Subject: RE: [Fwd: Re: Language is not markup and markup is not language.] From: Kay Michael <Michael.Kay@xxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 09:48:30 +0100 
> > You are suggesting that the statements "XSL is turing complete" and > > "An XSL processor can be written in XSL" are equivalent. Another > > interesting assertion, can you prove or justify it? > > I am not a computer scientist, but isn't that the point of the theory > of Turing completeness? If an XSL processor can be written in one > Turingcomplete language, one can be written in any Turingcomplete > language. If that's true, then "X is Turingcomplete" and "An XSL > processor can be written in X" are equivalent. No? > No. Certainly "X is Turing complete" implies "An XSL processor can be written in X". The original proposition was: "An XSL processor can be written in X" implies "X is Turing complete". Mike XSLList info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsllist
Current Thread 


< Previous  Index  Next > 

RE: [Fwd: Re: Language is not marku, Vun Kannon, David  Thread  On loss of integrity with xsl:scrip, Guy_Murphy 
XSL tools in 'C', Harihara Vinayakaram  Date  how insert counter value into attri, xsllist 
Month 