Turing test describes as the "Standard Interpretation". While there is some debate regarding whether the "Standard Interpretation" is that described by Turing or, instead, based on a misreading of his paper, these three versions are not regarded as equivalent, and their strengths and weaknesses are distinct. Huma Shah points out that Turing himself was concerned with whether a machine could think and was providing a simple method to examine this: through human-machine question-answer sessions. Shah argues there is one imitation game which Turing described could be practicalised in two different ways: a) one-to-one interrogator-machine test, and b) simultaneous comparison of a machine
Turing machine for which the action table has at most one entry for each combination of symbol and state. Read-only, right-moving Turing machines are equivalent to NDFAs (as well as DFAs by conversion using the NDFA to DFA conversion algorithm). For practical and didactical intentions the equivalent register machine can be used as a usual assembly programming language. An interesting question is whether the computation model represented by concrete programming languages is Turing equivalent. While the computation of a real computer is based on finite states and thus not capable to simulate a Turing machine, programming languages themselves do not necessarily have