Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Who here understands that the last paragraph is Necessarily true? --- Self-Modifying Turing Machine Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 22:16:40 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: <58fc6559638120b31e128fe97b5e955248afe218@i2pn2.org> <1173a460ee95e0ca82c08abecdefc80ba86646ac@i2pn2.org> <5f6daf68f1b4ffac854d239282bc811b5b806659@i2pn2.org> <60e7a93cb8cec0afb68b3e40a0e82e9d63fa8e2a@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2024 02:16:40 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="142535"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 6686 Lines: 129 On 7/23/24 10:19 AM, olcott wrote: > 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. > Of course it is, by the definition of a UTM and a Turing machine. You are just proving you don't know what you are talking about. >>  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. > > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307509556_Self_Modifying_Turing_Machine_SMTM_Solution_to_the_Halting_Problem_concrete_example > > Google has lots of hits for [self modifying 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. But where is that on the actual tape of the actual Turing Machine? > > 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. > Nope, it show that you don't understand what you are doing.