On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 20:31:04 +0400
Sergey Zaharchenko <doublef@tele-kom.ru> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 04:30:10PM +0200,
> Dag-Erling Smrgrav probably wrote:
> > Sergey Zaharchenko <doublef@tele-kom.ru> writes:
> > > If the thesis sounds like
> > >
> > >> Any algorithm that can be written in one Turing-complete language
> > >can> be written in another Turing-complete language.
> > >
> > > then I think I understand it.
> >
> > No. A language is Turing-complete if it can be used to implement a
> > universal Turing machine. What you quote is merely a consequence of
> > Turing-completeness, not its definition.
> >
>
> OK.
>
> If I take out every word about main() from C's specification (making
> it an ordinary function), will the resulting `language' stay
> Turing-complete?
Not AFAIK.
> If not, why?
You no longer have a start state.
-Chris