Re: Self-Modifying Turing Machine

Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 08:03:50 -0500 schrieb olcott:

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.

This is your first mention of selfmodification.

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

No, but you can't transfer conventional knowledge unchanged.

--
Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott:
Objectively I am a genius.