Talk:Meta Turing-complete

The wiki is not a place for your invented terms and unconventional definitions of standard terms. Please stop making bad articles. —ehird 20:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

If you think they are bad articles, contact an admin. (unless you are an admin?) --TehZ 07:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not allowed to give my opinion on how well or badly a page obeys to the site's goals and policies without being a sysop? Not even allowed to pass a value judgement? FWIW, my informal, unscientific perception of IRC at the time of the creation of the various (orphaned, uncategorised) notation stubs was that the invention/redefinition of terms was inappropriate. —ehird 10:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't respond to this until you tell me if you've misplaced the '?'s. --TehZ 14:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Um, no? —ehird 18:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, checking shows that you did not invent this term yourself, but it is still an invented term that has, to my knowledge, only been used once, and is unlikely to be used again. The article is also very vague and contradictory (how does a language "describe" another?) —ehird 20:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It has been used more than once, and it might get used again? Bad, as I just said above, contact an admin if it's that bad. There are, however, worse articles that haven't been deleted. -- TehZ 07:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

One of the sysops (ais523) is regularly on IRC, but has not been online since this page was created (I believe he is usually away on weekends); anyway, you can't just respond to anything I say by telling me to take it to a higher authority. Pretend I'm an sysop if it helps. Besides, any term used once may also be used again, but that doesn't mean it will be, or that an inline clarification needs replacing with a full article until that happens. —ehird 10:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It has been used more than once, not just once.--TehZ 14:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The only other mention I can find is in Brainmaker, which you just created; it does appear to be a legitimate use, but it still does not match the definition given on the page. 01:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC) 18:37, 25 June 2011

By the way, the existence of worse articles does not justify the existence of a bad article; that's a fallacy (common enough on Wikipedia that it's brought up often, although I don't have a link off-hand). But please do list some articles that you think are bad so that they can be improved or deleted. —ehird 10:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I know it's a fallacy if you see it without context, but not if someone suggested taking them down while not doing it. In that case, it would be illogical to keep the worst and delete the ones you claim are bad. --TehZ 14:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

In "if someone suggested taking them down while not doing it", what is them and what is it? This is a sincere question. —ehird 18:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, you have the definition wrong; all Turing-complete languages are "meta Turing-complete" by your definition. The sense being used in ALPACA is related to metalanguages. —ehird 20:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

A Turing-complete language is able to interpret a Turing-complete language. --TehZ 07:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a non sequitur response; do you understand the difference between metalanguages and languages? A meta-Turing-complete language in the ALPACA sense is simply a metalanguage which has interpreters for all Turing complete languages; ALPACA itself does not run anything. The page is incorrect. —ehird 10:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

In the sense that it is possible to define an interpreter for a Turing-complete language in ALPACA, it is also possible to do that in other TC languages.--TehZ 14:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

But in those languages, it is simply called Turing-completeness. —ehird 18:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, the article is a mess, and this discussion page is also a mess. I'm far from certain that there's enough that can be said about this concept for a separate page; it is perhaps better discussed on the pages of metalanguages (as it's a concept that only really makes sense wrt metalanguages). There are also some interesting definitional issues; for instance, is Text meta-Turing-complete (as it can produce interpreters for TC languages as output, given suitable input)? I'm also worried by the appeal to authority above (the whole "contact an admin" stuff); for the record, I am an admin, and am wondering whether to delete this page. However, as ehird knows, I'm very cautious about deleting anything, and in particular would want other opinions. I suppose I should give an ultimatum; if anyone thinks they can improve this page to something more in the style of Turing-complete, giving a lot of explanation, then do so. If nobody wants to or can, then this definition is probably better merged into other pages (and left as a redirect, or deleted if there's no appropriate target); note that anyone can redirect pages, not just admins). --ais523 00:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to make it look more like Turing-complete --TehZ 07:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd recommend moving/merging it into Metalanguage. I know that article doesn't yet exist, but it would be a valid, valuable one (unlike, some say, this article). Any metalanguages could link to Metalanguage, which could include a mention of "Meta Turing-complete". What do people think of this compromise? —Maharba 00:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I support this. Unless we have a sudden explosion of metalanguages with varying computational complexity on the wiki, there is no way this article is needed at all. (As for the recent additions, they are IMO fluff, especially the sections "Input/Output" "The physical world"; a paragraph would be enough to describe meta-Turing-completeness on a metalanguage article.) If nobody wants to write a good metalanguage article, I'll see what I can do. (Or I might just do it anyway.) —ehird 01:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

ℒ

Difference between meta Turing-completeness and ℒ-completeness. Discuss. — GregorR 20:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

One of them should have an article; the other should not. —ehird 14:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

In ℒ-complete language, there is only one possible program, whereas in meta turing complete there may be many. GermanyBoy (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)