Redirected from Church's Conjecture
The thesis might be rephrased as saying that the notion of effective or mechanical method in logic and mathematics is captured by Turing machines. It is generally assumed that such methods must satisfy the following requirements:
The notion of "effective method" is intuitively clear but is not formally defined since it is not exactly clear what a "simple and precise instruction" is, and what exactly the "required intelligence to execute these instructions" is. (See for example effective results in number theory for cases well beyond the Euclidean algorithm.)
In his 1936 paper On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem Alan Turing tried to capture this notion formally with the introduction of Turing machines. In that paper he showed that the 'Entscheidungsproblem' could not be solved. A few months earlier Alonzo Church had proven a similar result in A Note on the Entscheidungsproblem but he used the notions of recursive functions and Lambdadefinable functions to formally describe effective computability. Lambdadefinable functions were introduced by Alonzo Church and Stephen Kleene (Church 1932, 1936a, 1941, Kleene 1935) and recursive functions by Kurt Gödel and Jacques Herbrand (Gödel 1934, Herbrand 1932). These two formalisms describe the same set of functions, as was shown in the case of functions of positive integers by Church and Kleene (Church 1936a, Kleene 1936). When hearing of Church's proposal, Turing was quickly able to show that his Turing machines in fact describe the same set of functions (Turing 1936, 263ff).
Since that time many other formalisms for describing effective computability have been proposed such as register machines[?], Emil Post[?]'s systems[?], combinatory definability[?] and Markov algorithms (Markov 1960). All these systems have been shown to compute essentially the same functions as Turing machines; systems like this are called Turingcomplete. Because all these different attempts of formalizing the concept of algorithm have yielded equivalent results, it is now generally assumed that the ChurchTuring thesis is correct. However, the thesis does not have the status of a theorem and cannot be proven; it is conceivable but unlikely that it could be disproven by exhibiting a method which is universally accepted as being an effective algorithm but which cannot be performed on a Turing machine.
In fact, the ChurchTuring thesis has been so successful, that it is now almost moot. In the early twentieth century, mathematicians often used the informal phrase effectively computable, so it was important to find a good formalization of the concept. Modern mathematicians instead use the welldefined term Turing computable (or computable for short). Since the undefined terminology has faded from use, the question of how to define it is now less important.
The ChurchTuring thesis has some profound implications for the philosophy of mind. There are also some important open questions which cover the relationship between the ChurchTuring thesis and physics, and the possibility of hypercomputation. When applied to physics, the thesis has several possible meanings:
(There are actually many technical possibilities which fall outside or between these three categories, but these should serve to illustrate the concept.)
Search Encyclopedia

Featured Article
