Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

en:research:fi-while [2016/03/23 13:25]
apeiron
en:research:fi-while [2018/02/16 01:25]
Line 1: Line 1:
-FIXME **The redaction of this article is a work in progress.** 
  
-====== Abstract ====== 
- 
-According to the Church-Turing Thesis, effectively calculable functions are functions computable by a Turing machine. Models that compute these functions are called Turing-complete. For example, we know that common imperative languages (such as C, Ada or Python) are Turing complete (up to unbounded memory). 
- 
-Algorithmic completeness is a stronger notion than Turing-completeness. It focuses not only on the input-output behavior of the computation but more importantly on the step-by-step behavior. Moreover, the issue is not limited to partial recursive functions, it applies to any set of functions. A model could compute all the desired functions, but some algorithms (ways to compute these functions) could be missing (see \cite{colson,​ gcd} for examples related to primitive recursive algorithms). 
- 
-This paper'​s purpose is to prove that common imperative languages are not only Turing-complete but also algorithmically complete, by using the axiomatic definition of the Gurevich'​s Thesis and a fair bisimulation between the Abstract State Machines of Gurevich (defined in \cite{asm}) and a version of Jones' While programs. No special knowledge is assumed, because all relevant material will be explained from scratch. 
- 
-**Keywords**:​ Algorithm, ASM, Completeness,​ Computability,​ Imperative, Simulation. 
- 
-====== Links ====== 
- 
-The {{:​fr:​research:​fi-while-short.pdf|short version}} of the paper had been submitted to [[http://​fi.mimuw.edu.pl/​index.php/​FI|Fundamenta Informaticae]]. 
- 
-The {{:​fr:​recherche:​fi-while-long.pdf|long version}} is an older version, with very poor english and presentation,​ but contains proofs omitted in the short version.