900:
incompleteness or circular logic here, but I don't think this qualifies as an 'issue'; so I'm placing it here rather than under "Issues". Lacking that definition (if it truly is lacking and not simply on oversight on my part), then it seems that the article relies on the idea that whatever the "instruction set" of a given computational model is, it is deemed "Turing-complete" if it is possible to simulate a TM with the model and vice versa. I don't have a problem with that; I just think it would be good to either offer some more precise/authoritative definition of "Turing-complete instruction set" or modify that wording accordingly.
1942:
1650:
perform a measurement along the z-axis, and then again it collapses to ket(0) with probability 1/n and ket(1) with probability 1 - 1/n. This process is repeated until enough 0's and 1's are collected to form a convergent probability that there are 0's, corresponding to 1/n. Anytime the state is prepared and a measurement along the z-axis is performed, I get information about the state since it collapses to 0 and 1 with the probability according to the coefficient of ket(0) of the prepared state. I don't get enough information about the probability until enough experiments are repeated.
1504:
can be stored on a single qubit and one can manipulate it, perform arithmetic, etc., whereas on a classical digital computer one can't even store a large enough number in the first place because one runs out the space to store it. So for example, I can store google to the power of google on a single qubit which is impossible on a classical computer due to finite memory, perform arithmetic etc, and I can read out the value using enough measurements though ofcourse to be able to "see" that value one would need a lot of space.
295:
285:
264:
859:
799:
notion that does not have any workable definition, or it refers implicitely to the Church–Turing thesis. In both cases, "computational universality" cannot be proved. On the other hand, Turing completeness can be mathematically proved, and proofs of Turing completeness support Church–Turing thesis. So, the article is definitively about Turing completeness. In the article, the two terms are presented as synonymous. IMO, this is an error that must be corrected.
467:
1983:
notions, and present them as separate but related. I see a lot of students having misconceptions which are made worse by having conflicting definitions for a single concept. The second issue is that it's really hard to write well sourced information on the informal concept. Scholarly sources tend to focus on formalism, because that is their nature, and informal concepts are not always well pinned down.
390:
369:
1008:
universal just means that when turned loose on particular configurations of cells, the Game of Life simulates a certain other Turing-complete mechanism (e.g. Turing machines), but it doesn't imply that the game is able to express arbitrary computable functions on configurations of cells, and there may well exist another game that is strictly more powerful than the Game of Life in that sense.
716:
execution model requires a separate component which is either a user or e.g. a small piece of JavaScript which performs the clicks. It means it should not be considered Turing complete alone, without including that "clicking" element, whatever it is. So it's not only HTML5 + CSS3, but HTML5 + CSS3 + something that is able to detect elements which are to be clicked and click on them.
1858:
covered in the body of the article, and I certainly don't want to expunge it completely, but I feel it creates a false impression when the article leads in with this, and weird dissonance when the next sentence seems to say something that directly contradicts this. I think the old version of the article did an alright job of clearly separating the informal and formal uses.
233:
1518:
With an analog computer one can try to prepare the value 1/n but without a sensitive enough detector it would be impossible to confirm what the value is and hence essentially impossible to prepare such a value, and all detectors are limited by the
Uncertainty Principle. So infinite physical memory is
1385:
In this wikipedia page it says infinite physical memory is not possible. However I have demonstrated recently that a single qubit can represent infinite memory by using the probability coefficient of the qubit state as an analog signal. That is if the qubit state is 1/sqrt(n) (ket(0)) + sqrt(1 - 1/n)
1948:
In a perfect world - Heck, the computer world is filled with "ideal" conditions (like "infinite memory"), why not let it be here too? - it would be helpful for you to clear your head of any preconceptions and rewrite this lead along the revised lines above, making the fewest mincing changes you feel
1054:
So perhaps I'm not understanding what is meant by "mechanism" in the statement quoted above. Or, perhaps the point of misunderstanding has to do with the phrase "on the mechanism's own domain". Every approach to
Computability Theory that I'm familiar with assumes that the instance of the computation
962:
However, they are not the only things that control them, and in order to exert their control, they perform all kinds of sophisticated interaction with these devices. Interaction does not consist of computation alone; for instance, timing aspects are often very important. So what computer programs do
1336:
I see, thank you. So the idea that the point of misunderstanding or difference of interpretation does indeed center around considering encodings for different domains. I also agree that the second interpretation above is (in my experience) much more common in the context of computability theory (as
877:
Unfortunately, I am unable to provide a source. It is for this reason that I have put "IMO" in my previous post, and I have not edited the article. My feeling is that the popularization of the term "Turing complete" is a consequence of the fact that calculability theory and computational complexity
862:
computationally universal only in 1999, decades after I studied this stuff. Now that you point out that the two are not synonymous I accept the newer word better. I still don't like it (we're not talking about equivalence to Alan Turing, but rather to his UTM) but I admit my taste is probably not
715:
They are not Turing complete together. The provided source is just a blog post and a piece of software. There are no e.g. peer reviewed articles claiming the same. As far as I understand the software does not work automatically, but it requires the user to click on some elements on the page. So the
