Le 07-nov.-06, à 06:19, Colin Geoffrey Hales a écrit :


> Having got deeper into the analysis, what I have found is that EC is
> literally an instantated lamba calculus by Church.


Good idea, but note that it is a very general statement. Many theories  
can be instanciated in lamabda calculus.


> So all I have to do is
> roughly axiomatise EC in Church's form and I'm done. So that is what I  
> am
> doing. I'll be directly referring to church's original work.


Are you saying that you disallow lambda expression having the shape:

    (LAMBDA (X) F)

with no occurrence of X in F?

Put in another way, do you take elimination of information as a  
primitive like in the usual lambda lambda-K calculus, or do you follow  
really the original lambda-I calculus of Church. (In term of  
combinator: do you allows the kestrel K (cf Kxy = y).

If you translate the hypostases in lambda-calculus, the third person  
description allows information elimination, but the comp-physics (third  
person plural hypostases) normally should not (see my Elsevier paper).

BTW I have already try to explain Church calculus in the list (through  
their little cousins the combinators), but it is technical ... See:

http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/browse_frm/thread/ 
f1342a54d761e296/80e50456bf597ac7? 
lnk=gst&q=combinators+logic&rnum=1#80e50456bf597ac7

I would suggest you to develop this in a web page or in a pdf, and to  
refer to it, perhaps.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---


Reply via email to