RE: [Fwd: Re: Language is not markup and markup is not langu

> > You are suggesting that the statements "XSL is turing complete" and
> > "An XSL processor can be written in XSL" are equivalent. Another
> > interesting assertion, can you prove or justify it?
> 
> I am not a computer scientist, but isn't that the point of the theory
> of Turing completeness?  If an XSL processor can be written in one
> Turing-complete language, one can be written in any Turing-complete
> language.  If that's true, then "X is Turing-complete" and "An XSL
> processor can be written in X" are equivalent.  No?
> 
No. Certainly "X is Turing complete" implies "An XSL processor can be
written in X". The original proposition was: "An XSL processor can be
written in X" implies "X is Turing complete".

Mike


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list