On 10/19/2022 5:46 PM, Rock Brentwood wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 28, 2021 at 1:11:43 AM UTC-6, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
>> Maybe not everyone knows that 'Turing-complete' programming languages have several other models equivalent to the Turing machine. Could you 'rate' the different formalisms?
>> 1) Turing Machines
>> 2) Lambda Calculus
>
> Lambda Calculus with infinitary terms (and the conditional operator).
> Notation: x = A, B means (lambda x B) A
> Notation: A? B: C is B is A is true and is C if A is false
> Example 1:
> x = 0, y = 1, x < n? (x = x + 1, y = y*x, x < n? (x = x + 1, y = y*x, x < n? (...): y): y): y
> where the infinitary term denoted by (...) is an exact replica of (x = x + 1, y = y*x, x< n? (...): y).
>
> The value of this expression is n!, the factorial of n, assuming that n is a non-negative integer.
> The value is 1, if n is a negative integer.
>
> Notation: Use L: E as a way to denote the (possibly infinitary) subexpression E by the label L
> Notation: Use "goto L" as a way to refer to the subexpression that the label L denotes
> Example 2:
> x? (y? (z? A: B): C): (z? A: B)
> may be rewritten as
> x? (y? goto W: C): goto W
> W: z? A: B
>
> Example 3: Example 1 rewritten with labels and gotos
> x = 0, y = 1, goto Z
> Z: x < n? (x = x + 1, y = y*x, goto Z): y

For my purposes the best formalism would be a variation of a RASP
machine because this could form a bridge between Turing machines and
high level languages.

The problem with low level languages such as the Turing Machine
description languages is that they make understanding the underlying
algorithm specified in this language infeasibly difficult for any
complex algorithms.

When we understand that relative addressing can provided access to
unlimited memory then the x64 RIP addressing mode defines an abstract
machine with unlimited memory.

We don't even need this for all algorithms that don't need more memory
than the amount of memory that is available.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 9:42:00 AM UTC-7, olcott wrote:
> On 10/19/2022 5:46 PM, Rock Brentwood wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 28, 2021 at 1:11:43 AM UTC-6, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> >> Maybe not everyone knows that 'Turing-complete' programming languages have several other models equivalent to the Turing machine. Could you 'rate' the different formalisms?
> >> 1) Turing Machines
> >> 2) Lambda Calculus
> >
> > Lambda Calculus with infinitary terms (and the conditional operator).
> > Notation: x = A, B means (lambda x B) A
> > Notation: A? B: C is B is A is true and is C if A is false
> > Example 1:
> > x = 0, y = 1, x < n? (x = x + 1, y = y*x, x < n? (x = x + 1, y = y*x, x < n? (...): y): y): y
> > where the infinitary term denoted by (...) is an exact replica of (x = x + 1, y = y*x, x< n? (...): y).
> >
> > The value of this expression is n!, the factorial of n, assuming that n is a non-negative integer.
> > The value is 1, if n is a negative integer.
> >
> > Notation: Use L: E as a way to denote the (possibly infinitary) subexpression E by the label L
> > Notation: Use "goto L" as a way to refer to the subexpression that the label L denotes
> > Example 2:
> > x? (y? (z? A: B): C): (z? A: B)
> > may be rewritten as
> > x? (y? goto W: C): goto W
> > W: z? A: B
> >
> > Example 3: Example 1 rewritten with labels and gotos
> > x = 0, y = 1, goto Z
> > Z: x < n? (x = x + 1, y = y*x, goto Z): y
> For my purposes the best formalism would be a variation of a RASP
> machine because this could form a bridge between Turing machines and
> high level languages.
>
> The problem with low level languages such as the Turing Machine
> description languages is that they make understanding the underlying
> algorithm specified in this language infeasibly difficult for any
> complex algorithms.

"Does it occur to you that this 'copypasta' of yours is... perhaps too stupid for the 'hoaxing' purposes you want it to serve?"

