Jon Fairbairn wrote:
On 2006-05-29 at 19:03BST "Brian Hulley" wrote:
Dominic Steinitz wrote:
I think it's fascinating that already with ((.).(.)) there is something that can be used practically and proved equivalent to something easily comprehensible,
Well, it is compose composed with compose, so you can start from the idea that it's going to do something to do with composition and twoness...
Certainly it shows how much there is still to explore in terms of the inner landscape of lambda calculus.
You've read
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0444875085/qid=1148927765/sr=1-1/re...
I presume? ;-) It's a bestseller...
I must admit I haven't read it... Are you saying that this book contains the knowledge I'd need to form such concepts as to be able to directly comprehend (.).(.) as easily as \f g a b -> f(g a b) ? (since I already know how to manually convert one to the other by a sequence of substitutions but this knowledge alone doesn't help) If so, then I'll buy it... Thanks, Brian. -- Logic empowers us and Love gives us purpose. Yet still phantoms restless for eras long past, congealed in the present in unthought forms, strive mightily unseen to destroy us. http://www.metamilk.com