1861:
Lastly, having now read both versions a dozen times, I do feel that explaining that Turing machines are from Alan Turing is probably extraneous in the first paragraph. A neat piece of trivia, but not one of the most important things about the topic. Maybe removing this, or moving it down the page,
1503:
Ofcourse there is still the fact that to look at the answer as a classical numerical value, and supposing the number is very big, one needs a lot of storage space (there is no way around this because the human mind would have no other way of perceiving the number), but the difference is the number
1488:
Preparing this state, which is not difficult using the
Hamiltonian derived in the research paper, or alternatively using a Hamiltonian I derived in a follow-up research paper, and perform a measurement and get 0 or 1. Record this value of 0 or 1. Keep repeating this process, and the probability of
1050:
mechanism that is more powerful than a Turing
Machine. Perhaps In particular, I don't see how John Horton Conway's Turing Complete Game of Life is such an example. As noted here in Knowledge, the Game of Life has been shown to be capable of simulating any given Turing Machine. And given a suitable
1019:
It is not the case that every real-world design for a computing device can be simulated by a universal Turing machine. Computing devices do a lot more than compute computable functions, and designs have purposes besides expressive power. This should be reworded to be about the ability to calculate
958:
The computer programs themselves don't really do all of this; they interact with peripheral equipment such as memory devices, displays, network equipment, etcetera, which in turn interact with their environment and other devices, and it's the whole system that implements these things. The computer
1982:
I don't think we see this all that differently. I definitely don't want this article to be overly technical, and I'm happy to have informal notions used to introduce the topic. The issue that has to be overcome, however is two-fold. First I do think we have to avoid conflating formal and informal
1611:
you seem to be talking about measurement along the x-axis or y-axis. The state is prepared again after measurement collapses to one of these two states. There is nothing wrong with that. I'm not talking about repeating the measurement after the state is already collapsed. Then that would give the
1058:
One thing I think we can both agree on is when you said "Another thing worth explaining is...". I.e., this article is good, but I believe we can make it better by being more clear, precise, and complete. I aim to help with that, but I wanted to test the waters here in the Talk page before I start
777:
In my experience "computationally universal" is the term that has priority and is used in the academic literature; e.g. the google n-gram viewer shows no hits for "Turing complete" but lots of them for "computationally universal". I have no idea who invented "Turing complete" and an article like
1857:
I think that introducing it as a term operating on computers and programming languages, over-emphasizes the informal way in which it is used. Computers and programming languages have to be idealized and described as models of computation for to talk about their Turing completeness. This usage is
1023:
Babbage's engine arguably wouldn't have been the first Turing-complete machine, because programs had to make do with a fixed amount of working memory; but perhaps its input "language" was universal, if it assumed no such limitation. In general, there should probably be a clearer discussion about
1007:
Another thing worth explaining is that a mechanism can be Turing-complete (universal) and yet less computationally powerful than another mechanism, because Turing completeness does not imply the ability to express arbitrary computable functions on the mechanism's own domain. For instance, being
798:
In
Scholar Google, which is the reference searching engine for academic subjects, I got 2,130 hits for "computationally universal", and 16,800 for "Turing complete". However, such counts do not matter here, as the two terms are not at all synonymous: "computationally universal" is either a vague
1649:
Ok let me make it clear. If I prepare the state with 1/sqrt(n) as the coefficient, then perform a measurement along the z-axis, it will collapse to ket(0) with a probability 1/n and ket(1) with a probability 1-1/n. Then I prepare the original state again with 1/sqrt(n) as the coefficient, then
977:
I agree with the intent of this statement, but I am not sure that "the basic elements of computation" is well defined. Formally, the "basic elements" of different computational models differ quite widely. E.g., Turing
Machines, the RAM model, lambda calculus, unrestricted rewriting systems,
1849:
I'm not sure I follow your first point. The old section may be opaque, I'm certainly open to changes to make it clearer, but I don't see how the changes do that. I also don't get the distinction you are making between "Turing completeness" as a term and any other word. In the example at
899:
I'm curious about the wording "a universal computer is defined as 'a device with a Turing-complete instruction set'". I have not been able to find any precise definition of "Turing-complete instruction set", and in particular I don't see it within
Knowledge. There seems to be (IMO) some
915:
On second thought, I realize now that it is not necessary to modify this section because it is under the heading "Non-mathematical usage". So my previous concern about being more "precise/authoritative does not really apply. The way it is now is adequate for this context. Please excuse
1405:
This is actually a sixth way of representing information (quantum analog-to-digital), the other five ways being classical analog to analog, classical digital to digital, stochastic analog to analog, stochastic digital to digital, and quantum digital to digital (quantum computing).
488:
1003:
One is that it remains vague about what it means for a machine or mechanism to simulate another. This should be explained. In particular, it should be explained what it means for one computational mechanism to simulate another, even when the domains are different.
938:
Would it be valid to say that a system is Turing-complete if it can be used to replicate all of the basic elements of computation? And that such a system can — in principle, given sufficient time and resources — be used to reproduce any and all computer programs?
