21–30 of 138 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably means the 3 irreducable primitives in LC: applications, abstractions, and "variables" (ie. attribute identifiers)
In this context, it’s more likely the 3 basic primitive recursive functions: constant, successor, projection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_recursive_function#D...
It is entirely possible to realise Lambda calculus using lisp. But McCarthy not understanding it is surprising.
It is entirely possible to realise Lambda calculus using lisp. But McCarthy not understanding it is surprising.
Lambda calculus can be modeled in lisp. But there are millions of things you can build with Lisp that McCarthy might not know or care about.
It is entirely possible to realise Lambda calculus using lisp. But McCarthy not understanding it is surprising.
I think he is commenting on the subtleties of it.
I think many reading here will say they understand it or have studied it in a course but I am not so sure everyone gets the subtle points. Myself I have always puzzled over the difference between what programmers call LC and what seems to be discussed by Church.
It is difficult to believe that McCarthy did not understand he was beating the same horse along with Church, Curry, Schoenfinkel, et al.
It is entirely possible to realise Lambda calculus using lisp. But McCarthy not understanding it is surprising.
Why? Lambda calculus is based on functions. Lisp supports functions. Both use lambda because that's a known notation for functions. Lambda calculus can be modeled in lisp. But there are millions of things you can build with Lisp that McCarthy might not know or care about.
It is difficult to believe that McCarthy did not understand he was beating the same horse along with Church, Curry, Schoenfinkel, et al.
It is difficult to believe that McCarthy did not understand he was beating the same horse along with Church, Curry, Schoenfinkel, et al.
Why? Does every compiler writer know all the theoretical underpinnings and generalizations of their work? Or do that make something that solves a problem without investigating the entire universe around it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? Does every compiler writer know all the theoretical underpinnings and generalizations of their work? Or do that make something that solves a problem without investigating the entire universe around it?
Because he was certainly aware of the literature and he was a top notch scholar. Your follow-up questions seem to be implying something, care to spell it out for me?