Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #49891 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-05-06 15:53 -0500 |
| Last post | 2022-05-09 10:35 -0500 |
| Articles | 14 on this page of 194 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 15:53 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-06 22:08 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 16:25 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-06 22:29 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 17:08 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-07 13:02 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 14:41 -0700
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 17:02 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 15:36 -0700
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 17:54 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-05-07 00:39 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 18:54 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-07 01:54 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 20:05 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-07 23:21 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-05-07 19:57 -0600
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-08 07:34 -0400
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-05-08 05:11 -0700
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-08 14:20 -0400
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-08 19:59 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-09 03:14 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-08 22:39 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-09 12:36 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-08 14:44 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-05-08 11:08 -0600
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-08 19:27 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-08 15:22 -0400
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-08 20:30 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-09 10:53 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-09 23:08 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-09 17:32 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-09 20:31 -0400
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-10 01:37 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-09 20:29 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-10 11:35 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-10 19:12 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-05-08 14:51 -0600
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-09 10:18 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-09 23:14 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-09 17:42 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-10 01:13 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-09 20:28 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-09 23:34 -0400
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-05-10 00:24 -0700
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-10 11:31 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-05-10 03:46 -0700
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-10 12:23 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-10 06:53 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-10 08:01 -0400
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-10 16:41 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-05-10 11:56 -0600
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-10 19:43 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-05-10 20:49 -0600
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-10 19:01 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-05-10 11:59 -0700
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-10 19:04 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-11 01:42 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-10 20:12 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-05-11 03:05 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-10 21:14 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-05-11 02:19 -0700
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-11 08:54 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-05-11 16:27 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-11 10:36 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-05-11 16:49 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-05-11 14:30 -0700
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-11 16:38 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-05-12 00:01 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-11 19:05 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-05-12 04:03 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-11 22:29 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-11 22:37 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-12 15:02 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-05-12 19:03 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-12 19:30 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 14:23 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-12 19:19 -0400
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-05-13 01:02 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-05-11 23:13 -0600
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 00:43 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-11 04:02 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-10 22:07 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-11 13:40 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-11 09:02 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-05-11 16:09 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-11 10:29 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-11 20:35 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-11 15:12 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-11 22:54 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-11 17:02 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-12 02:00 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-11 20:37 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-12 02:49 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-11 21:49 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-12 14:45 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 10:31 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-12 21:20 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 15:33 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-12 21:36 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 16:28 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-12 22:33 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-12 22:02 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 16:14 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-13 00:18 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 18:22 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-13 01:10 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 19:58 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-13 02:54 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-12 22:09 -0400
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-12 21:41 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-13 10:01 +0300
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 10:57 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-13 19:06 +0300
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-13 11:54 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-13 13:38 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 11:07 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-13 17:14 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 12:03 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-13 18:09 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 12:15 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-13 17:26 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 12:07 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-13 19:45 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 13:57 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 15:04 -0400
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 14:15 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 15:40 -0400
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 14:58 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 16:24 -0400
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 15:33 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 17:25 -0400
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 16:48 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 18:05 -0400
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-13 20:12 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 14:28 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-13 21:58 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 16:12 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-13 23:57 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 17:59 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-14 01:00 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 19:09 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-14 01:21 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-17 13:17 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-05-14 01:54 -0700
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-14 04:13 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-05-14 03:30 -0700
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-14 08:51 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-05-14 11:38 -0700
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-14 13:54 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-14 13:15 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-05-14 11:37 -0700
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-05-14 19:47 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-14 20:15 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-05-14 12:52 -0700
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ unlimited scalability ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 16:43 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ unlimited scalability ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-13 23:58 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ unlimited scalability ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 18:03 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-05-13 15:06 -0600
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 16:16 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-05-13 17:48 -0600
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 19:06 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-05-13 19:58 -0600
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 22:39 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-05-13 19:48 -0600
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 11:00 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 12:08 -0400
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-13 17:27 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-13 12:10 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-13 13:20 -0400
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-11 22:07 -0400
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-10 21:06 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-11 00:11 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-10 19:41 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-10 06:53 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-07 21:04 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-08 07:30 -0400
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-08 14:46 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-09 10:19 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-07 01:22 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 19:38 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-07 02:01 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 20:22 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-07 23:30 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-07 02:04 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 20:26 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-05-07 05:00 -0700
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-07 23:31 +0100
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-07 18:36 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-05-08 02:39 -0700
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ priorities ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-08 17:21 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-07 11:06 +0300
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-07 11:14 -0500
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-08 11:57 +0300
Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-09 10:35 -0500
Page 10 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10]
| From | Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-07 02:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <878rreyx3c.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #49912 |
olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
> On 5/6/2022 7:22 PM, Ben wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> ThIs looks along the right lines.
