2018-05-22 1:54 GMT+03:00 Linas Vepstas <[email protected]>: > On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Alexey Potapov <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Well... traditional probabilistic programming is a logical probabilistic >> programming. It's definitely not about lambda-calculus. >> > > I don't know what to do with this statement. There is a famous theorem, > the church-turing theorem, dating to the 1930's, that states that anything > turing-computable is equivalent to lambda calculus. There have been many > extensions, refinements, generalizations and clarifications of that > theorem, since then. >
Hmm... I thought you were talking about differences in alternative formalizations of algorithms. Of course, they are all equivalent. But what did you mean then saying you don't like lambda-calculus? > > If you have a probabilistic programming language working on a modern-day > digital computer, then its lambda-calculus. If you have a theoretical > algebra working on infinite-precision topological spaces, that's something > else. The quantum-computing machines are often understood as > infinite-precision topological vector-space machines (where the space is > complex-projective, and the operators are unitary). > Well... if you meant super-Turing computations, then this is completely different story... It's fun, but I would not like to discuss it in this context. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "opencog" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/opencog. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/CABpRrhxUWAW6%3D2DXQQokm4k%2BetpSdYVjYCfR_-YmAuU5bpCgNA%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