1880:. Knowledge is intended to be an "everyman's encyclopedia", which "anyone can edit". You are advocating for an over-specialized view of all this (which I could dig a nice linked acronym for out of the MOS, but there's no point). "Touring completeness" is
782:
and the n-gram result is reason enough to change the name of the article to "Computationally universal". I am apparently going against the tide but does anyone agree with me? (I see I am sort of echoing a part of what is in the 'Untitled' section above.)
1634:
as labels for associated eigenvectors doesn't change that. If the state is prepared again then a subsequent measurement of the Z component of spin provides no information on the original state. Again, you are clearly leaving out crucial information. --
857:
Interesting and thanks for your attention. (I wonder why I didn't get notification of your comment? Thought I was watching.) I didn't see that N-gram is case sensitive, very sorry. Also this is showing my age. A comparison shows Turing complete
954:
That would be a bit misleading. Computer programs can do such things as send email, receive email, act as an answering machine, run
Knowledge, run Minecraft, operate a robot, or handle money transfers. Turing machines can do none of those
2036:
These sections are a bit wonky, sure, but that's not the same thing. (That is, they seem to be a bit more focussed on splitting hairs than on getting to the point.) That's a problem with the writing, not the content. Would an
166:
1051:
encoding, a Turing
Machine can be devised that simulates the game for any given initial configuration. Hence, the game and the TM model can simulate each other and are therefore exactly equal in computational power.
1314:
the ability to simulate all computable functions over any domain by computing the corresponding functions over the given domain, according to some mapping of the values of the first domain to values of the given
828:
820:
1593:, and repeating the measurement gives the same value. If you prepare the state again then you are no longer measuring the original state. I suspect that you're leaving out critical details of the proposal. --
1337:
opposed to sometimes in practice). In that case, I agree with this part of the Talk thread, and so I will not attempt to 'improve' the actual article, since it does not need improvement in this area.
1778:
Regarding your 2nd, how's this for integrating the aspect of "Turing completeness" you feel is under-emphasized (and recognizing the term is indeed used to apply to all three of these applications:
1717:
1665:
1651:
1613:
1578:
1564:
1520:
1505:
1490:
1407:
1929:- which is no WP violating effort at "flashing credentials" to gain an edge in an argument, just context for you to recognize I have one foot in each camp, so to speak. Ending up at this page
512:
1969:
1836:
351:
1945:
featured in the movie). So, one light leap from TCM to ENIAC, and one curious click from there to here (to figure out just what in heck - in layman's terms - "Turing completeness" meant).)
1042:
I'm not sure I understand the statement "...a mechanism can be Turing-complete (universal) and yet less computationally powerful than another mechanism...". It would be helpful if you,
878:
theory have more or less fusioned (after all the worst complexity is to be not computable), and that "complete" is widely used in complexity theory, with a similar meaning (for example
652:
1366:
There's a list of unintentionally turing complete software, and it's already pretty long and I'm fairly certain it's quite incomplete. Is it worth creating a list article for it?
1472:
569:
507:
160:
1716:
Ok I have no problem discussing it in person, but I feel that I am right and they are wasting my time and the wikipedia edit should be made, so what should happen for that?
1303:
1233:
2085:
1900:
computers, software, and rule sets that simulate
Touring machines. (Which of course needs to be (concisely) in the lead, what a "Turing machine" is, high up in it, and
1320:
The first property is stronger than the second; the second is Turing completeness. In practice, people sometimes use Turing completeness to refer to the first property.
1181:
440:
430:
1265:
1721:
1669:
1655:
1617:
1582:
1568:
1524:
1509:
1494:
1411:
1120:
1489:
0's will converge to the value 1/n. Hence the normalized amplitude squared is an observable by measuring the probability that measurement of the state results in 0.
1986:
I still feel like I do not fully understand your reasons for wanting the change. I was hoping thorough discussion could help us reach a better version of this bit.
1140:
2090:
1925:
a digital computer pioneer, designing and literally soldering together some of the 1st integrated circuits himself, and later earning several early patents in
1908:
an article in a computer journal where every reader is likely to know all about both). The sooner the better in both cases. Otherwise it's just unnecessary
1626:
Whoosh! I understood what you wrote perfectly. A measurement of the Z component of electron spin gives a value of plus or minus 1/2; the fact that you used
406:
57:
2080:
2075:
1577:
Also it is assumed that after measurement the state mentioned above is prepared again and measured again to get 0 or 1, or it could be done in ensemble.
1055:
to be done is encoded in some manner appropriate for the computational model in question. That is why I added "Given a suitable encoding" to my response.
614:
341:
92:
1386:(ket(1)) the value n can also be found by measuring the probability the qubit is in the state ket(0) and distinguishing 0's and 1's. The paper is at
588:
739:
Finally, a finite, predetermined sequence of mouse and key events are applied to the DOM, updating :focus, :target, :checked CSS pseudo-classes.
453:
397:
374:
317:
2070:
677:
98:
560:
203:
1973:
1840:
541:
308:
269:
181:
824:
148:
1765:
of WP:ISAWORDFOR, the original language IS opaque (and in no way "encyclopedically direct"); and second, "Turing completeness"
633:
112:
43:
1607:
I;m sorry but you are not understanding or trying to understand. After measurement along the z-axis the value will be |0: -->
117:
33:
1991:
1867:
1751:
1707:
944:
844:
87:
1702:
on it. If you are really interested in having this conversation could the two of you move it to personal correspondence?
