Re: Re (tilly) 3: Ackerman vs. Perl : KO in 3 rounds

The version of the function I was using is expressed cleanly by VSarkiss in this node. It gives 65536.

The Perl code reads exactly from the piece definition, adding a few $ symbols, a *, and semi's. It makes every condition explicit, and don't rely on narrowing constraints and order of definition. So I'm pretty sure that's a correct implementation.

I suppose there are multiple versions of Ackerman's idea, all working in the same way, but different in detail.

—John

Comment on Re: Re (tilly) 3: Ackerman vs. Perl : KO in 3 rounds

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re (tilly) 5: Ackerman vs. Perl : KO in 3 rounds by tilly (Archbishop) on Dec 20, 2001 at 02:18 UTC
VSarkiss was just trying to rewrite what you wrote more cleanly. But do a search for Ackermann's function and you consistently come up with the function as I wrote it. Incidentally as noted in this biography, what Ackermann actually came up with was a function of 3 variables. This was later simplified by Rosza Peter then Raphael Robinson into the current textbook form which I wrote.	[reply]