Lies, damn lies!

[Jecel Assumpcao Jr]

Billy Tanksley wrote:
> 
> The universal Turing machine accepts as its input a description of another
> Turing machine and a program, remember?  Thus, in order to be universal, a
> computing system has to be able to read and possibly modify the description
> of an arbitrary computing system (including itself).

Sorry - my fault for not knowing the difference between a
Turing Machine and an Universal Turing Machine. While I was looking
into that, I came across this interesting paper called "Computation
Beyond the Turing Limit" which is full of the little greek letters
that some around here are so fond of. It is about a theory for
Neural Networks and while I don't think it has any relevance for
Tunes, I am not a good judge of that. See "In Journals" paper 16 at:

 
http://iew3.technion.ac.il:8080/Home/Users/FIFTH.phtml?iehava+Hava+Siegelmann

> I hate Outlook.

So?

> Anyhow, You mentioned that Forth was the only standard universal language by
> this definition.  In spite of my preference for Forth, I disagree -- Scheme,
> Lisp, and Python can read arbitrary code in their own language and modify
> it.  They don't have access to their own source code in the same way a Forth
> program does, but that's not mentioned in the definition of a universal
> Turing machine.

If by "You" you mean Faré then yes, he said that. I didn't understand
it.

> Rebol (www.rebol.com) has full Forth-style access to its source, and it's a
> syntactic language.  I'm very impressed with it.  In fact, I was thinking
> that it might be tons of fun to write a Lojban module for it.  Check it out
> and think about it.

I have been keeping my I on Rebol for about two years and like what I
have
seen. While it is a fantastic scripting language, I am not sure you can
do
system programming in it.

-- Jecel