Re: [No longer about] Olcott [High level TM generators]

From	Wasell <wasell@example.com>
Newsgroups	comp.theory
Subject	Re: [No longer about] Olcott [High level TM generators]
Date	2022-10-27 18:46 +0200
Organization	Never You Mind, Inc.
Message-ID	<MPG.3dc4d43dd8fc4b5f9896f9@reader.eternal-september.org> (permalink)
References	(11 earlier) <tj8rsu$20k77$1@dont-email.me> <MPG.3dc2d086848534d89896f6@reader.eternal-september.org> <tjbjts$2g9n4$1@dont-email.me> <MPG.3dc441734947519b9896f7@reader.eternal-september.org> <tjeasu$2q8e0$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On Thu, 27 Oct 2022 11:16:26 -0500, in article <tjeasu$2q8e0$1@dont-email.me>, 
olcott wrote:
> 
> On 10/27/2022 1:20 AM, Wasell wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Oct 2022 10:32:10 -0500, in article <tjbjts$2g9n4$1@dont-email.me>,
> > olcott wrote:
> >>
> >> On 10/25/2022 11:06 PM, Wasell wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 25 Oct 2022 09:29:47 -0500, in article <tj8rsu$20k77$1@dont-email.me>,
> >>> olcott wrote:
> >>>> On 10/21/2022 4:12 AM, Wasell wrote:
> >>>
> >>> [snip]
> >>>
> >>>>> There may not be any proper C-to-TM compilers, but there are C-like
> >>>>> high-level languages that compile to TMs. For example laconic [1]
> >>>>> and nql [2].
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [1] <https://github.com/adamyedidia/parsimony>
> >>>>> [2] <https://github.com/sorear/metamath-turing-machines>
> >>>>
> >>>> The first one seems to translate to Turing machines and seems to be a
> >>>> high enough level language, having structured control flow and one
> >>>> dimensional arrays. The second one does not translate to Turing machines.
> >>>
> >>> First sentence from the second reference:
> >>>
> >>>     "Not-Quite-Laconic is a language and compiler for generating
> >>>     Turing machines with small state counts."
> >>
> >>
> >> NQL uses a different compilation methodology based on register machines
> >> thus not Turing machines.
> > 
> > No. Did you properly examine it? Try this:
> > 
> >    python3 nqlaconic.py --print-tm goldbach.nql
> > 
> > It will print a bunch of 'quintuples' for a standard binary TM. The
> > lines are of the forn
> > 
> >    qx = w0 d0 q0 w1 d1 q1
> > 
> > where qx is the current state, w0 d0 q0 is the action if the current
> > tape symbol is '0', and w1 d1 q1 is the action if the current tape
> > symbol is '1'. In Linz's notation, this line represents two items of
> > the transition function:
> > 
> >    delta(qx, 0) = (q0, w0, d0)
> >    delta(qx, 1) = (q1, w1, d1)
> > 
> > An example from the the output of the above command:
> > 
> >    inc.shift_1 = 1 R inc.shift_0 1 R inc.shift_1
> > 
> > Here 'inc.shift_0' and 'inc.shift_1' are names of states. In Linz's
> > notation:
> > 
> >    delta(inc.shift_1, 0) = (inc.shift_0, 1, R)
> >    delta(inc.shift_1, 1) = (inc.shift_1, 1, R)
> > 
> > If you're still in doubt, you can try running the generated machine:
> > 
> >    python3 nqlaconic.py --run-tm goldbach.nql
> > 
> > It will produce output like this:
> > 
> >    !ENTRY                        [0]
> >    main()[]                       0[0]
> >    main()[0]                      0 0[0]
> >    main()[00]                     0 0 0[0]
> >    main()[000]                    0 0 0 0[0]
> >    ...
> > 
> > The left column is the current state, and the right column is the
> > current tape. Surely you can recognise this as the trace of a TM?
> 
> Maybe it is better that people in the field of termination analysis 
> examine my work, they all work in higher level languages with no need 
> for the tedious details of TM's.

And how is that even remotely relevant to the current conversation? 

To recap:

* You claimed that nql "does not translate to Turing machines". 

