> On 20 Jul 2019, at 14:55, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 4:18 AM Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be > <mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/FDBBDE11-9A85-4F19-8590-CCD1347CC9DE%40ulb.ac.be.
