----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@MSGID:
<db7b3ef5-6f4d-4aa8-8f1b-76dae703b5f6n@googlegroups.com> fb49d7cd
@REPLY: 1@dont-email.me> 7ed7e84c
@REPLYADDR Jeffrey Rubard
<jeffreydanielrubard@gmail.com>
@REPLYTO 2:5075/128 Jeffrey Rubard
@CHRS: CP866 2
@RFC: 1 0
@RFC-References:
<cba4f733-5232-4ec4-9a16-ff5828e84b8cn@googlegroups.com> <cc7dff2c-dbdd-4888-ba71-3c122993fd01n@googlegroups.com>
1@dont-email.me>
@RFC-Message-ID:
<db7b3ef5-6f4d-4aa8-8f1b-76dae703b5f6n@googlegroups.com>
@TZUTC: -0700
@PID: G2/1.0
@TID: FIDOGATE-5.12-ge4e8b94
On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 9:42:00 AM UTC-7, olcott wrote:
> On 10/19/2022 5:46 PM, Rock Brentwood wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 28, 2021 at 1:11:43 AM UTC-6, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> >> Maybe not everyone knows that `Turing-complete` programming
languages have several other models equivalent to the Turing machine. Could
you `rate` the different formalisms?
> >> 1) Turing Machines
> >> 2) Lambda Calculus
> >
> > Lambda Calculus with infinitary terms (and the conditional operator).
> > Notation: x = A, B means (lambda x B) A
> > Notation: A? B: C is B is A is true and is C if A is false
> > Example 1:
> > x = 0, y = 1, x < n? (x = x + 1, y = y*x, x < n? (x
= x + 1, y = y*x, x < n? (...): y): y): y
> > where the infinitary term denoted by (...) is an exact replica
of (x = x + 1, y = y*x, x< n? (...): y).
> >
> > The value of this expression is n!, the factorial of n,
assuming that n is a non-negative integer.
> > The value is 1, if n is a negative integer.
> >
> > Notation: Use L: E as a way to denote the (possibly
infinitary) subexpression E by the label L
> > Notation: Use "goto L" as a way to refer to the subexpression
that the label L denotes
> > Example 2:
> > x? (y? (z? A: B): C): (z? A: B)
> > may be rewritten as
> > x? (y? goto W: C): goto W
> > W: z? A: B
> >
> > Example 3: Example 1 rewritten with labels and gotos
> > x = 0, y = 1, goto Z
> > Z: x < n? (x = x + 1, y = y*x, goto Z): y
> For my purposes the best formalism would be a variation of a RASP
> machine because this could form a bridge between Turing machines and
> high level languages.
>
> The problem with low level languages such as the Turing Machine
> description languages is that they make understanding the underlying
> algorithm specified in this language infeasibly difficult for any
> complex algorithms.
"Does it occur to you that this `copypasta` of yours is... perhaps
too stupid for the `hoaxing` purposes you want it to serve?"
--- G2/1.0
* Origin: usenet.network (2:5075/128)
SEEN-BY: 5001/100 5015/255 5019/40 5020/715 848
1042 4441 12000 5030/49 1081
SEEN-BY: 5058/104 5075/128
@PATH: 5075/128 5020/1042 4441