2052:
1563:
Sorry I should have specified what is being measured, measurement is of the z-component of spin so the value is 0 or 1.
598:
479:
244:
608:
522:
78:
1519:
possible in this sense, though measuring out the value so it can be read may not be a great thing to do in practice.
142:
643:
405:
related articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
198:
1773:
of "Turing completeness"). Thus it is appropriate to initially explain it as such, and develop nuance from there.
1742:, so I won't summarize it here. The other is that it over-emphasizes the colloquial usage outlined in the section
1538:
670:
836:
212:
138:
2016:
1987:
1863:
1747:
1703:
940:
840:
2048:
1664:
I have a feeling another person is needed because we don't seem to agree even though I am being very clear.
122:
188:
1347:
1066:
1024:
loose ways in which the term Turing completeness is used even when the amount of working space is bounded.
985:
923:
905:
762:
748:
724:
1078:
Deterministic Turing Machines compute partial functions from strings to strings over a certain alphabet.
579:
250:
758:
744:
720:
294:
1851:
1815:
1807:
1795:
1787:
1739:
1425:
1371:
757:
I don't see any comments about it here, so I will remove the reference to HTML5 + CSS3 from the page.
1968:
Thank you for your civility, efforts to find common ground, and meeting me here to try to. Adieu.
232:
1743:
1695:
174:
68:
37:
1046:(or anyone else who would like to weigh-in), could please provide an example of a Turing Complete
316:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1819:
1391:
887:
804:
300:
217:
154:
83:
284:
263:
1949:
you must. The best way for that to happen - and I truly hope it does, as the encyclopedia is
1802:, a mathematical model of computation developed by English mathemetician and computer pioneer
1343:
1270:
1200:
1081:
Subsets of such TMs compute subsets of these functions; in this sense, they are less powerful.
1062:
981:
919:
901:
498:
64:
1267:
such that for all TMs in the second set, computing some partial function on the strings over
1148:
831:. I don't understand how you got no hits for 'Turing complete' on the Ngram viewer - I get a
815:"Illegitimate" is an amazing thing to say, and I'd suggest you redact it. As for 'priority',
2041:
1921:(And me? Someone who literally was *born* with computers in their life...my father actually
1806:. A system that is able to recognize or decide other data-manipulation rule sets (such as a
1640:
1598:
1554:
1479:
1395:
1238:
868:
788:
550:
402:
214:
1093:
882:) (in fact it is more the methods of proof that are similar than the meanings themselves).
1811:
1367:
1387:
1799:
1125:
624:
466:
1305:, some TM in the first set computes the corresponding function on the encoded strings.
489:
Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet
2064:
883:
816:
800:
778:
this would be improved by a reference to its first use. I think "Turing complete" is
1854:, "dog" is also a term (for the concept of "dog"). To me these cases seem analogous.
1699:
1694:
The talk pages are for discussing improvements or changes to the article, they are
1327:
1032:
968:
1761:
Greetings. Nice to see you here. Vis-a-vis your first concern, recognizing the
1193:
Yet, it is just as powerful, in the sense that the second set of machines can be
1926:
1803:
1738:
I have two issues with the changes to the first paragraph. The first is exactly
1636:
1594:
1550:
1475:
1390:. This system can also be used a computer with analog input and digital output.
879:
864:
784:
313:
216:
2056:
1995:
1977:
1871:
1844:
1755:
1725:
1711:
1673:
1659:
1644:
1621:
1602:
1586:
1572:
1558:
1546:
1542:
1528:
1513:
1498:
1483:
1415:
1399:
1375:
1351:
1331:
1311:
the ability to compute all (computable) partial functions over a given domain;
1084:
However, such subsets may be strictly less powerful and still Turing complete.
1070:
1036:
989:
972:
948:
927:
909:
891:
872:
848:
808:
792:
766:
752:
728:
290:
2026:
of these paragraphs are likely to be challenged? I don't think that's true.
1190:
Clearly, the first set is less powerful than the second, in the above sense.
531:
389:
368:
1937:
on Turner Classic Movies last night, and wanting to check something about
1934:
1791:
978:
combinators, circuits, ... And informally, there is even wider variation.
1933:
researching computers but merely having seen the 1950s romantic comedy
1323:
1028:
964:
1957:
with "consensus" and not be a nettle in your side. A consensus which
1918:
to core Knowledge users (who know nothing about any of this going in).
1914:
1591:
As with any measurement, that leaves it in an eigernstate: |-1/2: -->
863:
relevant. A citation in the main article would still be helpful. --
1938:
1541:
for simplicity, wouldn't the first measurement collapse it to an
1197:
by the first set, that is to say, we can encode the strings over
2033:
what you think is incorrect, misleading or original research.
