Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-

What exactly is Lambda?

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-08 18:41 ID:fTulWe4f

Is it like SICP and LISP?

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-08 18:53 ID:Oxtls2xC

λλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλ
λλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλ
λλλλλλλλλλλλλ
λλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλ
λλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλ
λλλλλλλλλ
λλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλλ

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-08 20:32 ID:394J0j/J

Lambda (uppercase Λ, lowercase λ) is the 11th letter of the Greek alphabet. In the system of Greek numerals it has a value of 30. Letters that arose from Lambda include the Roman L and the Cyrillic letter El (Л, л).

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-08 22:26 ID:OIsBKXbL

This thread lacks suave. You can help it by adding trace amounts of Lisp.

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-08 22:57 ID:tLthHqnr

Lambda BBCode abstraction is a way to write programs down using pure enterprise quality Church numerals, professional AJAX β-reduction and having a nice cup of read the fucking Wikipedia.

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-08 23:00 ID:sFIXeWxl

makes anonymous functions.
there's probably some complicated explanation about pure maths and lamdba calculus and formal logic too.

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-08 23:51 ID:87/b0oG9

lambda binds variables to values, nothing more.

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-09 0:15 ID:x3tyCCgy

"What exactly is Lambda?"

No, they are two completely different things.

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-09 0:34 ID:Ec52XHZ3

Your mom

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-09 3:19 ID:VrYX9Nws

lambda is useless abstraction.

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-09 7:02 ID:MQhhHTJm

It's something you can make with the S and K combinators.

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-09 9:35 ID:pGx0P1WP

λ x.y = Ky
λ x.x = SKK
λ x.fg = S(λ x.f)(λ x.g)

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-09 13:44 ID:dHNBl1cg

>>12
AND>??

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-09 18:50 ID:Zfxp9qEI

>>12
Asshole, you fucked it up.  SKI combinatoric logic is
Sx → x
Ixy → x (so-called identifier function)
Kxyz → xz(yz)
And it is based on λ-calculus, not equal to it.

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-09 20:18 ID:/Gck9M+X

>>14
you idiot! I is just syntactic sugar for SKK. >>12 was defining lambda, which is also just syntactic sugar. also, lambda calculus is based on SKI combinator calculus, not the other way around.

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-10 1:33 ID:QO6sqlZ/

ITT nerds

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-10 3:37 ID:B/4qNz3+

ITT people who never get laid

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-10 3:41 ID:CfjjDaMf

>>15
Oh yeah, excuse me, I totally forgot that we are on a Serious Board of Enterprise Development Professional Solutions.
Also, SK basis is inferior to IBCS, and anyone who uses SK (with this disguisting «syntactic sugar» so-called Identity function) in 2007 is a crap-eating moron incapable of anything.

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-10 4:01 ID:vmEnSjSe

EVERYTHING IS SYNTACTIC SUGAR

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-10 4:07 ID:eAYuEMEx

>>14
Fucking idiot, SKI is not based on λ calculus.

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-10 5:04 ID:CfjjDaMf

>>20
Oh yeah?  And what is it based on then?  Pointer arithmetic or intel-based calculator calculus?  Be sure to finish elementary school before joining the discussion betweeen highschool students.

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-10 5:10 ID:eAYuEMEx

>>21
SKI Combinator calculus is a computational system, on which Lambda calculus operations are based. Be sure to shut the fuck up.

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-10 5:14 ID:Heaven

My god. What are you arguing about? Seriously everyone, stfu. I declare thread over.  May Satori be with you all.

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-10 5:29 ID:eAYuEMEx

>>21
>>23
Same person.

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-10 5:43 ID:Heaven

>>24
Until you can provide solid evidence, all of this is baseless conjecture. I may or may not be >>21 and >>23. But can you prove it? Not bloody likely. I win.

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-10 6:24 ID:CfjjDaMf

>>22
Why are you so sure that I was serious?  I even swapped the axioms in >>14.  Jeez, how dumb underage wannabe math nerds are.

>>24
You are wrong.  I am >>14 >>15 >>16 >>18 >>21 >>22 and >>24 and not >>23.  But I can't prove you wrong for this is a non-computable problem.

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-10 6:26 ID:Heaven

>>26
You are wrong. I am >>1-24, and have a lot of proxies. Dunno who >>25 is.

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-10 6:28 ID:CfjjDaMf

>>26
Oh, these weren't axioms from SKI.  I fail so hard.

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-10 6:29 ID:CfjjDaMf

>>26 >>28 >>29 also a same person.  I fail so hard that nobody can imagine how man can fall that low.  Off to perform seppuku.

Name: Anonymous 2007-07-10 8:29 ID:Heaven

LOL. I leave 4chan for two hours to watch Walking with Cavemen (which totall kicked ass), and I find you talking to yourself.

Also, are you trying to impersonate me?

This board makes me LOL.

Also sage.

Name: Anonymous 2010-11-28 0:26

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-31 20:21

<-- check em dubz

Name: Anonymous 2011-02-03 5:48

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List