0

I am picking up from this thread for which I have no privileges to comment on:

Is C actually Turing-complete?

I was wondering if there's any progress on this and what the conclusion actually was. This is not a duplicate of the Is-c-actually-Turing-Complete but a continuation, with the following third possible solution that was not outlined there.

Kinda confused at the three options which were based on the 'C implementation' of the C99 standard.

a) one answer suggested that with the C11 implementation we can obtain Turing completeness through the optional threading libraries

b) another answer which @Gilles suggested as valid answer was postulated by a comment by @Jukka: "For example, overflow by X = write X/3 on the tape and move in direction X%3, underflow = trigger the signal corresponding to the symbol on the tape. It feels a bit like an abuse, but it's definitely in the spirit of my question. Could you write it as an answer? (@others: Not that I want to discourage other such clever suggestions!)." That would mean through a clever overflow we could obtain turing completeness ? But I didn't see that as an answer choice ... and it seems not like it resolved the underlying problem completely.

c) There was another option not mentioned there, which I outline here. Is it possible to simulate a gigantic pointer perhaps the way a large integer can be simulated ?

Thanks.

John L.
  • 38,985
  • 4
  • 33
  • 90
user100814
  • 1
  • 1
  • 3
    Welcome to CS.SE! I'd prefer that you avoid re-asking the same question. If there was anything new to say, people would post an answer over there. Thank you! – D.W. Feb 22 '19 at 08:46
  • No duplicate a follow up. @xskxzr, if you would care to read, you would notice that the link is also provided in the question. – user100814 Feb 22 '19 at 14:10
  • 1
    @user100814 In part 2, you're explicitly asking for more answers to the other question. I don't really see a clear question in your post; "I'm kinda confused" isn't a question. – David Richerby Feb 22 '19 at 18:10
  • For one i am not asking you, for another, if you play difficult then of course it's whatever you want it to be. If on the other hand you cared to read, I provide an additional answer choice which wasn't mentioned in the other answers. Bottom line, I am trying to reach out to @Gilles and find out whether he accepted (b) and what he thinks of (c). – user100814 Feb 23 '19 at 02:43
  • @user100814 A few remarks. It is unusual at least to open up a new question as a followup of an old question if there is no new question to be asked. It seems you are making comments on some of the answers in the linked question. I know that there are little methods for new users to request clarification on other questions, but I'm afraid that that is your problem, not ours. However, I'm willing to ask these comments on the related question on your behalf, if you'd like. Also, please do not claim people cannot read if they do not agree with you, and remember to be nice, see [help/behavior]. – Discrete lizard Feb 25 '19 at 18:24
  • To share a little more about how this site works: Our site works differently from others you might be used to. We have strict quality guidelines, to help the site work well. One of those has to do with how we treat old questions where people are still interested in answers (rather than re-asking, we provide other ways to bring attention to them, such as providing a bounty). Also, the site is not intended as a way to contact a particular individual (such as Gilles) and deliberately does not provide any way to do that. Questions directed at a single individual aren't suitable here. – D.W. Feb 25 '19 at 21:26
  • If you contribute more here following our guidelines (asking useful questions, posting useful answers), then you will gain reputation that will give you additional abilities, such as the ability to post comments under answers and award bounties to questions you wish would receive more attention. I realize these measures may seem inconvenient, but they are based on experience of what's needed to help keep the site healthy. I hope you'll understand! – D.W. Feb 25 '19 at 21:27
  • @Discretelizard if you can ask my questions on my behalf I would be grateful. Please also point me to them. – user100814 Feb 26 '19 at 02:21
  • @user100814 Ok, looking at your question again, part a is not a question, part b is a question I asked here, and part c is not really related to the previous work. If you want an answer to part c, I suggest you make (another) question purely focusing on that part. In case you do, be sure to explain why you think that approach might work, and why you cannot solve it yourselves. (but be careful not to ask a 'check my answer question', see also the [help] for tips) – Discrete lizard Feb 26 '19 at 07:16
  • @Discretelizard (b) is a more specific question than https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/60965/is-c-actually-turing-complete, not a duplicate. The general question could be solved without involving overflows at all. – Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' Feb 26 '19 at 07:58
  • @Gilles, so you are suggesting that we can show that an implementation of C is Turing complete the strict way without involving argument (b) ? Should I set up another question for that .... And do you think (c) is offering another resolution ? – user100814 Feb 26 '19 at 13:51
  • @user100814 Whether an implementation of C can be Turing-complete without invoking (b) is https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/60965/is-c-actually-turing-complete . If you asked that, it would be a duplicate. Asking about (b) is a more specific question, and since answers to https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/60965/is-c-actually-turing-complete don't necessarily answer (b), (b) is not a duplicate of that question. – Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' Feb 26 '19 at 15:13

0 Answers0