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

Groups > comp.theory > #50219

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 20:49 -0600
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <t5f87p$n3e$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References (19 earlier) <874k1xmy1v.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <TKmdnVOs6o68z-f_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87sfphl7iv.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <t5e902$61j$1@dont-email.me> <8vydnYsTy7kxm-b_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 5/10/2022 6:43 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/10/2022 12:56 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> 
> David kleinecke's solution is a much more efficient and simpler way to 
> implement push_back() and push_front() than std::deque that also has 
> none of the pitfalls such as:
> 
> https://www.cplusplus.com/reference/deque/deque/push_front/
> All iterators related to this container are invalidated.
> 
> I consider it an optimal solution and the one that I am implementing.
I'm not sure what any of what you said has to do with what I wrote. All 
I assume from the runtime is a way of occasionally allocating some multi 
page-sized blocks. That and a few lines (a dozen or so) of code will 
handle the allocation and usage: fairly trivial and quick stuff.
-- 
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