Revision as of 04:40, 15 January 2014 edit Haklo (talk \| contribs) 96 edits →Existence of fixed-point combinators ← Previous edit		Revision as of 06:42, 15 January 2014 edit undo Thepigdog (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 5,174 edits →Existence of fixed-point combinators Next edit →
Line 377: ::::::: I think an intuitive (informal) notion of "value" that might work for you is that lambda terms are their own values so long as "equals" is expanded to convertibility as per the usual axioms of LC. This is a bit like providing semantics for lambda calculus using a term algebra generated by the usual formation rules for lambda terms. A better notion of value is a Bohm tree, which makes explicit the value of a non-normalising term (it still has a value). [[User:Haklo\|Haklo]] ([[User talk:Haklo\|talk]]) 04:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC) ::::::: I think a Bohm tree is OK for me as a value for LC. As I understand it, a bohm tree allows you to access parts of the value (like a record where some fields are given but not others). Does that help you in giving me a value for x = not x? Regards [[User:Thepigdog\|Thepigdog]] ([[User talk:Thepigdog\|talk]]) 06:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC) ==Its not magic==

Talk:Fixed-point combinator: Difference between revisions