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 > Turing-complete language, one can be written in any Turing-complete > language. If that's true, then "X is Turing-complete" 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 XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
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, xsl-list |
Month |