Crispin states this in the paper and says:- The proof that actual modification of instructions is required for all possible problems is contained in C.C. Elgot and A. Robinson, ''Random-Access Stored-Program Machines, An Approach to Programming Languages,'' J. ACM, vol. 11, no. 4, 1964, p. 397
I didn't follow up the reference I guess I should..... ... and those of you who are interested in reading about early computing may enjoy this article about "CSIR Mark 1/CSIRAC : Australia's First Computer" http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/CCS/res/res67.htm#d I found it interesting... Dave Wade > -----Original Message----- > From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of ben > Sent: 17 September 2015 04:37 > To: cctalk@classiccmp.org > Subject: Re: Self modifying code, lambda calculus - Re: ENIAC programming > > On 9/16/2015 9:25 PM, Toby Thain wrote: > > On 2015-09-16 6:18 PM, Dave G4UGM wrote: > >> > >> ... > >> It is notable that in order to solve all problems, a computer must > >> permit self modifying code. > > > > > > Is that true? AFAIK Lambda calculus can describe any computable > > function (as can a Turing machine), and it has no concept of "self modifying > code". > > I never studied any of that, but you do have to LOAD and RUN the program > ToSolveAnythingBut42 > some how so I guess that would count AS Self Modifying Code. > > --Toby