>>> The quintuples need to be indexed by the current state and the current
>>> input, and a set, properly specified, will achieve this.
>> How? std::set is not the right container for this.
>
> std::set::find()
>
> std::set<Quintuple> States;
> std::vector<unsigned char> Tape;
> void insert(const Quintuple& QT){ States.insert(QT); };
>
> std::set<Quintuple>::iterator
> NextState(int current_input, int next_state)
> {
> Quintuple QT(current_input, next_state);
> return States.find(QT);
> }
No, this won't work. You can /make/ it work, but to do that you have to
play tricks with what's considered to be unique in the set. I think a
std::map is more natural.
And your names appear messed up again. NextState (with no declared
return type) returns a Quintuple, not a state. And it has "next_state"
as an argument which seems unlikely. Surely NextState needs the current
state and input symbol?
--
Ben.
"le génie humain a des limites, quand la bêtise humaine n’en a pas"
Alexandre Dumas (fils)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-06 20:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <t54hl6$67o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #49914 |
On 5/6/2022 8:01 PM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 5/6/2022 7:22 PM, Ben wrote:
>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> ThIs looks along the right lines.
>>>> The quintuples need to be indexed by the current state and the current
>>>> input, and a set, properly specified, will achieve this.
>>> How? std::set is not the right container for this.
>>
>> std::set::find()
>>
>> std::set<Quintuple> States;
>> std::vector<unsigned char> Tape;
>> void insert(const Quintuple& QT){ States.insert(QT); };
>>
>> std::set<Quintuple>::iterator
>> NextState(int current_input, int next_state)
>> {
>> Quintuple QT(current_input, next_state);
>> return States.find(QT);
>> }
>
> No, this won't work. You can /make/ it work, but to do that you have to
> play tricks with what's considered to be unique in the set. I think a
> std::map is more natural.
>
I got dem tricks...
std::map has redundant data or splits the class data into two pieces.
> And your names appear messed up again. NextState (with no declared
It has a declared return type that doesn't fit well on the same line:
std::set<Quintuple>::iterator
> return type) returns a Quintuple, not a state. And it has "next_state"
> as an argument which seems unlikely. Surely NextState needs the current
> state and input symbol?
>
You missed this?
>> NextState(int current_input, int next_state)
--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-07 23:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <874k21x9g3.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #49918 |
olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
> On 5/6/2022 8:01 PM, Ben wrote:
>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 5/6/2022 7:22 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> ThIs looks along the right lines.
>>>>> The quintuples need to be indexed by the current state and the current
>>>>> input, and a set, properly specified, will achieve this.
>>>> How? std::set is not the right container for this.
>>>
>>> std::set::find()
>>>
>>> std::set<Quintuple> States;
>>> std::vector<unsigned char> Tape;
>>> void insert(const Quintuple& QT){ States.insert(QT); };
>>>
>>> std::set<Quintuple>::iterator
>>> NextState(int current_input, int next_state)
>>> {
>>> Quintuple QT(current_input, next_state);
>>> return States.find(QT);
>>> }
>> No, this won't work. You can /make/ it work, but to do that you have to
>> play tricks with what's considered to be unique in the set. I think a
>> std::map is more natural.
>>
>
> I got dem tricks...
Good. In some languages you would not be able to make a set work here
at all.
> std::map has redundant data or splits the class data into two pieces.
We should compare notes when you have it all coded. How long to go? I
just wrote a C++ TM interpreter so we can compare more accurately. (I
have an advantage here in that I've done this several times, so I can't
easily judge how long it might take the first time round.)
>> And your names appear messed up again. NextState (with no declared
>
> It has a declared return type that doesn't fit well on the same line:
> std::set<Quintuple>::iterator
Ah yes. Strange that it's called NextState then.
>> return type) returns a Quintuple, not a state. And it has "next_state"
>> as an argument which seems unlikely. Surely NextState needs the current
>> state and input symbol?
>
> You missed this?
>>> NextState(int current_input, int next_state)
No, I'm talking about the name. next_state does not sound like the
current state.
--
Ben.
