Revision as of 13:49, 23 October 2006 edit Wvbailey (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers 6,019 edits →Example 2 under Atomization of the instruction set ← Previous edit		Revision as of 10:50, 17 November 2006 edit undo Krauss (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 4,493 edits m The Sipser's applies to any Lambda Calculus? Next edit →
Line 192: ::Sorry. It should be something more like: "The RASP can be reduced to a RAM by moving its instructions off the tape and (perhaps with translation) into its finite-state machine "table" of instructions." Thanks for picking this up. wvbailey[[User:Wvbailey\|Wvbailey]] 13:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC) == The Sipser's applies to any Lambda Calculus? == About the section "2006: Sipser's assertion ...". I think if it is only a "reference model problem", it not applies to the "characterization" it self, only to the approache/methodological options... puting into another words: If we use Lambda Calculus to reference model on the "algorithm definition", it is ok for Sipser? -- Krauss nov. 2006

Talk:Algorithm characterizations: Difference between revisions