Re: [isabelle] Formalizing Turing machine

But think about lambda calculus. It is computationally as powerful as
Turing machine. Following your line of reasoning, it should also rely
on set in its definition. But I think it's simple enough to avoid the
use of set.


On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Jens Doll <jd at> wrote:
> Churchs' thesis says, that all computability can be expressed  by Turing
> machines. So you probably cannot bypass sets when defining a such a
> formalism. Mathematically spoken do groups, rings, (closed)  fields rely on
> sets in their definition. Also alphabets are sets. What do you have on mind?
> Jens

This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail (Mailman edition) and MHonArc.