equal
deleted
inserted
replaced
1575 \end{center} |
1575 \end{center} |
1576 |
1576 |
1577 \noindent |
1577 \noindent |
1578 If started with standard tape @{term "([], [Oc])"}, it halts with the |
1578 If started with standard tape @{term "([], [Oc])"}, it halts with the |
1579 non-standard tape @{term "([Oc, Bk], [])"} according to the definition in Chapter 3---so no |
1579 non-standard tape @{term "([Oc, Bk], [])"} according to the definition in Chapter 3---so no |
1580 result is calculated; but with the standard tape @{term "([], [Oc])"} according to the |
1580 result is calculated; but with the standard tape @{term "([Bk], [Oc])"} according to the |
1581 definition in Chapter 8. ???? |
1581 definition in Chapter 8. |
1582 We solve this inconsistency in our formalisation by |
1582 We solve this inconsistency in our formalisation by |
1583 setting up our definitions so that the @{text counter_example} Turing machine does not |
1583 setting up our definitions so that the @{text counter_example} Turing machine does not |
1584 produce any result by looping forever fetching @{term Nop}s in state @{text 0}. |
1584 produce any result by looping forever fetching @{term Nop}s in state @{text 0}. |
1585 This solution implements essentially the definition in Chapter 3; it |
1585 This solution implements essentially the definition in Chapter 3; it |
1586 differs from the definition in Chapter 8, where perplexingly the instruction |
1586 differs from the definition in Chapter 8, where perplexingly the instruction |