看板 FB_chat 關於我們 聯絡資訊
Sergey Zaharchenko <doublef@tele-kom.ru> writes: > If the thesis sounds like > >> Any algorithm that can be written in one Turing-complete language can >> be written in another Turing-complete language. > > then I think I understand it. No. A language is Turing-complete if it can be used to implement a universal Turing machine. What you quote is merely a consequence of Turing-completeness, not its definition. > In the functional way (`what it can do') C is not different from C++, as > you all are pointing out (so I'm not trying to persuade you Turing was > wrong). It's different in what it allows you to inform the system (the > linker, for instance) about (and it will learn that *before* any actual > algorithm of yours is executed). The operating system, the C++ compiler and the linker are all written in C, and using C, you can write an emulator for the computer, on which the OS, C++ compiler and linker will behave exactly as you expect. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no _______________________________________________ freebsd-chat@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-chat-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"