607:
Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see
226:
218:
28:
15:
1953:
about either you or I - is for me to step away and trust you
1549:, causing the second measurement to yield the same value? --
1798:, or set of data-manipulation rules capable of simulating a
823:, and if you're not thrilled with how he used it there, the
1941:(which was used as the model for the comically exaggerated
1362:
Create list of unintentionally turing complete software?
1043:
173:
1428:
1388:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Santosh-Gupta-10
1273:
1241:
1203:
1151:
1128:
1096:
1422:
How would you measure normalized amplitude squared (
401:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
312:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1466:
1308:So it is important to distinguish two properties:
1297:
1259:
1227:
1175:
1134:
1114:
513:Computer science articles needing expert attention
2029:I would expect to see a clear discussion here of
773:"Turing complete" vs. "computationally universal"
46:for general discussion of the article's subject.
737:
653:WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs
1965:, not one already fluent in computer science.
187:
8:
1292:
1274:
1254:
1242:
1222:
1204:
1087:For instance, consider two subsets of DTMs:
1145:those that only read or write the symbols:
1090:those that only read or write the symbols:
570:Computer science articles without infoboxes
508:Computer science articles needing attention
474:Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
448:
363:
258:
1458:
1453:
1429:
1427:
1272:
1240:
1202:
1150:
1127:
1095:
2086:Top-importance Computer science articles
1637:Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul
1595:Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul
1551:Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul
1476:Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul
1340:Thanks again for the clarification here.
1862:would help to make things more direct?
719:For this reason I marked it as dubious.
365:
260:
230:
1718:2607:FEA8:E920:B8A:DE30:4434:F77B:FA73
1666:2607:FEA8:E920:B8A:DE30:4434:F77B:FA73
1652:2607:FEA8:E920:B8A:DE30:4434:F77B:FA73
1614:2607:FEA8:E920:B8A:DE30:4434:F77B:FA73
1579:2607:FEA8:E920:B8A:DE30:4434:F77B:FA73
1565:2607:FEA8:E920:B8A:DE30:4434:F77B:FA73
1521:2607:FEA8:E920:B8A:DE30:4434:F77B:FA73
1506:2607:FEA8:E920:B8A:DE30:4434:F77B:FA73
1491:2607:FEA8:E920:B8A:DE30:4434:F77B:FA73
1408:2607:FEA8:E920:B8A:DE30:4434:F77B:FA73
415:Knowledge:WikiProject Computer science
2091:WikiProject Computer science articles
1059:editing other people's contributions.
418:Template:WikiProject Computer science
7:
1970:2601:196:180:DC0:D14C:66F2:D249:FD73
1904:gets credited to Turing (as this is
1837:2601:196:180:DC0:D14C:66F2:D249:FD73
395:This article is within the scope of
306:This article is within the scope of
1381:Infinite physical memory can happen
249:It is of interest to the following
36:for discussing improvements to the
1434:
1170:
1129:
1109:
1000:The present text has some issues.
959:programs just act to control them.
589:Timeline of computing 2020–present
14:
2081:C-Class Computer science articles
2076:Mid-priority mathematics articles
2022:tags here. Are we to assume that
615:Computing articles needing images
326:Knowledge:WikiProject Mathematics
1474:)? That's not an observable. --
1467:{\displaystyle |\Psi (x,t)|^{2}}
1044:https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Rp
465:
388:
367:
329:Template:WikiProject Mathematics
293:
283:
262:
231:
58:Click here to start a new topic.
1015:section has some inaccuracies:
963:is more than just computation.
825:Symposia on Theory of Computing
435:This article has been rated as
346:This article has been rated as
2047:tag be more appropriate? ---
1454:
1449:
1437:
1430:
1020:functions on discrete domains.
1:
2008:Over-use of "citation needed"
1037:22:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
669:Tag all relevant articles in
409:and see a list of open tasks.
320:and see a list of open tasks.
55:Put new text under old text.
2071:C-Class mathematics articles
1726:13:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
1712:13:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
1674:13:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
1660:13:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
1645:12:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
1622:18:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
1603:10:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
1587:02:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
1573:02:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
1559:17:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
1529:19:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
1514:19:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
1499:19:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
1484:18:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
1416:23:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
1400:12:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
973:22:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
734:The blog says the following:
678:WikiProject Computer science
454:WikiProject Computer science
398:WikiProject Computer science
609:List of computer scientists
63:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
2107:
1996:16:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
1978:16:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
1872:15:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
1845:14:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
1756:14:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
1698:to discuss the subject or
1376:02:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
892:14:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
873:13:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
849:18:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
835:of hits for it - but it's
819:used "Turing-complete" in
809:17:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
793:17:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
767:15:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
753:16:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
729:15:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
441:project's importance scale
2057:08:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
1876:Clearly we each see this
1828:computationally universal
1539:Copenhagen interpretation
1298:{\displaystyle \{a,b,c\}}
1228:{\displaystyle \{a,b,c\}}
949:05:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
671:Category:Computer science
447:
434:
421:Computer science articles
383:
345:
278:
257:
93:Be welcoming to newcomers
22:Skip to table of contents
1352:01:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
1332:22:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
1176:{\displaystyle a,b,c,\#}
1071:19:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
990:18:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
928:15:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
837:a flawed tool either way
673:and sub-categories with
352:project's priority scale
21:
1260:{\displaystyle \{a,b\}}
910:21:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
309:WikiProject Mathematics
1744:Non-mathematical usage
1734:Lead paragraph changes
1468:
1299:
1261:
1229:
1177:
1136:
1116:
1115:{\displaystyle a,b,\#}
741:
634:Computer science stubs
239:This article is rated
88:avoid personal attacks
1961:the interests of the
1878:completely oppositely
1469:
1300:
1262:
1230:
1178:
1137:
1117:
827:were using it in the
113:Neutral point of view
2012:There is a flood of
1816:programming language
1808:model of computation
1796:programming language
1788:computability theory
1426:
1271:
1239:
1201:
1149:
1142:is the blank symbol.
