Talk:Execute a Markov algorithm: Difference between revisions
→explicit vs tacit: Would the all-at-once version of the language still be Turing-complete?
(→explicit vs tacit: Would the all-at-once version of the language still be Turing-complete?) |
|||
Line 94:
:: So did I, until I re-read the WP page, and in particular Physis' "Example" section on the Talk page. The primary surprise (for me) is that you may only do one replacement at a time, then you must start all over from the beginning, until you hit a terminating rule or you stop doing replacements (i.e. the output is stable).
::So, e.g., if you have the rules <code>baa->def, a->b</code>, then applied to the input <code>aaa</code> your result must be <code>def</code>. This was an eye-opener for me, because I would expect the result <code>bbb</code>. But then, J is an array-oriented language and likes to do things "all at once" or "in bulk", so maybe this single-match iterative approach is natural to scalar languages. --[[User:DanBron|DanBron]] 12:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
::: Would the all-at-once version of the language still be Turing-complete? --[[User:Ce|Ce]] 17:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
===Markov a specific form of Rewriting scheme?===
| |||