Lies, damn lies!
Jecel Assumpcao Jr
Fri, 28 May 1999 02:56:29 -0300
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:
> I hate Outlook.
> 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
> 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
seen. While it is a fantastic scripting language, I am not sure you can
system programming in it.