turing completeness is definitely cool, but still overrated imo it's a useful abstraction, but it can't actually exist in the real world seeing how far you can go without it is generally more interesting to me
-
-
Maybe thinking about coinduction as being turing complete is backwards, as coinduction isn't so much about whether something stops as whether it starts.
-
I think it's about whether something can keep going (which is basically what you said) induction requires that it finishes, coinduction requires that it keeps going (does not "freeze", so to speak)
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
oh yeah, absolutely, this is what convinced me too the Partiality monad allows you to model Turing completeness in a non-Turing complete system (like the IO monad lets you model side effects in a pure system) but seeing what you *don't* need it for is cool for me
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
