborated.
>=20
> That is why I needed to use the x86 language
> as a fully specified proxy. With my x86utm
> operating system we make a 100% concrete
> simulating termination analyzer such that
> zero of the details are "abstracted away".
>=20
> It is the details that have been "abstracted away"
> by the abstractions that cause the conventional
> halting problem proofs to be insufficiently
> understood.

Unfortunely, refuting HP suggests halting decider is a real thing.
Proving by "abstracted away" the real part?

> Mike says that I am not smart enough to understand
> abstract thought. The truth is that I am smart enough
> to find that the abstract thought
> "abstracts away" key details that lead to
> misunderstandings.

I feel you are good in a debate game for rebuttal.