Timeline for Turing-Complete Language Interpreter
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 17, 2017 at 20:27 | comment | added | Greg Martin | That's a reasonable perspective, to be sure. But implementations of programming languages on physical computers don't even satisfy that test! One could be content with a (hypothetical) sequence of physical computers with more and more memory, each one capable of calculating one more value of that computable function; at that point, though, one should be equally content with a (hypothetical) sequence of inputs to such a GoL program. | |
| May 17, 2017 at 20:23 | comment | added | DLosc | What I'm saying is that for GoL to be Turing-Complete, it has to be capable of a pattern that grows infinitely. (Such as a glider gun.) If this implementation can't grow the array from one step to another, but wraps it toroidally instead, then it fails the infinite-growth test. | |
| May 8, 2017 at 23:23 | comment | added | Greg Martin | Any particular call to the function has a fixed board size, but that board size can be arbitrarily large. (Note that the second half of the post describes an example of observing the code in action, not the actual code itself.) | |
| May 8, 2017 at 19:00 | comment | added | DLosc | If I'm understanding correctly, this has a fixed board size? In that case, I think it can't be Turing-complete, can it? | |
| Feb 27, 2017 at 3:00 | history | answered | Greg Martin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |