Path: ...!news.tomockey.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Who here understands that the last paragraph is Necessarily true? --- Self-Modifying Turing Machine
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 12:40:12 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 141
Message-ID: <v7t6hs$27p0k$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> <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 11:40:13 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="02bedc76074b37eacb17f68ffc18830d";
	logging-data="2352148"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+czS5zGQbTqwznBAAQFXJ2"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ft+eXZLGUEOT844HwSZysX7tQp0=
Bytes: 7357

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. 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
>> cannot compute anything a Turing machine cannot compute.
> 
> It gets rid of the infinite loop at its accept state.

Not a very impressive application. An ordinary finite state automaton
with four states can solve the same problem.

-- 
Mikko