On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 12:16:22 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 9:42:00 AM UTC-7, olcott wrote:
> > On 10/19/2022 5:46 PM, Rock Brentwood wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, December 28, 2021 at 1:11:43 AM UTC-6, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > >> Maybe not everyone knows that 'Turing-complete' programming languages have several other models equivalent to the Turing machine. Could you 'rate' the different formalisms?
> > >> 1) Turing Machines
> > >> 2) Lambda Calculus
> > >
> > > Lambda Calculus with infinitary terms (and the conditional operator).
> > > Notation: x = A, B means (lambda x B) A
> > > Notation: A? B: C is B is A is true and is C if A is false
> > > Example 1:
> > > x = 0, y = 1, x < n? (x = x + 1, y = y*x, x < n? (x = x + 1, y = y*x, x < n? (...): y): y): y
> > > where the infinitary term denoted by (...) is an exact replica of (x = x + 1, y = y*x, x< n? (...): y).
> > >
> > > The value of this expression is n!, the factorial of n, assuming that n is a non-negative integer.
> > > The value is 1, if n is a negative integer.
> > >
> > > Notation: Use L: E as a way to denote the (possibly infinitary) subexpression E by the label L
> > > Notation: Use "goto L" as a way to refer to the subexpression that the label L denotes
> > > Example 2:
> > > x? (y? (z? A: B): C): (z? A: B)
> > > may be rewritten as
> > > x? (y? goto W: C): goto W
> > > W: z? A: B
> > >
> > > Example 3: Example 1 rewritten with labels and gotos
> > > x = 0, y = 1, goto Z
> > > Z: x < n? (x = x + 1, y = y*x, goto Z): y
> > For my purposes the best formalism would be a variation of a RASP
> > machine because this could form a bridge between Turing machines and
> > high level languages.
> >
> > The problem with low level languages such as the Turing Machine
> > description languages is that they make understanding the underlying
> > algorithm specified in this language infeasibly difficult for any
> > complex algorithms.
> "Does it occur to you that this 'copypasta' of yours is... perhaps too stupid for the 'hoaxing' purposes you want it to serve?"

It does occur to me that your 'routines' are too stupid, often.

On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 1:13:25 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 12:16:22 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 9:42:00 AM UTC-7, olcott wrote:
> > > On 10/19/2022 5:46 PM, Rock Brentwood wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, December 28, 2021 at 1:11:43 AM UTC-6, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > >> Maybe not everyone knows that 'Turing-complete' programming languages have several other models equivalent to the Turing machine. Could you 'rate' the different formalisms?
> > > >> 1) Turing Machines
> > > >> 2) Lambda Calculus
> > > >
> > > > Lambda Calculus with infinitary terms (and the conditional operator).
> > > > Notation: x = A, B means (lambda x B) A
> > > > Notation: A? B: C is B is A is true and is C if A is false
> > > > Example 1:
> > > > x = 0, y = 1, x < n? (x = x + 1, y = y*x, x < n? (x = x + 1, y = y*x, x < n? (...): y): y): y
> > > > where the infinitary term denoted by (...) is an exact replica of (x = x + 1, y = y*x, x< n? (...): y).
> > > >
> > > > The value of this expression is n!, the factorial of n, assuming that n is a non-negative integer.
> > > > The value is 1, if n is a negative integer.
> > > >
> > > > Notation: Use L: E as a way to denote the (possibly infinitary) subexpression E by the label L
> > > > Notation: Use "goto L" as a way to refer to the subexpression that the label L denotes
> > > > Example 2:
> > > > x? (y? (z? A: B): C): (z? A: B)
> > > > may be rewritten as
> > > > x? (y? goto W: C): goto W
> > > > W: z? A: B
> > > >
> > > > Example 3: Example 1 rewritten with labels and gotos
> > > > x = 0, y = 1, goto Z
> > > > Z: x < n? (x = x + 1, y = y*x, goto Z): y
> > > For my purposes the best formalism would be a variation of a RASP
> > > machine because this could form a bridge between Turing machines and
> > > high level languages.
> > >
> > > The problem with low level languages such as the Turing Machine
> > > description languages is that they make understanding the underlying
> > > algorithm specified in this language infeasibly difficult for any
> > > complex algorithms.
> > "Does it occur to you that this 'copypasta' of yours is... perhaps too stupid for the 'hoaxing' purposes you want it to serve?"
> It does occur to me that your 'routines' are too stupid, often.

"What's a 'PLO'?"
"The Palestine Liberation Organization."
"What does Fatah have to do with computer science?"

