Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>As a fellow named Church once pointed out, lambdas are really
>*all* you need in a language...
... where as others argue that it is impractical not to have
some form of runtime data storage, thereby giving rise to the
separation of Church and state.
--
\S
Jeremy Bowers wrote:
I can't figure out how to write a TM in a Python List Comprehension
without one of either "variable binding" (so we can store the last symbol
list and manipulate it in the next iteration) or "recursive function" (to
express the whole tape as a recursive function), both of which
Carl Banks wrote:
Pay attention, chief. I suggested this days ago to remove duplicates
from a list.
from itertools import *
[ x for (x,s) in izip(iterable,repeat(set()))
if (x not in s,s.add(x))[0] ]
;)
Sorry, I gave up on that thread after the first 10 Million* posts. Who knows
what other pe
Michael Spencer wrote:
> > Jeremy Bowers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >
> >>On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:36:19 +0100, Bernhard Herzog wrote:
> >>
> >>>Nick Vargish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>>
> "Xah Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >is it possible to write python code without
Jeremy Bowers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:36:19 +0100, Bernhard Herzog wrote:
Nick Vargish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
"Xah Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
is it possible to write python code without any indentation?
Not if Turing-completeness is something you desire.
Ber
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 20:47:06 +0100, Bernhard Herzog wrote:
> [x for L in [[[initial_state, 0]]]
>for state, pos in L
>if state is not None
> and (L.append([M[state][T.get(pos, 0)][2],
> pos + M[state][T.get(pos, 0)][1]])
>or T._
Jeremy Bowers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:36:19 +0100, Bernhard Herzog wrote:
>> Nick Vargish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> "Xah Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
is it possible to write python code without any indentation?
>>> Not if Turing-completeness is something
Jeremy Bowers wrote:
OK then, I still don't quite see how you can build a Turing Machine in one
LC, but an LC and one preceding list assignment should be possible,
although the resulting list from the LC is garbage;
Not necessarily garbage - could be anything, say a copy of the results:
>>> resul
Jeremy Bowers wrote:
That's not a generator expression, that's a generator function. Nobody
contests they can reference earlier states, that's most of their point :-)
Are you sure?
I just wrote my examples in functions to label them
Here's your example with this method:
>>> import itertools as it
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 10:50:24 -0800, Michael Spencer wrote:
> I see no difference between LCs and GEs in this respect:
>
> >>> import itertools as it
> >>>
> >>> def fact_ge(n):
> ... f = [1]
> ... f.extend(i*j for i,j in it.izip(xrange(1,1+n), f))
> ... return f
> ...
>
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 10:24:28 -0800, Michael Spencer wrote:
> How about:
>
> >>> def fact_ge(n):
> ... f = [1]
> ... f.extend(i*j for i,j in it.izip(xrange(1,1+n), f))
> ... return f
> ...
> >>> fact_ge(10)
> [1, 1, 2, 6, 24, 120, 720, 5040, 40320, 362880, 3628800]
> >>>
>
> as a "
Jeremy Bowers wrote:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:36:19 +0100, Bernhard Herzog wrote:
Now you *can* get at the previous state and write a state-transition
expression in perfectly legal Python.
What do you know, generator comprehensions are Turing Complete and list
comprehensions aren't. I wouldn't have
Jeremy Bowers wrote:
I can't figure out how to write a TM in a Python List Comprehension
without one of either "variable binding" (so we can store the last symbol
list and manipulate it in the next iteration) or "recursive function" (to
express the whole tape as a recursive function), both of whic
13 matches
Mail list logo
