If you want to be pedantic, let's get pedantic. Turing-completeness isn't a property of computational models, it's a property of problems. A problem is Turing-

If you want to be pedantic, let's get pedantic. Turing-completeness isn't a property of computational models, it's a property of problems. A problem is Turing-complete when it cannot be solved by any computational model less powerful than a Turing Machine, or other Turing-equivalent computational system, such as the Lambda Calculus. Moreover, a Turing machine does not have an infinite tape. It has an unbounded tape. Its tape is not limitless, it is extensible, such that a computation cannot fail due to running out of tape. Hey, you wanted to get pedantic. Finally, in practical land, the distinction between Turing-equivalent and non-Turing-equivalent is very relevant to real programming languages: Epigram is pointedly not Turing-equivalent, and therefore it's possible to prove programs in that language will halt. Moving away from Turing-equivalence frees you from the tyranny of the Halting Problem. https://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2007/01/05/turing-equivalent-vs-turing-co https://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2007/01/05/turing-equivale... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigram_(programming_language) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigram_(programming_language)