Yes I've come to the conclusion that Turing Complete is far too weak a
term to determine what we need from a Rule Engine to make a useful
declarative platform.
Mark
Peter Van Weert wrote:
The answer to the main question asked in the following blog article:
http://labs.jboss.com/portal/index.html?ctrl:cmd=render&ctrl:window=default.blog.PrjBlogPortletWindowDefaultBlog&project=jbossrules&from=1&link=Are_Rule_Engines_Turing_Complete%3F#Are_Rule_Engines_Turing_Complete%3F
is: YES, rule engines are Turing complete. It was proved in the
following paper:
Jon Sneyers, Tom Schrijvers and Bart Demoen. The Computational Power and
Complexity of Constraint Handling Rules. 2nd Workshop on Constraint
Handling Rules (CHR'05) at ICLP'05, Sitges, Spain, October 2005. Best
Paper Award
http://www.cs.kuleuven.ac.be/~jon/papers/chr_complexity.ps
http://www.cs.kuleuven.ac.be/~jon/papers/chr_complexity.pdf
You do not even need syntactic sugar like 'exist', 'accumulate',
'forall' or even 'not'...
CHeeRs,
Peter
--
This email has been verified as Virus free
Virus Protection and more available at http://www.plus.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
