Turing machine

In his 1948 essay, "Intelligent Machinery", Turing wrote that his machine consisted of:

...an unlimited memory capacity obtained in the form of an infinite tape marked out into squares, on each of which a symbol could be printed. At any moment there is one symbol in the machine; it is called the scanned symbol. The machine can alter the scanned symbol, and its behavior is in part determined by that symbol, but the symbols on the tape elsewhere do not affect the behavior of the machine. However, the tape can be moved back and forth through the machine, this being one of the elementary operations of the machine. Any symbol on the tape may therefore eventually have an innings.[18]

— Turing 1948, p. 3[19]

Definitions in literature sometimes differ slightly, to make arguments or proofs easier or clearer, but this is always done in such a way that the resulting machine has the same computational power. For example, the set could be changed from ${\displaystyle \{L,R\}}$ to ${\displaystyle \{L,R,N\}}$, where N ("None" or "No-operation") would allow the machine to stay on the same tape cell instead of moving left or right. This would not increase the machine's computational power.

The most common convention represents each "Turing instruction" in a "Turing table" by one of nine 5-tuples, per the convention of Turing/Davis (Turing (1936) in The Undecidable, p. 126-127 and Davis (2000) p. 152):

(definition 1): (q_i, S_j, S_k/E/N, L/R/N, q_m)

( current state q_i , symbol scanned S_j , print symbol S_k/erase E/none N , move_tape_one_square left L/right R/none N , new state q_m )

Other authors (Minsky (1967) p. 119, Hopcroft and Ullman (1979) p. 158, Stone (1972) p. 9) adopt a different convention, with new state q_m listed immediately after the scanned symbol S_j:

(definition 2): (q_i, S_j, q_m, S_k/E/N, L/R/N)

( current state q_i , symbol scanned S_j , new state q_m , print symbol S_k/erase E/none N , move_tape_one_square left L/right R/none N )

For the remainder of this article "definition 1" (the Turing/Davis convention) will be used.

In the following table, Turing's original model allowed only the first three lines that he called N1, N2, N3 (cf. Turing in The Undecidable, p. 126). He allowed for erasure of the "scanned square" by naming a 0th symbol S₀ = "erase" or "blank", etc. However, he did not allow for non-printing, so every instruction-line includes "print symbol S_k" or "erase" (cf. footnote 12 in Post (1947), The Undecidable, p. 300). The abbreviations are Turing's (The Undecidable, p. 119). Subsequent to Turing's original paper in 1936–1937, machine-models have allowed all nine possible types of five-tuples:

Any Turing table (list of instructions) can be constructed from the above nine 5-tuples. For technical reasons, the three non-printing or "N" instructions (4, 5, 6) can usually be dispensed with. For examples see Turing machine examples.

Less frequently the use of 4-tuples are encountered: these represent a further atomization of the Turing instructions (cf. Post (1947), Boolos & Jeffrey (1974, 1999), Davis-Sigal-Weyuker (1994)); also see more at Post–Turing machine.

The word "state" used in context of Turing machines can be a source of confusion, as it can mean two things. Most commentators after Turing have used "state" to mean the name/designator of the current instruction to be performed—i.e. the contents of the state register. But Turing (1936) made a strong distinction between a record of what he called the machine's "m-configuration", and the machine's (or person's) "state of progress" through the computation - the current state of the total system. What Turing called "the state formula" includes both the current instruction and all the symbols on the tape:

Thus the state of progress of the computation at any stage is completely determined by the note of instructions and the symbols on the tape. That is, the state of the system may be described by a single expression (sequence of symbols) consisting of the symbols on the tape followed by Δ (which we suppose not to appear elsewhere) and then by the note of instructions. This expression is called the 'state formula'.

— The Undecidable, pp. 139–140, emphasis added

Earlier in his paper Turing carried this even further: he gives an example where he placed a symbol of the current "m-configuration"—the instruction's label—beneath the scanned square, together with all the symbols on the tape (The Undecidable, p. 121); this he calls "the complete configuration" (The Undecidable, p. 118). To print the "complete configuration" on one line, he places the state-label/m-configuration to the left of the scanned symbol.

A variant of this is seen in Kleene (1952) where Kleene shows how to write the Gödel number of a machine's "situation": he places the "m-configuration" symbol q₄ over the scanned square in roughly the center of the 6 non-blank squares on the tape (see the Turing-tape figure in this article) and puts it to the right of the scanned square. But Kleene refers to "q₄" itself as "the machine state" (Kleene, p. 374-375). Hopcroft and Ullman call this composite the "instantaneous description" and follow the Turing convention of putting the "current state" (instruction-label, m-configuration) to the left of the scanned symbol (p. 149).

