This question already has an answer here:
- Is C actually Turing-complete? 9 answers
I am picking up from this thread for which I have no privileges to comment on:
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 ?