"le génie humain a des limites, quand la bêtise humaine n’en a pas"
Alexandre Dumas (fils)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-07 02:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <8735hmywyf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #49910 |
Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > >> ThIs looks along the right lines. >> The quintuples need to be indexed by the current state and the current >> input, and a set, properly specified, will achieve this. > > How? std::set is not the right container for this. I can answer the how myself now, but I still don't think std::set is the right choice as the reader is likely yo be confused by the look-up. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-06 20:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <t54hrr$7co$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #49915 |
On 5/6/2022 8:04 PM, Ben wrote: > Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: > >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> ThIs looks along the right lines. >>> The quintuples need to be indexed by the current state and the current >>> input, and a set, properly specified, will achieve this. >> >> How? std::set is not the right container for this. > > I can answer the how myself now, but I still don't think std::set is the > right choice as the reader is likely yo be confused by the look-up. > I have done this for may years with std::map. std::set is the same yet one must overload: bool Quintuple::operator<(const Quintuple& QT) const -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-07 05:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9f101e19-e941-45da-abf4-8a63b362347an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #49915 |
On Saturday, 7 May 2022 at 02:04:42 UTC+1, Ben wrote: > Ben <ben.u...@bsb.me.uk> writes: > > > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes: > > > >> ThIs looks along the right lines. > >> The quintuples need to be indexed by the current state and the current > >> input, and a set, properly specified, will achieve this. > > > > How? std::set is not the right container for this. > I can answer the how myself now, but I still don't think std::set is the > right choice as the reader is likely yo be confused by the look-up. > A map or an unordered_map would be easier, I agree. But PO has chosen a set, and that can be made to work.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-07 23:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87y1zdvutz.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #49932 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > On Saturday, 7 May 2022 at 02:04:42 UTC+1, Ben wrote: >> Ben <ben.u...@bsb.me.uk> writes: >> >> > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes: >> > >> >> ThIs looks along the right lines. >> >> The quintuples need to be indexed by the current state and the current >> >> input, and a set, properly specified, will achieve this. >> > >> > How? std::set is not the right container for this. >> I can answer the how myself now, but I still don't think std::set is the >> right choice as the reader is likely yo be confused by the look-up. >> > A map or an unordered_map would be easier, I agree. But PO has chosen > a set, and that can be made to work. I wonder... Let's see. There no clear sign in the current sketches that he can make it work. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-07 18:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <lMydne2Ercz5n-r_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #49977 |
On 5/7/2022 5:31 PM, Ben wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > >> On Saturday, 7 May 2022 at 02:04:42 UTC+1, Ben wrote: >>> Ben <ben.u...@bsb.me.uk> writes: >>> >>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> ThIs looks along the right lines. >>>>> The quintuples need to be indexed by the current state and the current >>>>> input, and a set, properly specified, will achieve this. >>>> >>>> How? std::set is not the right container for this. >>> I can answer the how myself now, but I still don't think std::set is the >>> right choice as the reader is likely yo be confused by the look-up. >>> >> A map or an unordered_map would be easier, I agree. But PO has chosen >> a set, and that can be made to work. > > I wonder... Let's see. There no clear sign in the current sketches > that he can make it work. > I got everything working besides: bool Quintuple_List::transition_function(std::set<Quintuple>::iterator& current_quintuple) I knew this would be the hardest part. I also got the other TM interpreter to work correctly. Setting the tape manually is trivial. I am reviewing other sources for how state transitions work. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-08 02:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5695f271-7534-4b2a-9454-fb83987b322fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #49986 |
