On Tuesday, October 8, 2013 10:49:11 AM UTC+5:30, zipher wrote:
I don't have an infinite stack to implement
lambda calculus, but...
And then
But this is not a useful formalism. Any particular Program implements
a DFA, even as it runs on a TM. The issue of whether than TM is
finite or not
On 08/10/2013 06:44, rusi wrote:
On Tuesday, October 8, 2013 10:46:50 AM UTC+5:30, Ravi Sahni wrote:
With due respect Sir, you saying that Turing machine not a machine?
Very confusion Sir!!!
Thanks Ravi for the 'due respect' though it is a bit out of place on a list
like this :-)
With due
On Tue, 08 Oct 2013 10:46:50 +0530, Ravi Sahni wrote:
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 8:47 AM, rusi rustompm...@gmail.com wrote:
I can only say how ironic it sounds to someone who is familiar with the
history of our field: Turing was not a computer scientist (the term did
not exist then) but a
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
On Tue, 08 Oct 2013 10:46:50 +0530, Ravi Sahni wrote:
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 8:47 AM, rusi rustompm...@gmail.com wrote:
I can only say how ironic it sounds to someone who is familiar with the
history of our field:
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 11:14 AM, rusi rustompm...@gmail.com wrote:
To explain at length will be too long and OT (off-topic) for this list.
I'll just give you a link and you tell me what you make of it:
http://sloan.stanford.edu/mousesite/Secondary/Whorfframe2.html
I am trying to read link.
On Tue, 08 Oct 2013 18:16:01 +0530, Ravi Sahni wrote:
So in that sense, computers are Turing Machines. Anything a physical
computing device can compute, a Turing Machine could too. The converse
is not true though: a Turing Machine with infinite tape can compute
things where a real physical
On Tuesday, October 8, 2013 6:31:21 PM UTC+5:30, Ravi Sahni wrote:
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 11:14 AM, rusi wrote:
To explain at length will be too long and OT (off-topic) for this list.
I'll just give you a link and you tell me what you make of it:
On 08/10/13 14:11, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Tue, 08 Oct 2013 18:16:01 +0530, Ravi Sahni wrote:
Presently Sir, I wish to ask single question: What you mean wave our
hands??
It is an idiom very common in Australia. (It may not be well known in the
rest of the English-speaking world.) It
I don't have an infinite stack to implement
lambda calculus, but...
And then
But this is not a useful formalism. Any particular Program implements
a DFA, even as it runs on a TM. The issue of whether than TM is
finite or not can be dismissed because a simple calculation can
usually
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 12:11 AM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
On Tue, 08 Oct 2013 18:16:01 +0530, Ravi Sahni wrote:
So in that sense, computers are Turing Machines. Anything a physical
computing device can compute, a Turing Machine could too. The converse
is not
On Tuesday, October 8, 2013 5:54:10 AM UTC+5:30, zipher wrote:
Now, one can easily argue that I've gone too far to say no one has
understood it (obviously), so it's very little tongue-in-cheek, but
really, when one tries to pretend that one model of computation can be
substituted for another
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 8:47 AM, rusi rustompm...@gmail.com wrote:
I can only say how ironic it sounds to someone who is familiar with the
history of our field:
Turing was not a computer scientist (the term did not exist then) but a
mathematician. And his major contribution was to create a
On Tuesday, October 8, 2013 5:54:10 AM UTC+5:30, zipher wrote:
Now, one can easily argue that I've gone too far to say no one has
understood it (obviously), so it's very little tongue-in-cheek, but
really, when one tries to pretend that one model of computation can be
substituted for another
On Tuesday, October 8, 2013 10:46:50 AM UTC+5:30, Ravi Sahni wrote:
With due respect Sir, you saying that Turing machine not a machine?
Very confusion Sir!!!
Thanks Ravi for the 'due respect' though it is a bit out of place on a list
like this :-)
Thanks even more for the 'very confusion'. I
14 matches
Mail list logo
