On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 3:54 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
>> a set of quadruplets is not the only or the best way to think about the >> operation of a Turing Machine, you can also think about it physically, >> something that you CAN NOT DO with Lambda Calculus. > > *> On the contrary, if you can interpret the quadruplet in a physical way,* > And you can. > *> then it is even more simple to interpret a lambda expression > physically, with a basic physical substitution.* > Yes you can implement lambda expressions physically but it's not "more simple" because the "basic physical substitution" always comes back to a Turing Machine. Always. That's why computer makers don't put Lambda Calculus textbooks in their >> machines but instead put in silicon microprocessors that work the way >> Turing outlined. > > > *> Counter-examples; the graph reduction machines, the Lisp Machines, etc.* > Bruno..... I'm pretty sure both graph reduction machines and Lisp Machines used silicon microprocessors, although they've been obsolete for so long it might have been discreet transistors or even vacuum tubes. I don't know about etc Machines, I'm not familiar with them. 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]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0i7uDqjK%2BCTuZArPztB8TA0-KNG5u20h6WQa6MGT3nfQ%40mail.gmail.com.
