You said > It doesn't make sense to say that a bunch of operations are or are not Turing complete. and the article’s first sentence says that a “system of ru

You said > It doesn't make sense to say that a bunch of operations are or are not Turing complete. and the article’s first sentence says that a “system of rules” such as a computer’s instruction set can be Turing complete. The article matches my understanding, which is that Turing completeness is a property describing the expressive power of a bunch of operations. You don’t need a computer with infinite memory, or even any physical computer at all, for a bunch of operations to be Turing complete.