We previously defined a programming language with the help of Turing machines.
We chose poorly.
We previously defined a programming language with the help of Turing machines. We chose poorly. 6 comments
@millihertz the pinned post reads like Chatin's definition of the halting problem, which is also how I understood, isn't what Ben Lynn is describing? @neauoire I'm not sure the halting problem is a good argument here (unless you go into Total Functional Programming), but... I do like this paradigm! @neauoire my problem with the "lambda calculus is superior" argument is that AFAIK there are no computing machines that are based on lambda calculus. Turing machines are a lot more straightforward as a basis for constructing a computing device. Lambda calculus on the other hand requires a fairly deep understanding of mathematics and mathematical notation to understand well, and doesn't have physical analogues in the same way. Anyways, I could be wrong and just less familiar with lambdas. @desttinghim I understand your issue with it, and I agree. I'm not sure how this is to be bridged. I'm only beginning to understand how this maps to computer hardware myself, and maybe how I could explain it to someone else, but a lot of the documentation for lambda calculus implementation out there is totally opaque - Or, I'm looking in the wrong places. |
@neauoire
>
With universal machines, they explained why it’s impossible to decide if a given Turing machine ever halts
NO. NO THEY DIDN'T. :blobscream: see my pinned posts!