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 cococo.de> 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?
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail (Mailman edition) and