# [plt-scheme] Smallest set of operators

(define S ...)
(define K ...)
(define X ... type in Barendregt's formula, almost verbatim ...)
After "Turing", your question is really too wide.
On Feb 2, 2007, at 9:05 AM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
>* On 2/2/07, Matthias Felleisen <matthias at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
*>>*
*>>* On Feb 2, 2007, at 7:36 AM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
*>>*
*>>* > On 2/2/07, Matthias Felleisen <matthias at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
*>>* >>
*>>* >> 1. You need to specify what you mean with define.
*>>* >>
*>>* >
*>>* > define = implement.
*>>*
*>>*
*>>* This definition is naive. Just use ONE SINGLE combinator (X, see
*>>* Barendregt) and you can compile EVERY language to it. -- Matthias
*>>*
*>>*
*>>*
*>>*
*>>* > So, you implement the set of scheme operators X.
*>>* > Scheme standard is built of operators in set Y. Question was:
*>>* what's
*>>* > the minimal set X with which you can implement Y - X?
*>>* >
*>*
*>* Moreover, X would have to be part of Scheme for your answer to be
*>* correct under my assumptions. I asked for the set X _of scheme
*>* operators_.
*>*
*>* --
*>* Paulo Jorge Matos - pocm at soton.ac.uk
*>* http://www.personal.soton.ac.uk/pocm
*>* PhD Student @ ECS
*>* University of Southampton, UK
*>* _________________________________________________
*>* For list-related administrative tasks:
*>* http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme
*