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

Groups > comp.theory > #50278

Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ]

From Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com>
Newsgroups comp.theory
Subject Re: Validating that the implementation meets the spec for TM transition function [ best tape ]
Date 2022-05-11 23:13 -0600
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <t5i51b$5so$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References (20 earlier) <QoCdnVAMjJzvkOb_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <eIGdnaUnGsd3hOb_nZ2dnUU7-VfNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <d4a4f528-98d7-4203-97cc-c7c110b87dbbn@googlegroups.com> <t5gkl6$8og$1@gioia.aioe.org> <0b2409e1-6bc0-426d-9a9b-9f8ce84f1c0fn@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 5/11/2022 3:30 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Wednesday, 11 May 2022 at 16:27:37 UTC+1, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 11/05/2022 10:19, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 11 May 2022 at 03:05:37 UTC+1, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>
>>>> But what you suggest is quite workable...
>>>>
>>>> I think if I were interested in ultimate efficiency, I might go with Jeff's "chained blocks" with a
>>>> comfortably large chosen page size. (But efficiency really isn't an issue for this task!)
>>>>
>>> The tape is unbounded. And even some very simple machines will fill it up to infinity.
>>> If you stop the machine when the process runs out of memory, which is a reasonable
>>> strategy, you don't want O(N) tape write operations.
>>>
>>> Chained blocks are probably the best model. They don't scale up, so a machine that was written
>>> for a 16K ZX81 might struggle when ported to a 16GB typical modern desktop. If you know
>>> the approximate szie of your tape, however, then blocks are a good solution.
>>>
>> I don't get why you say a chained block approach doesn't scale up. Such a design works well until
>> the logical (user) address space is filled, which is absolutely huge on a modern 64-bit machine with
>> page files etc.. When the tape gets very large, only a small portion of it needs to be in the
>> working set for the process to avoid paging.
>>
>> The only design I can think of that might scale up better would be one using an output device larger
>> than the logical address space limit. Maybe you were just saying that a hard-coded small block size
>> (for a ZX81?) is not as efficient as big blocks if you've got lots of memory? I don't see that you
>> would use a chained block approach on such a tiny machine! Perhaps you meant to say the design
>> doesn't scale /down/ rather than up? (And the size of chained blocks can be dynamically decided at
>> run time if we like.)
>>
>> Other designs, e.g. using vector or strings will involve copying ever larger blocks of memory around
>> when the vector/string is extended, so perhaps you meant to say that /those/ designs don't scale up,
>> but the chained blocks scale up?
>>
> I was thinking that the chained block degenerates into effectively a linked list when block size becomes
> small in relation to tape length. However that isn't really a problem - it still works more effectively
> than a contiguous model.

Right. And by allocating these blocks in multiples of the page (least 
common multiple of swap page and cache page size), you'll keep the 
caches full of the right stuff. The time overhead is that you must check 
if the +1 or -1 positioning to see if you are at a block boundary for 
each increment; the storage penalty is that you must keep both a forward 
and backward link pointer on each page. This approach can be adapted to 
really, really long tapes (>> terabyte) and will be no uglier then other 
approaches.

My (not so hidden) assumption are that nobody is really thinking of 
dealing with such really, really long tapes, i.e., this whole project is 
viewed more as a pedagogical exercise. A second assumption is that the 
thing to optimize is cache hits given secondary assumptions that modern 
user-level computers have wide and fewer cache "words" so you want 
something that almost guarantees that you will "pound" each cache word 
many times and that your program including your part of the memory 
management will all stay in the cache.

What is really amazing to me is that Ben got such greater throughput 
with what he described as a very casual approach! So maybe all of our 
talk is rather premature until someone wants to do BB for new state size 
bounds.
-- 
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