Your comment is both needlessly dismissive, and worse, incorrect.
You cannot get a human being, much less the person that is you, by recursively applying a constant set of rewrite rules on unstructured hydrogen atoms.
If you think to counter my assertion with "The standard model of particle physics and the big bang already did that, I'm here after all", then spare us both the trouble and don't reply. The particular arrangement of all known matter and energy in the universe at t=0 is not a repeatable initial condition.
Some rewriting systems are in fact Turing complete[1], and that's an interesting digression.
However, it's far afield from the article's discussion of untangling the syntactic mess that is the SQL standard and bringing it closer in line with the standard expression of its semantics.
If you think to counter my assertion with "The standard model of particle physics and the big bang already did that, I'm here after all", then spare us both the trouble and don't reply. The particular arrangement of all known matter and energy in the universe at t=0 is not a repeatable initial condition.
Some rewriting systems are in fact Turing complete[1], and that's an interesting digression. However, it's far afield from the article's discussion of untangling the syntactic mess that is the SQL standard and bringing it closer in line with the standard expression of its semantics.
[1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0304397592...