[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