Re: Who here understands that the last paragraph is Necessarily true? --- Self-Modifying Turing Machine

On 7/19/24 10:41 PM, olcott wrote:

On 7/19/2024 9:05 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:

On 2024-07-19 19:10, olcott wrote:

On 7/19/2024 7:44 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:

On 2024-07-19 10:02, olcott wrote:
>

A Self-Modifying Turing Machine is defined as a Turing
Machine Description that has access to its own tape
location on the UTM that is simulating it.

>
Umm. Maybe explain how that's supposed to work...
>
A TM has no idea whether it is being run directly or being run in a UTM. And even if it is being run in a UTM, it certainly does NOT have access to the machine description which is present on the UTM's tape.
>

>
A self-modifying TM knows that it is only simulated by a UTM

>
How exactly is it supposed to know that? Please explain using ACTUAL Turing Machines, not C code.
>

 How could an emulated x86 program change its own code?
It simply needs to know its own machine address.

But you said *TURING MACHINE* so this is just a dishonest change of topic dodge.
I gues this is just another of your Diagonalizatin proof claim where you will either just try to ignore your claim or admit that you don't have one.
Until you answer, we will just need to assume that anything you claim about Turing Machines is just a ignorant dishnest lie.

 

and knows where it is located on the UTM tape.

>
And how exactly would it have access to that? A TM emulated by a UTM has no access to the UTM's tape.
>

 It is typically understood that a a simulated Turing machine
description is not provided access to the UTM tape. This is
not the same as an analytical impossibility.

And How does it do that.
What do you put in the code (or data) that tells it that it must be a simulated machine and can't be an actual runing program?

 We never did it this way before therefore it is impossible
is not the way that reality actually works.

Assuming things that are definitionally impossible is a good way to show that you logic is just a LIE.

 

There's lots of examples of UTMs available on the web. Maybe you should actually try playing around with some of them so you can learn how actual UTMs work. Hint: It's not how you think.

>
Once again, you should head the above advice. Apparently you have no clue how actual UTMs work.
>

 They are essentially isomorphic to x86 emulators.

Which shows you don't know what "isomorphic" means.
I suppose this shows that you are isomorphic to a stupid liar.

 

André
>