Talk:Rand.Next()

Turing completeness

Is this language really Turing-complete? Is it possible to achieve an arbitrary effect at an arbitrary point, accounting for its reliance on randomness and time? --(this comment by Malltog at 12:39, 13 May 2014‎ UTC; please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Well, no. I assume that part is a joke. Although "arbitrary effect at an arbitrary point" isn't really the definition of Turing-completeness either, just an intuition for what usually makes a "normal" imperative language TC. --Ørjan (talk) 12:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The article on the concept calls it 'one of the subtler requirements'. The only proof it has of Turing-completeness is being a translator to Brainfuck and it doesn't even care much what you write in code. Is this even a programming language? --(this comment by Malltog at 03:26, 7 June 2014‎ UTC; please sign your comments with ~~~~)

It's curly-L-complete if the RNG in question has enough seed space that at least one interpreter for a TC language is among the possible programs that could be generated. I don't think it can be TC in the non-curly-L sense because as the RNG has a finite seed, there can only be finitely many different programs. --ais523 14:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)