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   
   >   
      
   https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343838609_The_x86_langu   
   ge_has_Turing_Complete_memory_access   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)