1126:
1094:
452:Things you can help
332:mathematics articles
118:No original research
1988:AquitaneHungerForce
1864:AquitaneHungerForce
1784:Turing completeness
1748:AquitaneHungerForce
1704:AquitaneHungerForce
38:Turing completeness
2049:CharlesTGillingham
1820:cellular automaton
1786:is a term used in
1464:
1295:
1257:
1225:
1173:
1135:{\displaystyle \#}
1132:
1112:
1075:A simple example:
301:Mathematics portal
245:content assessment
99:dispute resolution
60:
708:
707:
704:
703:
700:
699:
696:
695:
692:
691:
362:
361:
358:
357:
225:
224:
79:Assume good faith
56:
27:
26:
2098:
2046:
2040:
2021:
2015:
1910:connect the dots
1822:) is said to be
1700:conduct research
1473:
1471:
1470:
1465:
1463:
1462:
1457:
1433:
1304:
1302:
1301:
1296:
1266:
1264:
1263:
1258:
1235:as strings over
1234:
1232:
1231:
1226:
1182:
1180:
1179:
1174:
1141:
1139:
1138:
1133:
1121:
1119:
1118:
1113:
682:
676:
551:Computer science
480:Article requests
469:
462:
461:
449:
423:
422:
419:
416:
413:
412:Computer science
403:Computer science
392:
385:
384:
379:
375:Computer science
371:
364:
334:
333:
330:
327:
324:
303:
298:
297:
287:
280:
279:
274:
266:
259:
242:
236:
235:
227:
219:
192:
191:
177:
108:Article policies
29:
16:
2106:
2105:
2101:
2100:
2099:
2097:
2096:
2095:
2061:
2060:
2044:
2038:
2019:
2017:citation needed
2013:
2010:
1824:Turing-complete
1812:instruction set
1810:, a computer's
1790:to designate a
1736:
1452:
1424:
1423:
1383:
1364:
1269:
1268:
1237:
1236:
1199:
1198:
1147:
1146:
1124:
1123:
1092:
1091:
998:
936:
934:Simplification?
775:
740:
713:
688:
685:
680:
674:
662:Project-related
657:
638:
619:
593:
574:
555:
536:
517:
493:
420:
417:
414:
411:
410:
377:
331:
328:
325:
322:
321:
299:
292:
272:
243:on Knowledge's
240:
221:
220:
215:
134:
129:
128:
127:
104:
74:
12:
11:
5:
2104:
2102:
2094:
2093:
2088:
2083:
2078:
2073:
2063:
2062:
2009:
2006:
2005:
2004:
2003:
2002:
2001:
2000:
1999:
1998:
1984:
1966:
1959:must represent
1946:
1919:
1859:
1855:
1832:
1831:
1800:Turing machine
1780:
1779:
1775:
1774:
1735:
1732:
1731:
1730:
1729:
1728:
1692:
1691:
1690:
1689:
1688:
1687:
1686:
1685:
1684:
1683:
1682:
1681:
1680:
1679:
1678:
1677:
1676:
1609:not |-1/2: -->
1535:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1461:
1456:
1451:
1448:
1445:
1442:
1439:
1436:
1432:
1420:
1418:
1382:
1379:
1363:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1341:
1338:
1321:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1312:
1306:
1294:
1291:
1288:
1285:
1282:
1279:
1276:
1256:
1253:
1250:
1247:
1244:
1224:
1221:
1218:
1215:
1212:
1209:
1206:
1191:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1172:
1169:
1166:
1163:
1160:
1157:
1154:
1143:
1131:
1111:
1108:
1105:
1102:
1099:
1085:
1082:
1079:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1026:
1025:
1021:
997:
994:
993:
992:
979:
975:
960:
956:
935:
932:
931:
930:
917:
897:
896:
895:
894:
855:
854:
853:
852:
851:
774:
771:
770:
769:
755:
742:
738:
735:
712:
709:
706:
705:
702:
701:
698:
697:
694:
693:
690:
689:
687:
686:
684:
683:
666:
658:
656:
655:
649:
639:
637:
636:
630:
620:
618:
617:
612:
604:
594:
592:
591:
585:
575:
573:
572:
566:
556:
554:
553:
547:
537:
535:
534:
528:
518:
516:
515:
510:
504:
494:
492:
491:
485:
473:
471:
470:
458:
457:
445:
444:
437:Top-importance
433:
427:
426:
424:
407:the discussion
393:
381:
380:
378:Top‑importance
372:
360:
359:
356:
355:
344:
338:
337:
335:
318:the discussion
305:
304:
288:
276:
275:
267:
255:
254:
248:
237:
223:
222:
213:
211:
210:
207:
206:
194:
193:
131:
130:
126:
125:
120:
115:
106:
105:
103:
102:
95:
90:
81:
75:
73:
72:
61:
52:
51:
48:
47:
41:
25:
24:
19:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2103:
2092:
2089:
2087:
2084:
2082:
2079:
2077:
2074:
2072:
2069:
2068:
2066:
2059:
2058:
2054:
2050:
2043:
2034:
2032:
2027:
2025:
2018:
2007:
1997:
1993:
1989:
1985:
1981:
1980:
1979:
1975:
1971:
1967:
1964:
1960:
1956:
1952:
1947:
1944:
1940:
1936:
1932:
1928:
1924:
1920:
1917:
1916:
1911:
1907:
1903:
1899:
1895:
1891:
1887:
1883:
1879:
1875:
1874:
1873:
1869:
1865:
1860:
1856:
1853:
1852:WP:ISAWORDFOR
1848:
1847:
1846:
1842:
1838:
1834:
1833:
1829:
1825:
1821:
1817:
1813:
1809:
1805:
1801:
1797:
1793:
1789:
1785:
1782:
1781:
1777:
1776:
1772:
1768:
1764:
1760:
1759:
1758:
1757:
1753:
1749:
1745:
1741:
1740:WP:ISAWORDFOR
1733:
1727:
1723:
1719:
1715:
1714:
1713:
1709:
1705:
1701:
1697:
1693:
1675:
1671:
1667:
1663:
1662:
1661:
1657:
1653:
1648:
1647:
1646:
1642:
1638:
1633:
1629:
1625:
1624:
1623:
1619:
1615:
1610:or |+1/2: -->
1606:
1605:
1604:
1600:
1596:
1592:or |+1/2: -->
1590:
1589:
1588:
1584:
1580:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1570:
1566:
1562:
1561:
1560:
1556:
1552:
1548:
1544:
1540:
1537:Assuming the
1536:
1530:
1526:
1522:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1511:
1507:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1496:
1492:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1481:
1477:
1459:
1446:
1443:
1440:
1421:
1419:
1417:
1413:
1409:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1397:
1393:
1389:
1380:
1378:
1377:
1373:
1369:
1361:
1353:
1349:
1345:
1342:
1339:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1329:
1325:
1322:
1319:
1313:
1310:
1309:
1307:
1289:
1286:
1283:
1280:
1277:
1251:
1248:
1245:
1219:
1216:
1213:
1210:
1207:
1196:
1192:
1189:
1167:
1164:
1161:
1158:
1155:
1152:
1144:
1106:
1103:
1100:
1097:
1089:
1088:
1086:
1083:
1080:
1077:
1076:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1049:
1048:computational
1045:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1022:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1014:
1011:Finally, the
1009:
1005:
1001:
995:
991:
987:
983:
980:
976:
974:
970:
966:
961:
957:
953:
952:
951:
950:
946:
942:
933:
929:
925:
921:
918:
914:
913:
912:
911:
907:
903:
893:
889:
885:
881:
876:
875:
874:
870:
866:
861:
856:
850:
846:
842:
838:
834:
830:
826:
822:
818:
817:Alonzo Church
814:
813:
812:
811:
810:
806:
802:
797:
796:
795:
794:
790:
786:
781:
772:
768:
764:
760:
756:
754:
750:
746:
743:
736:
733:
732:
731:
730:
726:
722:
717:
710:
679:
672:
668:
667:
665:
663:
659:
654:
651:
650:
648:
646:
645:
640:
635:
632:
631:
629:
627:
626:
621:
616:
613:
610:
606:
605:
603:
601:
600:
595:
590:
587:
586:
584:
582:
581:
576:
571:
568:
567:
565:
563:
562:
557:
552:
549:
548:
546:
544:
543:
538:
533:
530:
529:
527:
525:
524:
519:
514:
511:
509:
506:
505:
503:
501:
500:
495:
490:
487:
486:
484:
482:
481:
476:
475:
472:
468:
464:
463:
460:
459:
455:
451:
450:
446:
442:
438:
432:
429:
428:
425:
408:
404:
400:
399:
394:
391:
387:
386:
382:
376:
373:
370:
366:
353:
349:
343:
340:
339:
336:
319:
315:
311:
310:
302:
296:
291:
289:
286:
282:
281:
277:
271:
268:
265:
261:
256:
252:
246:
238:
234:
229:
228:
209:
208:
205:
202:
200:
196:
195:
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
133:
132:
124:
123:Verifiability
121:
119:
116:
114:
111:
110:
109:
100:
96:
94:
91:
89:
85:
82:
80:
77:
76:
70:
66:
65:Learn to edit
62:
59:
54:
53:
50:
49:
45:
39:
35:
31:
30:
23:
20:
18:
17:
2035:
2030:
2028:
2023:
2011:
1963:average user
1962:
1958:
1954:
1950:
1930:
1922:
1915:playing Clue
1913:
1909:
1905:
1901:
1897:
1893:
1889:
1885:
1881:
1877:
1827:
1823:
1783:
1770:
1766:
1762:
1737:
1631:
1627:
1612:same value.