* I pointed that you were wrong.

* You doubled down on your error.

* I explained how nql presents its results, showing that it clearly 
  compiles to TMs.

* You replied with irrelevant bollocks.

Can I now assume that you retract your false claim that nql "does
not translate to Turing machines"?

Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Olcott lies Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-16 01:28 +0100
  Re: Olcott proves that he is correct olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 20:37 -0500
  Re: Olcott lies Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-10-18 16:17 +0100
    Re: Olcott is proven to be correct to all those paying attention (hardly any) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-18 10:37 -0500
    Re: Olcott lies Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-20 02:44 +0100
      Re: Olcott is provably correct to anyone that pays attention olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-19 20:51 -0500
      Re: Olcott lies Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-19 22:00 -0400
        Re: Olcott is proven to be correct. olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-19 22:58 -0500
        Re: [No longer about] Olcott Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-10-20 10:08 +0100
          Re: [No longer about] Olcott Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-20 12:09 +0100
          Re: [No longer about] Olcott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-20 07:22 -0400
            Re: [No longer about] Olcott wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2022-10-20 06:08 -0700
            Re: Turing machines and practical computation Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2022-10-20 14:11 +0000
              Re: Turing machines and practical computation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-20 17:25 -0400
            Re: [No longer about] Olcott Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-10-20 15:18 +0100
              Re: [No longer about] Olcott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-20 16:28 -0400
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-20 15:50 -0500
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-20 18:23 -0400
                Re: [still about] Olcott olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-20 18:07 -0500
                Re: [still about] Olcott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-20 20:16 -0400
                Re: [still about] Olcott olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-20 19:45 -0500
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-10-21 00:40 +0100
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-20 20:26 -0400
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-10-21 23:32 +0100
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-21 20:09 -0400
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2022-10-21 23:07 -0700
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-22 10:06 -0400
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2022-10-22 08:45 -0700
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-22 20:05 +0100
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-22 16:13 -0400
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-10-24 17:45 +0100
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-24 22:46 -0400
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-10-29 18:44 +0100
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-29 14:50 -0400
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2022-10-30 05:19 -0700
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-11-02 20:28 +0000
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-02 18:15 -0400
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-11-07 20:54 +0000
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-07 15:04 -0600
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2022-11-07 18:26 -0500
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-11-07 19:02 -0600
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-10-21 18:11 -0600
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-21 21:25 -0400
          Re: [No longer about] Olcott olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-20 09:54 -0500
            Re: [No longer about] Olcott Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-10-20 16:25 +0100
              Re: [No longer about] Olcott olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-20 11:05 -0500
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-20 11:09 -0500
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-20 18:36 -0400
              Re: [No longer about] Olcott Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-20 20:18 +0100
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-10-21 00:52 +0100
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-21 02:08 +0100
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-10-20 19:58 -0600
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-20 21:08 -0500
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-10-22 01:00 +0100
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-10-22 00:32 +0100
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-23 20:34 +0100
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-10-24 00:29 +0100
            Re: [No longer about] Olcott Wasell <wasell@example.com> - 2022-10-21 11:12 +0200
              Re: [No longer about] Olcott Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-10-21 13:04 +0100
              Re: [No longer about] Olcott [High level TM generators] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-25 09:29 -0500
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott [High level TM generators] Wasell <wasell@example.com> - 2022-10-26 06:06 +0200
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott [High level TM generators] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-26 10:32 -0500
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott [High level TM generators] Wasell <wasell@example.com> - 2022-10-27 08:20 +0200
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott [High level TM generators] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-27 11:16 -0500
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott [High level TM generators] Wasell <wasell@example.com> - 2022-10-27 18:46 +0200
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott [High level TM generators] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-27 12:06 -0500
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott [High level TM generators] Wasell <wasell@example.com> - 2022-10-27 20:45 +0200
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott [High level TM generators] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-27 13:56 -0500
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott [High level TM generators] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-27 18:27 -0400
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott [High level TM generators] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-27 17:53 -0500
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott [High level TM generators] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2022-10-27 19:27 -0400

csiph-web