Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.theory > #50202

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function

From Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com>
Newsgroups comp.theory
Subject Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function
Date 2022-05-10 11:56 -0600
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <t5e902$61j$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References (17 earlier) <87fslhn0fj.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <adebc02c-f8fc-429d-8fbd-6edbebac533an@googlegroups.com> <874k1xmy1v.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <TKmdnVOs6o68z-f_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87sfphl7iv.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

Show all headers | View raw

On 5/10/2022 9:41 AM, Ben wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
> 
>> On 5/10/2022 6:23 AM, Ben wrote:
>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, 10 May 2022 at 11:31:46 UTC+1, Ben wrote:
>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/9/2022 7:13 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/9/2022 5:14 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/8/2022 1:27 PM, Ben wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> My code is utterly trivial. The tape is a std::string to which I assign
>>>>>>>>>>> the input. All that happens after that is that tape[head] is assigned
>>>>>>>>>>> to, and the string is grown by one blank, either at the front or the
>>>>>>>>>>> back, if the tape movement requires it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Conventionally tapes have an actual beginning, yet no fixed end.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sipser and Kozen agree with me, Linz agrees with you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> None of these authors say what is "conventional". What is certain is
>>>>>>> that if there were a convention, an author not using that convention
>>>>>>> should say as much. You'll find, however, that that is not the case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How would you define conventional?
>>>>>
>>>>> "the accepted or traditional method of doing something"
>>>>>
>>>>>> The most typical use is one way unlimited, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know. I know it's not a widely agreed convention, but what it
>>>>> "typical" is hard to assess. I think double-open is more commonly used in
>>>>> modern presentations, but the only real way to know would be to do a
>>>>> survey and I don't think the topic merits that.
>>>>>
>>>>>   From a technical point of view, double-open is clearly preferable as it
>>>>> removes a special case with no technical down-side.
>>>>>
>>>> There's a technical downside if you implement the tape in the obvious way,
>>>> as a dynamic buffer. Most languages make it quite fast to append characters
>>>> to the buffer's end.
>>> I meant for the theory of such machines.  It's the theory and the
>>> theorems that will dictate which style an authors chooses and there's no
>>> down-side in that context.
>>>
>>>> There's usually spare memory there in the system, so
>>>> the push_back() operation is just a case of incrementing a size field.
>>> If you do the resizing right, the same is true of push_front().
>>>
>>>> push_front(), however, generally requires a push_back, followed by a move
>>>> for the entire buffer.
>>> Every now and then, your realloc will need an extra move, but that's a
>>> cost that will be amortised if you do the usual exponential resizing.
>>>
>>>> There are ways round this, of course, but you have to know what you
>>>> are doing, and it's not as easy to write.
>>>
>>> Gosh, you have a low opinion of what's generally understood!  Maybe I
>>> have too high an opinion, but growing a buffer at one or other or even
>>> both ends seems to me to be utterly trivial.
>>
>> https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/deque
>> push_back adds an element to the end
>> push_front inserts an element to the beginning
> 
> I think everyone here knows that.
> 
> Using std::deque was suggested before (by Jeff I think), but at nearly
> 200 million steps a second, I didn't think there was much room for a
> speed-up.
> 
> I've just tried it, and using std::deque rather than std::string slows
> my implementation down to 106 million steps a second, and it doesn't
> simplify the logic at all.  In fact, the few places where you really
> want a string get a bit more fiddly.
> 
> Mind you, the speed is almost irrelevant unless you are hunting for BB
> champions.

One possibility is to use a linked list where each node contains a 
character, a pointer to the following node, and a pointer to the 
previous node. Since the TM can only move one tape square per state 
transition, the cache will do a good job of speeding things up. Of 
course storage per character is more and that will slow things down.

Another way to make tape storage almost all characters is to allocate a 
block (page sized) at a time with one block initially. A block is 
allocated each time you are about to go off either the front or back end 
and is linked. The cache hit ratio is extremely good and only a tiny 
fraction less then using a big array. It wins, however, when growing an 
array would cause you to move it.
-- 
Jeff Barnett

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

Thread

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

csiph-web