> This is a proof by construction that the language is computationally complete. The definition of Turing completeness in the article is not correct. A languag

> This is a proof by construction that the language is computationally complete. The definition of Turing completeness in the article is not correct. A language being able to execute programs written in itself is not a sufficient condition of Turing completenes. Trivial example: define a language with one pre-defined term, x, which is a routine that takes as input a string, checks if it's "x", and executes it if it is. The empty language is a counter-example as well, but that's cheating. I'm also not sure if the use of the phrase "fixed point" is a misunderstanding of the definition of a fixed point or just an unfortunate use of a term that already has great significance in LISP.