On Sunday, 8 May 2022 at 00:36:12 UTC+1, olcott wrote: > On 5/7/2022 5:31 PM, Ben wrote: > > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes: > > > >> On Saturday, 7 May 2022 at 02:04:42 UTC+1, Ben wrote: > >>> Ben <ben.u...@bsb.me.uk> writes: > >>> > >>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes: > >>>> > >>>>> ThIs looks along the right lines. > >>>>> The quintuples need to be indexed by the current state and the current > >>>>> input, and a set, properly specified, will achieve this. > >>>> > >>>> How? std::set is not the right container for this. > >>> I can answer the how myself now, but I still don't think std::set is the > >>> right choice as the reader is likely yo be confused by the look-up. > >>> > >> A map or an unordered_map would be easier, I agree. But PO has chosen > >> a set, and that can be made to work. > > > > I wonder... Let's see. There no clear sign in the current sketches > > that he can make it work. > > > I got everything working besides: > bool Quintuple_List::transition_function(std::set<Quintuple>::iterator& > current_quintuple) > > I knew this would be the hardest part. I also got the other TM > interpreter to work correctly. Setting the tape manually is trivial. > I am reviewing other sources for how state transitions work. > The easiest way to make a set do what you want is to overload the '<' operator for struct Quintuple. Then you fill a blank Quintuple with the state and input symbol, and call the "find" method on the set to retrive the full Quintuple. It's a fairly horrid interface, but that's C++.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-08 17:21 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ priorities ] |
| Message-ID | <zZCdnSj9ucP93-X_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #50018 |
On 5/8/2022 4:39 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Sunday, 8 May 2022 at 00:36:12 UTC+1, olcott wrote: >> On 5/7/2022 5:31 PM, Ben wrote: >>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> On Saturday, 7 May 2022 at 02:04:42 UTC+1, Ben wrote: >>>>> Ben <ben.u...@bsb.me.uk> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> ThIs looks along the right lines. >>>>>>> The quintuples need to be indexed by the current state and the current >>>>>>> input, and a set, properly specified, will achieve this. >>>>>> >>>>>> How? std::set is not the right container for this. >>>>> I can answer the how myself now, but I still don't think std::set is the >>>>> right choice as the reader is likely yo be confused by the look-up. >>>>> >>>> A map or an unordered_map would be easier, I agree. But PO has chosen >>>> a set, and that can be made to work. >>> >>> I wonder... Let's see. There no clear sign in the current sketches >>> that he can make it work. >>> >> I got everything working besides: >> bool Quintuple_List::transition_function(std::set<Quintuple>::iterator& >> current_quintuple) >> >> I knew this would be the hardest part. I also got the other TM >> interpreter to work correctly. Setting the tape manually is trivial. >> I am reviewing other sources for how state transitions work. >> > The easiest way to make a set do what you want is to overload the '<' operator > for struct Quintuple. > Then you fill a blank Quintuple with the state and input symbol, and call > the "find" method on the set to retrive the full Quintuple. > > It's a fairly horrid interface, but that's C++. Yes that is the way that I did it. David S. Woodruff simply does a linear search. When I am refraining from doing work on Sunday, responding to your posts has a higher priority than responding to anyone else's posts because you are my only reviewer that has been consistently honest. All of my other reviewers have at least a very strong bias for rebuttal thus causing an honest dialogue to have much less priority. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-07 11:06 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <t559aq$jj2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #49891 |
On 2022-05-06 20:53:58 +0000, olcott said:
> For example, the quintuple 'SCcsm' is executed by the machine:
>
> If it is in state 'S' and is reading the symbol 'C' on the tape then
> (a) make a transition to state 's'.
> (b) overwrite the symbol 'C' on the tape with the symbol 'c'.
> // Must do this before transition to state 's' or we lose 'c' from S.
> (c) move the tape reading head one symbol to the left or right
> according to whether 'm' is 'l' or 'r'.
The new state is irrelevant until (b) and (c) are performed, so
the action (a) should be last in the list.
> struct Quintuple
> {
> u32 state;
> u32 symbol;
> u32 write_symbol;
> u32 next_state;
> u8 Tape_Head_Move;
> };
If you want to print traces of the execution it is better to
give the type char* to state and next_state. As the only operations
with these values are assignment and equality test, char* is
as good as u32. But char* gives better trace if it points to the
name of the state as it is in the definition of the Turing machine.
Although not relevant to the current question, I still recommend
that Quintuple be renamed to Rule and Quintuple_List be renamed
to Rules.
> class Quintuple_List
> {
> std::set<Quintuple> list;
> NextState(int next_state, int current_input)
This function should be named getRule. Function names shoule start with
a lower case letter.
> {
> Quintuple QT(next_state, current_input);
> return list.find(QT);
> };
> }
>
> bool transition_function(std::set<Quintuple>::iterator& current_quintuple)
> {
> u32 next_state = current_quintuple->next_state;
> u32 current_input = Tape[Tape_Head];
> std::set<Quintuple>::iterator next_quintuple;
>
> Tape[Tape_Head] = current_quintuple->write_symbol;
> if (toupper(current_quintuple->tape_head_move) == “L”;
Instead of using toupper here you should ensure that only upper case
letters 'L' and 'R' are ever stored in any tape_head_move.
> Tape_Head--; // Left
> else
> Tape_Head++; // Right
>
> next_quintuple = NextState(next_state, current_input);
> if ( next_quintuple == Quintuple_List.end())
> return false;
> current_quintuple = next_quintuple;
> return true;
> }
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-07 11:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <t565tt$6fe$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #49929 |
On 5/7/2022 3:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2022-05-06 20:53:58 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> For example, the quintuple 'SCcsm' is executed by the machine:
>>
>> If it is in state 'S' and is reading the symbol 'C' on the tape then
>> (a) make a transition to state 's'.
