Reverse Turing test section. Since Turing test judges are sometimes presented with genuinely human subjects, as a control, it inevitably occurs that a small proportion of such control subjects are judged to be computers. This is considered humorous and often embarrassing for the subject. This situation may be described literally as the human "failing the Turing test", for a computer (the intended subject of the test) achieving the same result would be described in the same terms as having failed. The same situation may also be described as the human "failing the reverse Turing test" because to consider the human to be a
Church–Turing thesis three formally-defined classes of computable functions coincide with the "informal" notion of an effectively calculable function. Since, as an informal notion, the concept of effective calculability does not have a formal definition, the thesis, although it has near-universal acceptance, cannot be formally proven. Since its inception, variations on the original thesis have arisen, including statements about what can physically be realized by a computer in our universe (physical Church-Turing thesis) and what can be efficiently computed (Church–Turing thesis (complexity theory)). These variations are not due to Church or Turing, but arise from later work in complexity theory and digital physics.