0
$\begingroup$

This question already has an answer here:

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.

$\endgroup$

marked as duplicate by xskxzr, David Richerby, Evil, Discrete lizard Feb 25 at 18:25

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ 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! $\endgroup$ – D.W. Feb 22 at 8:46
  • $\begingroup$ No duplicate a follow up. @xskxzr, if you would care to read, you would notice that the link is also provided in the question. $\endgroup$ – user100814 Feb 22 at 14:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @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. $\endgroup$ – David Richerby Feb 22 at 18:10
  • $\begingroup$ 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). $\endgroup$ – user100814 Feb 23 at 2:43
  • $\begingroup$ @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 center. $\endgroup$ – Discrete lizard Feb 25 at 18:24