Tue, 13 May 2003 16:08:31 +0300
> > If I remember correctly, that's the chief reason Ackermann
> > came up with the function. Have a look at <URL:
> > http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AckermannFunction.html > and
> > the links on that page for computable and primitive
> > recursive, and see if that helps. The site also has a
> > definition of recursive.
> OK. Then isn't there an answer to the original question? I couldn't find a
> machine model that satisfies Cagdas's operational requirements. Any
> Maybe it's a very easy answer but I can't see it, and I can't say I know
> proof of every theorem in Cindrella book.
Indeed, I am still looking for a theorem of some sort that either equates
stongly normalizing systems to primitive recursive functions (if this is the
case), or a theorem that demonstrates some sort of limitation to strongly
normalizing systems when compared to a turing machine, or a system that can
decide recursive class but unable to recognize recursively enumerable class.