On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:39:30 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 1:13:25 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 12:16:22 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 9:42:00 AM UTC-7, olcott wrote:
> > > > On 10/19/2022 5:46 PM, Rock Brentwood wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, December 28, 2021 at 1:11:43 AM UTC-6, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > >> Maybe not everyone knows that 'Turing-complete' programming languages have several other models equivalent to the Turing machine. Could you 'rate' the different formalisms?
> > > > >> 1) Turing Machines
> > > > >> 2) Lambda Calculus
> > > > >
> > > > > Lambda Calculus with infinitary terms (and the conditional operator).
> > > > > Notation: x = A, B means (lambda x B) A
> > > > > Notation: A? B: C is B is A is true and is C if A is false
> > > > > Example 1:
> > > > > x = 0, y = 1, x < n? (x = x + 1, y = y*x, x < n? (x = x + 1, y = y*x, x < n? (...): y): y): y
> > > > > where the infinitary term denoted by (...) is an exact replica of (x = x + 1, y = y*x, x< n? (...): y).
> > > > >
> > > > > The value of this expression is n!, the factorial of n, assuming that n is a non-negative integer.
> > > > > The value is 1, if n is a negative integer.
> > > > >
> > > > > Notation: Use L: E as a way to denote the (possibly infinitary) subexpression E by the label L
> > > > > Notation: Use "goto L" as a way to refer to the subexpression that the label L denotes
> > > > > Example 2:
> > > > > x? (y? (z? A: B): C): (z? A: B)
> > > > > may be rewritten as
> > > > > x? (y? goto W: C): goto W
> > > > > W: z? A: B
> > > > >
> > > > > Example 3: Example 1 rewritten with labels and gotos
> > > > > x = 0, y = 1, goto Z
> > > > > Z: x < n? (x = x + 1, y = y*x, goto Z): y
> > > > For my purposes the best formalism would be a variation of a RASP
> > > > machine because this could form a bridge between Turing machines and
> > > > high level languages.
> > > >
> > > > The problem with low level languages such as the Turing Machine
> > > > description languages is that they make understanding the underlying
> > > > algorithm specified in this language infeasibly difficult for any
> > > > complex algorithms.
> > > "Does it occur to you that this 'copypasta' of yours is... perhaps too stupid for the 'hoaxing' purposes you want it to serve?"
> > It does occur to me that your 'routines' are too stupid, often.
> "What's a 'PLO'?"
> "The Palestine Liberation Organization."
> "What does Fatah have to do with computer science?"

"Um... there are Palestinian computer scientists?"
"It's... a slightly obsolescent Palestinian political organization that... doesn't have a CS department?"

On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 2:26:45 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 8:39:30 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 1:13:25 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 12:16:22 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 9:42:00 AM UTC-7, olcott wrote:
> > > > > On 10/19/2022 5:46 PM, Rock Brentwood wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, December 28, 2021 at 1:11:43 AM UTC-6, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > > >> Maybe not everyone knows that 'Turing-complete' programming languages have several other models equivalent to the Turing machine. Could you 'rate' the different formalisms?
> > > > > >> 1) Turing Machines
> > > > > >> 2) Lambda Calculus
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Lambda Calculus with infinitary terms (and the conditional operator).
> > > > > > Notation: x = A, B means (lambda x B) A
> > > > > > Notation: A? B: C is B is A is true and is C if A is false
> > > > > > Example 1:
> > > > > > x = 0, y = 1, x < n? (x = x + 1, y = y*x, x < n? (x = x + 1, y = y*x, x < n? (...): y): y): y
> > > > > > where the infinitary term denoted by (...) is an exact replica of (x = x + 1, y = y*x, x< n? (...): y).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The value of this expression is n!, the factorial of n, assuming that n is a non-negative integer.
> > > > > > The value is 1, if n is a negative integer.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Notation: Use L: E as a way to denote the (possibly infinitary) subexpression E by the label L
> > > > > > Notation: Use "goto L" as a way to refer to the subexpression that the label L denotes
> > > > > > Example 2:
> > > > > > x? (y? (z? A: B): C): (z? A: B)
> > > > > > may be rewritten as
> > > > > > x? (y? goto W: C): goto W
> > > > > > W: z? A: B
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Example 3: Example 1 rewritten with labels and gotos
> > > > > > x = 0, y = 1, goto Z
> > > > > > Z: x < n? (x = x + 1, y = y*x, goto Z): y
> > > > > For my purposes the best formalism would be a variation of a RASP
> > > > > machine because this could form a bridge between Turing machines and
> > > > > high level languages.
> > > > >
> > > > > The problem with low level languages such as the Turing Machine
> > > > > description languages is that they make understanding the underlying
> > > > > algorithm specified in this language infeasibly difficult for any
> > > > > complex algorithms.
> > > > "Does it occur to you that this 'copypasta' of yours is... perhaps too stupid for the 'hoaxing' purposes you want it to serve?"
> > > It does occur to me that your 'routines' are too stupid, often.
> > "What's a 'PLO'?"
> > "The Palestine Liberation Organization."
> > "What does Fatah have to do with computer science?"
> "Um... there are Palestinian computer scientists?"
> "It's... a slightly obsolescent Palestinian political organization that.... doesn't have a CS department?"

"What about the PFLP?"
"Hey guy, this is a theory of computation newsgroup."