• ↑↓ to navigate
  • ↵ to open
  • ⟶ to select
  • ⌘ ⌥ ↵ to open in a panel
  • ←→ to navigate
  • esc to dismiss
⌘ '
keyboard shortcuts

The Problem

What does it mean for a function to be “computable”? Is there a single definition that captures all intuitive notions of computability?

Core Idea

The Church-Turing thesis states that Turing machines capture the notion of computability—any function that can be intuitively computed can be computed by a Turing machine. It is a thesis, not a theorem, because it equates an intuitive notion with a formal definition.

How It Works

The thesis unifies multiple independent definitions of computability:

  • Turing machine computability
  • Lambda calculus definability
  • μ-recursive function computability
  • Register machine computability

All have been proven equivalent, strengthening confidence in the thesis.

Key Properties

  • Equates intuitive “effectively computable” with formal Turing-computable
  • Not proven (it’s a thesis), but widely accepted
  • Multiple equivalent formalizations
  • Fundamental to computability theory

Visual Explanation

Church_Turing_Thesis A Church Turing Thesis Input B Church Turing Thesis Core Mechanism A->B triggers C Church Turing Thesis Output B->C produces

Semantic Network

semantic_Church_Turing_Thesis THIS Church Turing Thesis REL1 Related Concept THIS--REL1 related REL2 Builds Into THIS--REL2 builds into

Edge Cases & Gotchas

  • The thesis is not provable because “intuitively computable” is not formally defined
  • Some models (like oracles) can compute beyond Turing machines—but these aren’t “ordinary” computation

Why This Matters

The Church-Turing thesis defines what we mean by “computable.” When we say a problem is unsolvable, we mean unsolvable by a Turing machine—which means unsolvable by any algorithm.