Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Turing completeness
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
==Non-Turing-complete languages== Many computational languages exist that are not Turing-complete. One such example is the set of [[regular language]]s, which are generated by [[regular expression]]s and which are recognized by [[finite-state machine|finite automata]]. A more powerful but still not Turing-complete extension of finite automata is the category of [[pushdown automaton|pushdown automata]] and [[context-free grammar]]s, which are commonly used to generate parse trees in an initial stage of program [[compiler|compiling]]. Further examples include some of the early versions of the pixel shader languages embedded in [[Direct3D]] and [[OpenGL]] extensions.{{Citation needed|date=December 2010}} In [[total functional programming]] languages, such as [[Charity (programming language)|Charity]] and [[Epigram (programming language)|Epigram]], all functions are total and must terminate. Charity uses a type system and [[control flow|control constructs]] based on [[category theory]], whereas Epigram uses [[dependent type]]s. The [[LOOP (programming language)|LOOP]] language is designed so that it computes only the functions that are [[primitive recursive function|primitive recursive]]. All of these compute proper subsets of the total computable functions, since the full set of total computable functions is not [[recursively enumerable set|computably enumerable]]. Also, since all functions in these languages are total, algorithms for [[recursively enumerable set]]s cannot be written in these languages, in contrast with Turing machines. Although (untyped) [[lambda calculus]] is Turing-complete, [[simply typed lambda calculus]] is not.
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)