Talk:Supercombinator
![]() | Philosophy: Logic Stub‑class | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
The confusion of the use of super-combinator in this article, comes from the use that Simon Peyton Jones, (a definite expert in this subject!!!) gives to a combinator basis in the context of functional programming languages compilation. Out of context this term may confuse with what I told above which is what a philosopher of computation may think about in first instance. This article is tagged in the subject of philosophy.
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. Let me emphasize that this had happen to me in OTHER pages, but seems an extended practice that should stop!
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!