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
> 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:
I would suggest you to develop this in a web page or in a pdf, and to
refer to it, perhaps.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at