Jason Johnson wrote:
> On 10/25/07, Matej Kosik <kosik at fiit.stuba.sk> wrote:
>   
>> I am sorry. This wasn't the proper word.
>>
>> Certainly, I believe that there are things that cannot be modelled in the pure functional language
>> (whose constructs can be without exceptions mapped to the lambda-calculus). This is not only the
>> case of input/output. This is also the case of modelling stateful systems that interact with their
>> environment over time (not only at the beginning and at the end). So pretending that functional
>> programming can cover all the important aspects of systems we need to model is unfaithful. Those
>> impurities are useful.
>>     
>
> Um, you are aware that lambda-calculus is Turing equivalent right?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing-complete
>
> "The untyped lambda calculus is Turing-complete, but many typed lambda
> calculi, including System F, are not."
>
>
>   
Hi,

As an aside, the simplest possible Universal Turning Machine was just 
discovered by a mathematical proof. See 
http://www.wolframscience.com/prizes/tm23/solution_news.html.

Yes, almost any computing machine can compute any solution. But ick, not 
in practice. Shivers.

All the best,

Peter

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20071025/da90a97f/attachment.htm