No. Turing-complete is a property of a logic system. It has nothing to do with Turing himself. It's just named in his honour.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 4:24 pm I wish you would get off that "Turing-completeness" thing. Turing-complete refers specifically to his creative mechanisms, not to his conclusions.

In computability theory, a system of data-manipulation rules (such as a computer's instruction set, a programming language, or a cellular automaton) is said to be Turing complete or computationally universal if it can be used to simulate any Turing machine.

Exactly.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 4:24 pm It has to exhaust ALL possible inputs in its domain to be 'complete'.

No. It's not. A turing machine is anything but specific. Lambda calculus is UNIVERSAL (in terms of utility, not universal in terms of the universe) yet purely theoretic.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 4:24 pm A 'Turing' machine is a specificarchitecturedesign, like a particular Intel model chip. Each chip CAN be designed differently.

It imposes no implementation-specifics whatsoever on you or anyone. Those are merely reliazability concerns.

Nope. you don't understand the Halting problem and the close relationship between Godel's incompleteness and the Halting problem.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 4:24 pm But he had to require ONE specific architecture PRIOR to doing the experiment to demonstrate incompleteness of all possible PROGRAMS written in it. Each program on its machine level speaks the same to its architecture. But the programs that are made act as distinct machine VIRTUAL designs, ...meaning they can be used to design distinct "embedded" electronics that are less than the 'general' computer. Then he showed that of all possible arrangements of ones and zeros that make up a program within the memory of an 'ideal infinite' general computer's memory that could be designed to be as large as possible, could not 'finitely' complete all computing tasks without requiring NEW hardware.

They are THE SAME observation/conclusion/consequence. Mathematically isomorphic.

incompleteness and undecidability are conjoined at the hip.

https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=710

when I teach Gödel to computer scientists, I like to sidestep the nasty details of how you formalize the concept of “provability in F.” (From a modern computer-science perspective, Gödel numbering is a barf-inducingly ugly hack!)

Instead, I simply observe Gödel’s Theorem as a trivial corollary of what I see as its conceptually-prior (even though historically-later) cousin: Turing’s Theorem on the unsolvability of the halting problem.

This is not me claiming it - this is Scott Aronson claiming it (because clearly appeals to authority are required over and above argumentation)

QED: the moral order of the universe is restored, and the Turing machine’s exalted position at the base of all human thought reaffirmed.