3 ms·
I think we would be remiss to mention that fundamentally the Lambda Calculus and Turing Machines are mathematically equivalent, as proved in the Church-Turing T
by knowtheory 16y ago
I think we would be remiss to mention that fundamentally the Lambda Calculus and Turing Machines are mathematically equivalent, as proved in the Church-Turing Thesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%93Turing_thesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%93Turing_thesis ).
And while it is true that there are functional features that are unsupported in the basic syntax of imperative languages, you can still do equivalent computation, and after all "Whoever does not understand LISP is doomed to reinvent it" :P
- cyrus_ 16y ago54. Beware of the Turing tar-pit in which everything is possible but nothing of interest is easy. —Alan Perlis, Epigrams on Programming
- knowtheory 16y agoha, that's great. I have to say learning about Lisp and the Lambda Calculus renewed my interest in computation and programming back in university. I really find Turing machines quite dull. Perhaps i did not adequately disclaim my statements though. Having to hack a LISP into your imperative language is neither easy, maintainable or recommended. Just cause you can do it, doesn't mean you should ;) The rest of the epigrams: http://www-pu.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/users/klaeren/epigrams.html http://www-pu.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/users/klaeren/epig...