> On 20 Jul 2019, at 14:55, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 4:18 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > >> X is a Turing Machine if and only if for any given input to X there exists > >> a Turing Machine that will produce the same output as X does with the same > >> input. > > > That works for a lambda expression to. > > No it does not work because machines have inputs and outputs but "lambda > expressions" have neither
What??? > and are just a sequence of squiggles Of course not, you make your repeated confusion between 2 and “2”, but you could do it for the universa Turing machine quadruplets. > that never change and mean nothing unless a brain made of matter that obeys > the laws of physics is added into the mix. Only if the whole is blessed with Holy Spirit. You cannot invoke a metaphysical commitment in reasoning. > > > You confuse the mathematical notion of Turing machine, with its general > > sense, > > You confuse the fact that a "general sense" can't *do* anything but a machine > can. And a paper tape and read/write head doesn't know or need to know > anything about mathematical notation other than 1 and 0. It just knows it can > print one of those two symbols and then either halt or move right or left; > and that's all it needs. > > >All universal machine/formalisme can emulate all universal machine/formalism. > > What in the world is machine/formalism?! It sounds to me like big/little or > possible/impossible or "this statement is false". > > >> Do you know of anything simpler that can make calculations than read a > >> square, erase what you read and then print either a 0 or a 1 on it > >> depending on your state, then change into another state depending on what > >> you read, then either halt or move right or left and read another square. > > > Yes, combinators are simpler, and lambda expression too. It is just simple > > substation. Can you imagine something simpler that > > K x y = x > S x y z = x z (y z) > ? > > Yes, I can indeed imagine something simpler than that, seventeen times > simpler to be exact, it is this: > * > I only used one ASCII character while you used 17; my character can't > calculate anything but neither can your 17. In have no idea what you mean by “*”, but above you clearly confuse "K x y = x S x y z = x z (y z)” and K x y = x S x y z = x z (y z). Bruno > > John K Clark > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1n194GASiq-EADHXmesrx9sj8N-TcafeLpmeappyiueg%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1n194GASiq-EADHXmesrx9sj8N-TcafeLpmeappyiueg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/FDBBDE11-9A85-4F19-8590-CCD1347CC9DE%40ulb.ac.be.