1384:
1365:
1344:Mike-c-in-mv
1194:
1063:Mike-c-in-mv
1047:
1027:
1012:
1010:
1006:
1002:
999:
982:Mike-c-in-mv
937:
920:Mike-c-in-mv
902:Mike-c-in-mv
898:
832:
780:illegitimate
779:
776:
759:123unoduetre
745:123unoduetre
721:123unoduetre
718:
714:
711:HTML5 + CSS3
661:
660:
644:Unreferenced
642:
641:
623:
622:
597:
596:
578:
577:
559:
558:
540:
539:
521:
520:
497:
496:
478:
477:
436:
396:
348:Mid-priority
347:
307:
273:Mid‑priority
251:WikiProjects
197:
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
107:
32:This is the
1927:core memory
1804:Alan Turing
1696:not a forum
996:Some issues
880:NP complete
323:Mathematics
314:mathematics
270:Mathematics
161:free images
44:not a forum
2065:Categories
1902:inherently
1894:describing
1608:or |1: -->
1547:observable
1543:eigenstate
1892:, a term
1769:(for the
1767:is a term
1763:intention
1195:simulated
532:Computing
101:if needed
84:Be polite
34:talk page
1955:entirely
1935:Desk Set
1898:defining
1792:computer
1122:, where
884:D.Lazard
801:D.Lazard
580:Maintain
523:Copyedit
199:Archives
69:get help
42:This is
40:article.
2042:unclear
2031:exactly
1890:concept
1818:, or a
1771:concept
1545:of the
1368:romir.k
1315:domain.
1013:History
955:things.
561:Infobox
499:Cleanup
439:on the
350:on the
241:C-class
167:WPÂ refs
155:scholar
1943:EMERAC
1888:and a
1835:Best,
1392:Skgupt
865:Jar354
860:passes
785:Jar354
542:Expand
247:scale.
139:Google
1939:ENIAC
1923:being
829:1970s
625:Stubs
599:Photo
456:with:
182:JSTOR
143:books
97:Seek
2053:talk
1992:talk
1974:talk
1912:and
1896:and
1886:term
1882:both
1868:talk
1841:talk
1814:, a
1752:talk
1722:talk
1708:talk
1670:talk
1656:talk
1641:talk
1630:and
1618:talk
1599:talk
1583:talk
1569:talk
1555:talk
1525:talk
1510:talk
1495:talk
1480:talk
1412:talk
1396:talk
1372:talk
1348:talk
1328:talk
1067:talk
1033:talk
986:talk
969:talk
945:talk
924:talk
906:talk
888:talk
869:talk
845:talk
821:1957
805:talk
789:talk
763:talk
749:talk
725:talk
175:FENS
149:news
86:and
2024:all
1951:not
1931:not
1906:not
1826:or
916:me.
833:lot
431:Top
342:Mid
189:TWL
2067::
2055:)
2045:}}
2039:{{
2020:}}
2014:{{
1994:)
1976:)
1884:a
1870:)
1843:)
1794:,
1754:)
1746:.
1724:)
1710:)
1672:)
1658:)
1643:)
1620:)
1601:)
1585:)
1571:)
1557:)
1527:)
1512:)
1497:)
1482:)
1435:Ψ
1414:)
1398:)
1374:)
1350:)
1330:)
1324:Rp
1171:#
1130:#
1110:#
1069:)
1035:)
1029:Rp
988:)
971:)
965:Rp
947:)
941:DS
926:)
908:)
890:)
871:)
847:)
841:DS
839:.
807:)
791:)
783:--
765:)
751:)
727:)
681:}}
675:{{
169:)
67:;
2051:(
1990:(
1972:(
1866:(
1839:(
1830:.
1750:(
1720:(
1706:(
1668:(
1654:(
1639:(
1632:1
1628:0
1616:(
1597:(
1581:(
1567:(
1553:(
1523:(
1508:(
1493:(
1478:(
1460:2
1455:|
1450:)
1447:t
1444:,
1441:x
1438:(
1431:|
1410:(
1394:(
1370:(
1346:(
1326:(
1293:}
1290:c
1287:,
1284:b
1281:,
1278:a
1275:{
1255:}
1252:b
1249:,
1246:a
1243:{
1223:}
1220:c
1217:,
1214:b
1211:,
1208:a
1205:{
1183:.
1168:,
1165:c
1162:,
1159:b
1156:,
1153:a
1107:,
1104:b
1101:,
1098:a
1065:(
1031:(
984:(
967:(
943:(
922:(
904:(
886:(
867:(
843:(
803:(
787:(
761:(
747:(
723:(
664::
647::
628::
611:)
602::
583::
564::
545::
526::
502::
483::
443:.
354:.
253::
204:1
201::
185:·
179:·
171:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
141:(
71:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
