>The reason we have the term "Turing complete" and not just "Turing machine" is precisely the fact that nothing can literally be a Turing machine, and we need a

>The reason we have the term "Turing complete" and not just "Turing machine" is precisely the fact that nothing can literally be a Turing machine, and we need a useful term in discussions of computability nonetheless. a turing machine is something way more specific than just "something that can execute algorithms" though, it's a machine that executes them using a specific system and constraints (namely advancing and modifying a strip of tape). So calling anything that can compute what a turing machine can compute a turing machine would be inaccurate just by merit of that. of course ultimately you're right though, words mean what they're used to mean, so turing completeness excludes the infinite memory constraint, my initial comment wasn't really meant fully seriously, just being a smartass for a joke.