Tree Calculus

> the application of E1 to E2 attaches E2 to the root of E1 on the right.

It’s completely unclear to me what this means. The literal meaning is obviously wrong, because attaching a tree to a root that already has two child nodes would result in a ternary node, but apparently all trees in tree calculus are binary.

Extensive discussion (202 comments) about 15 months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42373437

The inversion is really cool, e.g.

> f = λa λb concat ["Hello ",a," ",b,"!"] > f "Jane" "Doe" Hello Jane Doe!

then,

> g = f "Admiral" > invert g "Hello Admiral Alice!" Alice

This seems really up Stephen Wolframs alley.

He's really into the graphical representation of Turing machines and multiway Turing machines.

The reduction rules seem kind of arbitrary to me. At that point why don't you just use combinators instead of defining a set of 5 ways their operator can be used?

Much better intro article about tree calculus here, vs the actual site: https://olydis.medium.com/a-visual-introduction-to-tree-calc...

wow this is amazing. There's an old Chinese proverb, 道生一，一生二，二生三，三生万物

The Tao giveth △ (false)

△ gives △ △ (true)

△(△, △) giveth rise to all things computable

(just kidding, I am totally lost to this)

> Tree calculus is minimal, Turing-complete, reflective, modular

Ok. But what is it?

That makes me think of the Inca's quipus.

I'm not used to math things being promoted like this (not to suggest that's a bad thing at all!). Can someone offer some context please.