[Rick]

>turing complete

Computers aren't even turing complete so any language also isn't turing complete

/thread

[Inori]

Computers aren't even turing complete so any language also isn't turing complete

check your facts

[Rick]

check your facts

it says

"Actual computers have to operate on limited memory and are not Turing complete in the mathematical sense"

I already knew that

[Inori]

it says

"Actual computers have to operate on limited memory and are not Turing complete in the mathematical sense"

I already knew that

If you bother to read the rest of the article, it also says "Informally, however, calling a computer Turing complete means that it can execute any algorithm."

[Rick]

If you bother to read the rest of the article, it also says "Informally, however, calling a computer Turing complete means that it can execute any algorithm."

Okay even if you take it the informal (And wrong) way. It's still impossible to prove that a language is Turing complete.

How would you go about proving that a computer program is turing complete experimentally? You'd need to try every single alorithm, and given that there are infinitely many that's impossible.

You instead need to do it mathematically. And doing it mathematically always leads to the conclusion that it's not Turing complete because it has limited memory.

You can say it's good at solving algorithms, but you can never say it is turing complete. Such a system doesn't exist and I've rarely seen the term used because at it's core it's impossible because it will always be limited by resources.

Any programming language can be made to be just as good at solving a problem as a computer because every single programming language will have boolean functions and these can be exploited to be as efficient as the computer itself if you put enough time and effort into it.

[Inori]

Okay even if you take it the informal (And wrong) way. It's still impossible to prove that a language is Turing complete.

How would you go about proving that a computer program is turing complete experimentally? You'd need to try every single algorithm, and given that there are infinitely many that's impossible.

You instead need to do it mathematically. And doing it mathematically always leads to the conclusion that it's not Turing complete because it has limited memory.

You can say it's good at solving algorithms, but you can never say it is turing complete. Such a system doesn't exist and I've rarely seen the term used because at it's core it's impossible because it will always be limited by resources.

Any programming language can be made to be just as good at solving a problem as a computer because every single programming language will have boolean functions and these can be exploited to be as efficient as the computer itself if you put enough time and effort into it.

this has a pretty good definition of what a Turing Complete language is. And informal isn't wrong, especially since this is a programming challenge, not mathematics.

Kind of off-topic, but true turing completeness is achievable with quantum computers, as even 1 qubit can be used to solve any algorithm, if measured accurately enough.

Regardless, this isn't the purpose of the thread. If you want to discuss what is and isn't turing complete, make a thread in academic discussion.

[Rick]

this has a pretty good definition of what a Turing Complete language is. And informal isn't wrong, especially since this is a programming challenge, not mathematics.

Kind of off-topic, but true turing completeness is achievable with quantum computers, as even 1 qubit can be used to solve any algorithm, if measured accurately enough.

Regardless, this isn't the purpose of the thread. If you want to discuss what is and isn't turing complete, make a thread in academic discussion.

But still, isn't any programming language that can do a selection and store data already a Turing complete language?

[Inori]

But still, isn't any programming language that can do a selection and store data already a Turing complete language?

Intrinsically, yes. Programmatically, no. It's a weird topic that can definitely fill a thread or two.