From: Jim Pryor
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 01:58:34 +0000 (-0400)
Subject: spelling Ackermann
X-Git-Url: http://lambda.jimpryor.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=lambda.git;a=commitdiff_plain;h=5df8ee74df25b28ea841dc3a221c16c587d5b7fc
spelling Ackermann
Signed-off-by: Jim Pryor
---
diff --git a/week4.mdwn b/week4.mdwn
index 362ad66c..e2805fb3 100644
--- a/week4.mdwn
+++ b/week4.mdwn
@@ -139,7 +139,7 @@ start with the `iszero` predicate, and only produce a fresh copy of
`prefact` if we are forced to.
-#Q. You claimed that the Ackerman function couldn't be implemented using our primitive recursion techniques (such as the techniques that allow us to define addition and multiplication). But you haven't shown that it is possible to define the Ackerman function using full recursion.#
+#Q. You claimed that the Ackermann function couldn't be implemented using our primitive recursion techniques (such as the techniques that allow us to define addition and multiplication). But you haven't shown that it is possible to define the Ackermann function using full recursion.#
A. OK:
@@ -171,7 +171,7 @@ so `A 4 x` is to `A 3 x` as hyper-exponentiation is to exponentiation...
* What is it about the variant fixed-point combinators that makes
them compatible with a call-by-value evaluation strategy?
-* How do you know that the Ackerman function can't be computed
+* How do you know that the Ackermann function can't be computed
using primitive recursion techniques?
* What *exactly* is primitive recursion?