From: NoOne@nospicedham.NoWhere.com   
      
   On 9/6/2020 11:27 AM, Terje Mathisen wrote:   
   > olcott wrote:   
   >> On 9/5/2020 11:50 PM, Frank Kotler wrote:   
   >>> On 09/05/2020 03:06 PM, Terje Mathisen wrote:   
   >>>> Please, no more!   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Turing-complete "C" has absolutely _nothing_ to do with   
   >>>> comp.lang.asm.x86, and does not belong here. :-(   
   >>>   
   >>> I fear I made an error on approving this in the first place. I saw a   
   >>> reference to "x86" and thought "well maybe..." But we are not about C   
   >>> here... Hopefully it will die put quietly...   
   >>>   
   >>> Best,   
   >>> Frank   
   >>> [moderator]   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> No one here seems to care about how x86/x64 computations are Turing   
   >> equivalent. I created an Universal Turing Machine (UTM) equivalent   
   >> that has the x86 language as its description language.   
   >>   
   > Turing-complete computers are the rule rather than the exception. I.e.   
   > _all_ existing microprocessors, from the original 4004 and up are TC.   
   >   
   > Going down to more esoteric "computers", both Minecraft and the Game of   
   > Life have been shown to be TC. :-)   
   >   
   > Please don't bring back the requirement for infinite storage since that   
   > simply reduces the number of TC architectures to zero.   
   >   
   > Terje   
   >   
      
   My whole point of this posting is to prove that programs implemented on   
   x86 machines have identical behavior to the same programs executed on   
   actual Turing Machines. As long as the x86 machine has as much memory as   
   it needs it performs a Turing equivalent computation.   
      
   The idea of a [Turing equivalent computation] may be a brand new idea.   
      
   --   
   Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)