Example: total state of 3-state 2-symbol busy beaver after 3 "moves" (taken from example "run" in the figure below):

1A1

This means: after three moves the tape has ... 000110000 ... on it, the head is scanning the right-most 1, and the state is A. Blanks (in this case represented by "0"s) can be part of the total state as shown here: B01; the tape has a single 1 on it, but the head is scanning the 0 ("blank") to its left and the state is B.

"State" in the context of Turing machines should be clarified as to which is being described: (i) the current instruction, or (ii) the list of symbols on the tape together with the current instruction, or (iii) the list of symbols on the tape together with the current instruction placed to the left of the scanned symbol or to the right of the scanned symbol.

Turing's biographer Andrew Hodges (1983: 107) has noted and discussed this confusion.

The "3-state busy beaver" Turing machine in a finite state representation. Each circle represents a "state" of the table—an "m-configuration" or "instruction". "Direction" of a state transition is shown by an arrow. The label (e.g. 0/P,R) near the outgoing state (at the "tail" of the arrow) specifies the scanned symbol that causes a particular transition (e.g. 0) followed by a slash /, followed by the subsequent "behaviors" of the machine, e.g. "P Print" then move tape "R Right". No general accepted format exists. The convention shown is after McClusky (1965), Booth (1967), Hill, and Peterson (1974).

To the right: the above table as expressed as a "state transition" diagram.

Usually large tables are better left as tables (Booth, p. 74). They are more readily simulated by computer in tabular form (Booth, p. 74). However, certain concepts—e.g. machines with "reset" states and machines with repeating patterns (cf. Hill and Peterson p. 244ff)—can be more readily seen when viewed as a drawing.

Whether a drawing represents an improvement on its table must be decided by the reader for the particular context. See Finite state machine for more.

The evolution of the busy-beaver's computation starts at the top and proceeds to the bottom.

The reader should again be cautioned that such diagrams represent a snapshot of their table frozen in time, not the course ("trajectory") of a computation through time and space. While every time the busy beaver machine "runs" it will always follow the same state-trajectory, this is not true for the "copy" machine that can be provided with variable input "parameters".

The diagram "Progress of the computation" shows the three-state busy beaver's "state" (instruction) progress through its computation from start to finish. On the far right is the Turing "complete configuration" (Kleene "situation", Hopcroft–Ullman "instantaneous description") at each step. If the machine were to be stopped and cleared to blank both the "state register" and entire tape, these "configurations" could be used to rekindle a computation anywhere in its progress (cf. Turing (1936) The Undecidable, pp. 139–140).

A limitation of Turing machines is that they do not model the strengths of a particular arrangement well. For instance, modern stored-program computers are actually instances of a more specific form of abstract machine known as the random-access stored-program machine or RASP machine model. Like the universal Turing machine, the RASP stores its "program" in "memory" external to its finite-state machine's "instructions". Unlike the universal Turing machine, the RASP has an infinite number of distinguishable, numbered but unbounded "registers"—memory "cells" that can contain any integer (cf. Elgot and Robinson (1964), Hartmanis (1971), and in particular Cook-Rechow (1973); references at random access machine). The RASP's finite-state machine is equipped with the capability for indirect addressing (e.g., the contents of one register can be used as an address to specify another register); thus the RASP's "program" can address any register in the register-sequence. The upshot of this distinction is that there are computational optimizations that can be performed based on the memory indices, which are not possible in a general Turing machine; thus when Turing machines are used as the basis for bounding running times, a 'false lower bound' can be proven on certain algorithms' running times (due to the false simplifying assumption of a Turing machine). An example of this is binary search, an algorithm that can be shown to perform more quickly when using the RASP model of computation rather than the Turing machine model.

Another limitation of Turing machines is that they do not model concurrency well. For example, there is a bound on the size of integer that can be computed by an always-halting nondeterministic Turing machine starting on a blank tape. (See article on unbounded nondeterminism.) By contrast, there are always-halting concurrent systems with no inputs that can compute an integer of unbounded size. (A process can be created with local storage that is initialized with a count of 0 that concurrently sends itself both a stop and a go message. When it receives a go message, it increments its count by 1 and sends itself a go message. When it receives a stop message, it stops with an unbounded number in its local storage.)

In the early days of computing, computer use was typically limited to batch processing, i.e., non-interactive tasks, each producing output data from given input data. Computability theory, which studies computability of functions from inputs to outputs, and for which Turing machines were invented, reflects this practice.

Since the 1970s, interactive use of computers became much more common. In principle, it is possible to model this by having an external agent read from the tape and write to it at the same time as a Turing machine, but this rarely matches how interaction actually happens; therefore, when describing interactivity, alternatives such as I/O automata are usually preferred.

