Talk:Supercombinator

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Stub

This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

THIS PAGE IS WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The definition of supercombinator is totally wrong!!!!!!! What is very informally defined in the article refers to a combinator, without the super! The super- prefix in computer science in things like this subject, refers to actually inexistent languages, or computation systems. You may talk about Super-Turing machines, which refers to a machine capable to perform computations that Turnig machines can not perform, i.e. a super set of what a Turing machine can compute. Combinatory logic is equally powerfull than Turing machines (and Lambda calculus, recursive functions, etc.), a super combinator refers to something like a super-Turing machine.

I am not going to fix this article, because I had a very bad experience with OTHER pages, monopolized by ignorants which react to corrections thinking they know everything because it is in their high school notes. I do not have time to earn privileges to monopolize wikipedia and active alarms to be aware of every change, having no other thing to do than revert every change.

If someone wants to take the risk of fixing this page. It should contain a story of the intents to create super-combinators which is related to super-Turing machines super-recursion, etc. There are some intents published but all are wrong, got it? Good luck!