Commits

Anonymous committed b8a6560

Import version 1.0 revision 2011.1214 sources (just HTML fixes.)

  • Participants
  • Parent commits 1a1b904
  • Tags rel_1_0_2011_1214

Comments (0)

Files changed (1)

File doc/larabee.html

 <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
+<!-- encoding: UTF-8 -->
 <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en">
 <head>
 <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" />
 <title>The Larabee Programming Language</title>
+  <!-- begin html doc dynamic markup -->
+  <script type="text/javascript" src="/contrib/jquery-1.6.4.min.js"></script>
+  <script type="text/javascript" src="/scripts/documentation.js"></script>
+  <!-- end html doc dynamic markup -->
 </head>
 <body>
 
 <p>On the other hand, if the BPR is less than 0:</p>
 
 <ul>
-<li>If <var>cond-expr</var> evaluated to true, evaluate <var>expr2</var> and increment the BPR.
-<li>If <var>cond-expr</var> evaluated to false, evaluate <var>expr1</var> and decrement the BPR.
+<li>If <var>cond-expr</var> evaluated to true, evaluate <var>expr2</var> and increment the BPR.</li>
+<li>If <var>cond-expr</var> evaluated to false, evaluate <var>expr1</var> and decrement the BPR.</li>
 </ul>
 
 <p><code>test</code> is the lynchpin upon which Larabee's entire
 
 <p>For example, input invariance is the underlying idea used in converting the
 usual proof of the uniform halting problem into a (less obvious) proof
-of the standard halting problem &mdash; you say, for any given input, that
+of the standard halting problem  you say, for any given input, that
 we can find a machine that erases whatever input it was given, writes the
 desired input on its tape, and proceeds to perform a computation that we can't
 decide will halt or not.</p>
 <p>But Larabee can't do either of these things.  There is no Larabee
 program that can replace its arbitrary input with some fixed, constant choice of
 input.  And while you can write a quine, it will require a certain input to
-produce itself &mdash; there will always be other inputs which make it
+produce itself  there will always be other inputs which make it
 produce something different.</p>
 
 <p>"So what!" you say, being of bold philosophical bent, "it's mere mereology.
         (goto loop) (nop))))
   (print (fetch (input))))</pre>
 
-<p>And, oh, actually, we don't have <code>begin</code> &mdash;
+<p>And, oh, actually, we don't have <code>begin</code> 
 nor <code>nop</code>, neither.  Hooray!</p>
 
 <pre>(store (input) (input)
 
 <p>Now, if you've been following that, and if you can imagine in the
 slightest how the input will need to look for any given integer, to
-produce the correct factorial result on the output &mdash; even <em>assuming</em>
+produce the correct factorial result on the output  even <em>assuming</em>
 you added a bunch of <code>test</code>s somewhere in the program and
 fed them all the right numbers so that the important <code>test</code> turned
-out the way you wanted &mdash;
+out the way you wanted 
 then I needn't go to the extra trouble of a rigourous
 proof to convince you that Larabee is not Turing-complete.</p>
 
 late, and I'm tired.  Maybe later.</p>
 
 <p><i>(later)</i>  OK, it goes something like this.  Ackermann's
-function &mdash; which we know we need at least something that can do
-better than primitive-recursive, to compute &mdash; has a lower-bound
+function — which we know we need at least something that can do
+better than primitive-recursive, to compute — has a lower-bound
 complexity on the order of, well, Ackermann's function.
 (This in itself seems to be one of those mathematical oddities that seems
 wiggy when you first hear about it, then self-evident after you've thought
 begrudge it seeking comfort in the arms of an understanding
 mistress, a bottle of bourbon, the Cone of Silence?  But even so, saving
 such wretched constructions from their own self-annihilation, so we may all
-learn from its example &mdash; this is one of the very reasons
+learn from its example  this is one of the very reasons
 we run this Home for Wayward Calculi, is it not?</p>
 
 <p>Indeed.</p>