Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Who here understands that the last paragraph is Necessarily true?
 --- Self-Modifying Turing Machine
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2024 08:03:50 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 138
Message-ID: <v7gcjm$3hlc2$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v6un9t$3nufp$1@dont-email.me> <v7013v$2ccv$1@dont-email.me>
 <v70nt7$61d8$6@dont-email.me>
 <58fc6559638120b31e128fe97b5e955248afe218@i2pn2.org>
 <v71mjh$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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2024 15:03:51 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c302f5257903c7c25aa8d1f6976e7879";
	logging-data="3724674"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18kL4WJZXeXGZ6LmJHDI10e"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:7ao4E3DBh/MuGZ56/cl7uPDKB7g=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v7fucc$3fh57$1@dont-email.me>

On 7/20/2024 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-07-19 14:18:05 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 7/19/2024 2:49 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-07-17 13:22:09 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 7/17/2024 2:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-07-16 14:04:18 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/16/2024 6:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/15/24 10:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/15/2024 2:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/15/2024 2:30 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Op 15.jul.2024 om 04:33 schreef olcott:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/14/2024 9:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/14/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any input that must be aborted to prevent the non termination
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of simulating termination analyzer HHH necessarily specifies
>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting behavior or it would never need to be aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Excpet, as I have shown, it doesn't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Your problem is you keep on ILEGALLY changing the input in 
>>>>>>>>>>>> your argument because you have misdefined what the input is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>> [00002163] 55         push ebp      ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>>>> [00002164] 8bec       mov ebp,esp   ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>>>> [00002166] 6863210000 push 00002163 ; push DDD
>>>>>>>>>>> [0000216b] e853f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DDD)
>>>>>>>>>>> [00002170] 83c404     add esp,+04
>>>>>>>>>>> [00002173] 5d         pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>> [00002174] c3         ret
>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002174]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The input *is* the machine address of this finite
>>>>>>>>>>> string of bytes: 558bec6863210000e853f4ffff83c4045dc3
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It seems that you do not understand x86 language. The input is 
>>>>>>>>>> not a string of bytes, but an address (00002163). This points 
>>>>>>>>>> to the starting of the code of DDD. But a simulation needs a 
>>>>>>>>>> program, not a function calling undefined other functions. 
>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, all functions called by DDD (such as HHH) are 
>>>>>>>>>> included in the code to simulate.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *The input is the machine address of this finite*
>>>>>>>>> *string of bytes: 558bec6863210000e853f4ffff83c4045dc3*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are talking about the behavior specified by that finite
>>>>>>>>> string. When you say that a finite string *is not* a finite
>>>>>>>>> string you are disagreeing with the law of identity.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Every rebuttal to my work disagrees with one tautology of another.
>>>>>>>>> It is the fact that DDD calls HHH(DDD) in recursive emulation
>>>>>>>>> that makes it impossible for DDD correctly emulated by HHH to 
>>>>>>>>> halt.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Everyone disagrees with this entirely on the basis of the strawman
>>>>>>>>> deception (damned lie) that some other DDD somewhere else has
>>>>>>>>> different behavior.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *They disagree with the following*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In other words the fact that the directly executed DDD halts
>>>>>>>> because the HHH(DDD) that it calls has already aborted its
>>>>>>>> simulation proves these these two different instances of DDD
>>>>>>>> are in different process states.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BUT must have the same behavior.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The state of needing to abort the input changes after it has
>>>>>>>> already been aborted is the same as the state of being hungry
>>>>>>>> changes after you have had something to eat.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can't. Since programs are unchanging, their properties can not 
>>>>>>> change.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *WRONG*
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-modifying_code
>>>>>
>>>>> Your complier cannot produce self-modifying code.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My compiler can accept assembly language
>>>> that can derive self-modifying code.
>>>
>>> Using non-standard extensions of the language may indeed permit that
>>> unless the program is loaded to a read-only memory. The compiler is
>>> designed so that ordinary programs can be loaded to read-only memory.
>>> Some operating systems prevent programs from modifying themselves as
>>> if the program were in a read-only memory, and typical compilers
>>> compile so that the program can be run under such operating systems.
>>>
>>
>> The bottom line is that an actual TM can modify its own code
>> while it is running when it has access to its own TM description
>> and it is only simulated by a UTM. In this case it can modify
>> itself so that its input is no longer contradictory.
> 
> An actual Turing machine cannot change itself. A machine that can change
> itself is not a Turing machine.
> 
> If you are interested in self-modifying machines you may want to study 
> LOTOS.
> 
>> 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.

This same idea can be implemented as an emulated x86 program
that knows its own machine address. Self-modifying code is
not a new idea. Applying this to TMs is a new idea.

Everyone here is acting like unconventional new ideas are
impossible because they are unconventional and new.

That is simply not the way that reality actually works. If
that was the way that reality works then technology would
never progress.


-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer