Talk:Church–Turing thesis
Correctness[change source]
Is this correct ? As far as I know, the thesis says that all intuitively computable functions can be computed by a Turing Machine and it is not proven to be true, because of the vague definition of intuitively computable. In contrast, the statement that computers and Turing Machines are equivalent can be proven, there are proof which show that TMs are equivalent to register machines which basically some kind of assembly language. However, I am not completely sure about it, so I do not want to edit it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.95.7.95 (talk • contribs)
- I had a quick look, and what you say loks consistent to me. I have not had the time or opportunity to check against the original papers/literature of Church and Turing. It may be that one of them gave a definition of hat he understood by the term. In any case, such arguments are arguments arising from the article / sources. It is easy to change the article, so go ahead and make the change you intend. If it turns out to be incomplete or wrong, it is easily changed later on. In short, be bold. --Eptalon (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)