Revision as of 15:00, 18 August 2012 edit Wvbailey (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers 6,019 edits →Removal of first sentence: no ← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:03, 18 August 2012 edit undo Trovatore (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers 39,123 edits →Removal of first sentence: no Next edit →
Line 239: No, not agreed. I provided two citations that also disagree. Gurevich actually asserts that an algorithm is a Turing machine, a mechanism, and not just a sequence of symbols that is interpretable by a target mechanism. Bill[[User:Wvbailey\|Wvbailey]] ([[User talk:Wvbailey\|talk]]) 15:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC) There is no generally-accepted definition. The one at [[algorithm]] is definitely not generally accepted. It is perhaps ''widely'' accepted, but another widely-used meaning is something like "the semantic content of a program, after abstracting away implementation details", and does not require that the program terminate in finitely many steps. --[[User:Trovatore\|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore\|talk]]) 20:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC) == cItation #1 ==

Talk:Algorithm characterizations: Difference between revisions