>> (b) overwrite the symbol 'C' on the tape with the symbol 'c'.
>> // Must do this before transition to state 's' or we lose 'c'
>> from S.
>> (c) move the tape reading head one symbol to the left or right
>> according to whether 'm' is 'l' or 'r'.
>
> The new state is irrelevant until (b) and (c) are performed, so
> the action (a) should be last in the list.
>
That is how I implemented it.
>> struct Quintuple
>> {
>> u32 state;
>> u32 symbol;
>> u32 write_symbol;
>> u32 next_state;
>> u8 Tape_Head_Move;
>> };
>
> If you want to print traces of the execution it is better to
> give the type char* to state and next_state. As the only operations
> with these values are assignment and equality test, char* is
> as good as u32. But char* gives better trace if it points to the
> name of the state as it is in the definition of the Turing machine.
>
It also forces far fewer states.
> Although not relevant to the current question, I still recommend
> that Quintuple be renamed to Rule and Quintuple_List be renamed
> to Rules.
>
I want to either use the standard that David S. Woodruff use
http://www.lns.mit.edu/~dsw/turing/turing.html
Or find some common convention of computer science.
I am still thinking that State and States are good names and the opinion
that they are not good names is incorrect. A state must have all of its
transition information in itself.
>> class Quintuple_List
>> {
>> std::set<Quintuple> list;
>> NextState(int next_state, int current_input)
>
> This function should be named getRule. Function names shoule start with
> a lower case letter.
>
That would be inconsistent with the spec:
make a transition to state 's'.
>> {
>> Quintuple QT(next_state, current_input);
>> return list.find(QT);
>> };
>> }
>>
>> bool transition_function(std::set<Quintuple>::iterator&
>> current_quintuple)
>> {
>> u32 next_state = current_quintuple->next_state;
>> u32 current_input = Tape[Tape_Head];
>> std::set<Quintuple>::iterator next_quintuple;
>>
>> Tape[Tape_Head] = current_quintuple->write_symbol;
>> if (toupper(current_quintuple->tape_head_move) == “L”;
>
> Instead of using toupper here you should ensure that only upper case
> letters 'L' and 'R' are ever stored in any tape_head_move.
>
I disagree.
>> Tape_Head--; // Left
>> else
>> Tape_Head++; // Right
>>
>> next_quintuple = NextState(next_state, current_input);
>> if ( next_quintuple == Quintuple_List.end())
>> return false;
>> current_quintuple = next_quintuple;
>> return true;
>> }
>
> Mikko
>
>
--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-08 11:57 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <t580lc$i4f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #49950 |
On 2022-05-07 16:14:50 +0000, olcott said:
> On 5/7/2022 3:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2022-05-06 20:53:58 +0000, olcott said:
>>> class Quintuple_List
>>> {
>>> std::set<Quintuple> list;
>>> NextState(int next_state, int current_input)
>>
>> This function should be named getRule. Function names shoule start with
>> a lower case letter.
>>
>
> That would be inconsistent with the spec:
> make a transition to state 's'.
Where in the spec is the requirement that there be a function from
int and int to std::set<Quintuple>::iterator that is named NextState?
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-09 10:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Rv-dndpesPZLqeT_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #50017 |
On 5/8/2022 3:57 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2022-05-07 16:14:50 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 5/7/2022 3:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-06 20:53:58 +0000, olcott said:
>
>>>> class Quintuple_List
>>>> {
>>>> std::set<Quintuple> list;
>>>> NextState(int next_state, int current_input)
>>>
>>> This function should be named getRule. Function names shoule start with
>>> a lower case letter.
>>>
>>
>> That would be inconsistent with the spec:
>> make a transition to state 's'.
>
> Where in the spec is the requirement that there be a function from
> int and int to std::set<Quintuple>::iterator that is named NextState?
>
> Mikko
>
For example, the quintuple 'SCcsm' is executed by the machine:
If it is in state 'S' and is reading the symbol 'C' on the tape then
(a) make a transition to state 's'.
(b) overwrite the symbol 'C' on the tape with the symbol 'c'.
// Must do this before transition to state 's' or we lose 'c' from S.
(c) move the tape reading head one symbol to the left or right
according to whether 'm' is 'l' or 'r'.
http://www.lns.mit.edu/~dsw/turing/doc/tm_manual.txt
--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott
"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10]
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web