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

On 7/25/24 10:05 AM, olcott wrote:

On 7/25/2024 4:40 AM, Mikko wrote:

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.

 It is an ordinary UTM and an ordinary TM description that is simulated
in the conventional way and the UTM provides the portion of its own tape
having this same TM description and the input data to this TMD as the
tape for this TMD. Not at all impossible merely a new idea that no one
ever thought of before.

Which is a contradiction of terms, proving your stupidity.

 I am going to stop here because this is a mandatory prerequisite.
Once you agree that you fully understand that all of the above
is correct we can move on to the next point.

That seems right, it is a mandatory prerequiste to believe inconsistant statements to understand what you are saying.
YOU ARE JUST PROVING YOU ARE AN IDIOT.

 

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.
>