Reverse Turing test apparent to a human, and the simulation of the kinds of errors that conversational programs typically make. Arguably unlike the conventional Turing test, this is most interesting when the judges are very familiar with the art of conversation programs, meaning that in the regular Turing test they can very rapidly tell the difference between a computer program and a human acting normally. The humans that perform best (some would say worst) in the reverse Turing test are those that know computers best, and so know the types of errors that computers can be expected to make in conversation. There is
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