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

On 7/21/24 9:58 AM, olcott wrote:

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.

No, you haven't, because ot "invent" something you need to actually come up with a way to actually do it.

 

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.

But if X CAN NOT do Y by the definitions, then assuming it can is just incorrect reasoning.

 

If it is executed as self-modifying that exectuion is not simulation, as
a simulation does not do what the simulated does not do. A simulator that
simulates a self-modifying automaton is not an UTM.
>

 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.

But it doesn't actually change its behavior when it does that, as the modification it makes were fully predictable from the code and the data, and thus teh "behavior" always included it.

 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.
 

But it can't be by the definition of the terms. You just don't understand what you are talking about because it is beyond your level of understanding.
Note, if anything, *I* (not you) have invented the Self-Modifying Turing Machine by describing how you could ACTUALLY do it, with the proper terminology, but I will give you a hint, I have seen the concept in the past MANY years ago, so it isn't something new you have invented. Of course the people who described it, also described what it does and doesn't do, and as I pointed out, doesn't actually allow you to do things that you can't do with (non-modifiable) Turing Machines.
For "Random Access" machines, Self-modifying code can sometimes simplify algorithms or reduce the code space needed to express something, and some processors were designed based on it to save processor complexity. The JSR (Jump to SubRoutine, or Jump and Save Return) would store the return address at the target address of the instruction and then continue at the word following, and to return the subroutine would jump to the address just before that which contained a JMP instruction, whose address field got filled in by the JSR instruction. Thus, the processor has no need for a built in call stack or a register dedicated for that purpose (since those machines often had very few registers, maybe just an accumlator and a program counter).