Robin Gandy (1919–1995)—a student of Alan Turing (1912–1954), and his lifelong friend—traces the lineage of the notion of "calculating machine" back to Charles Babbage (circa 1834) and actually proposes "Babbage's Thesis":

That the whole of development and operations of analysis are now capable of being executed by machinery.

— (italics in Babbage as cited by Gandy, p. 54)

Gandy's analysis of Babbage's Analytical Engine describes the following five operations (cf. p. 52–53):

1. The arithmetic functions +, −, ×, where − indicates "proper" subtraction x − y = 0 if y ≥ x.
2. Any sequence of operations is an operation.
3. Iteration of an operation (repeating n times an operation P).
4. Conditional iteration (repeating n times an operation P conditional on the "success" of test T).
5. Conditional transfer (i.e., conditional "goto").

Gandy states that "the functions which can be calculated by (1), (2), and (4) are precisely those which are Turing computable." (p. 53). He cites other proposals for "universal calculating machines" including those of Percy Ludgate (1909), Leonardo Torres y Quevedo (1914), Maurice d'Ocagne (1922), Louis Couffignal (1933), Vannevar Bush (1936), Howard Aiken (1937). However:

… the emphasis is on programming a fixed iterable sequence of arithmetical operations. The fundamental importance of conditional iteration and conditional transfer for a general theory of calculating machines is not recognized…

— Gandy p. 55

With regard to Hilbert's problems posed by the famous mathematician David Hilbert in 1900, an aspect of problem #10 had been floating about for almost 30 years before it was framed precisely. Hilbert's original expression for #10 is as follows:

10. Determination of the solvability of a Diophantine equation. Given a Diophantine equation with any number of unknown quantities and with rational integral coefficients: To devise a process according to which it can be determined in a finite number of operations whether the equation is solvable in rational integers. The Entscheidungsproblem [decision problem for first-order logic] is solved when we know a procedure that allows for any given logical expression to decide by finitely many operations its validity or satisfiability ... The Entscheidungsproblem must be considered the main problem of mathematical logic.

— quoted, with this translation and the original German, in Dershowitz and Gurevich, 2008

By 1922, this notion of "Entscheidungsproblem" had developed a bit, and H. Behmann stated that

... most general form of the Entscheidungsproblem [is] as follows:

A quite definite generally applicable prescription is required which will allow one to decide in a finite number of steps the truth or falsity of a given purely logical assertion ...

— Gandy p. 57, quoting Behmann

Behmann remarks that ... the general problem is equivalent to the problem of deciding which mathematical propositions are true.

— ibid.

If one were able to solve the Entscheidungsproblem then one would have a "procedure for solving many (or even all) mathematical problems".

— ibid., p. 92

By the 1928 international congress of mathematicians, Hilbert "made his questions quite precise. First, was mathematics complete ... Second, was mathematics consistent ... And thirdly, was mathematics decidable?" (Hodges p. 91, Hawking p. 1121). The first two questions were answered in 1930 by Kurt Gödel at the very same meeting where Hilbert delivered his retirement speech (much to the chagrin of Hilbert); the third—the Entscheidungsproblem—had to wait until the mid-1930s.

The problem was that an answer first required a precise definition of "definite general applicable prescription", which Princeton professor Alonzo Church would come to call "effective calculability", and in 1928 no such definition existed. But over the next 6–7 years Emil Post developed his definition of a worker moving from room to room writing and erasing marks per a list of instructions (Post 1936), as did Church and his two students Stephen Kleene and J. B. Rosser by use of Church's lambda-calculus and Gödel's recursion theory (1934). Church's paper (published 15 April 1936) showed that the Entscheidungsproblem was indeed "undecidable" and beat Turing to the punch by almost a year (Turing's paper submitted 28 May 1936, published January 1937). In the meantime, Emil Post submitted a brief paper in the fall of 1936, so Turing at least had priority over Post. While Church refereed Turing's paper, Turing had time to study Church's paper and add an Appendix where he sketched a proof that Church's lambda-calculus and his machines would compute the same functions.

But what Church had done was something rather different, and in a certain sense weaker. ... the Turing construction was more direct, and provided an argument from first principles, closing the gap in Church's demonstration.

— Hodges p. 112

And Post had only proposed a definition of calculability and criticized Church's "definition", but had proved nothing.

In the spring of 1935, Turing as a young Master's student at King's College Cambridge, UK, took on the challenge; he had been stimulated by the lectures of the logician M. H. A. Newman "and learned from them of Gödel's work and the Entscheidungsproblem ... Newman used the word 'mechanical' ... In his obituary of Turing 1955 Newman writes:

To the question 'what is a "mechanical" process?' Turing returned the characteristic answer 'Something that can be done by a machine' and he embarked on the highly congenial task of analysing the general notion of a computing machine.

— Gandy, p. 74

Gandy states that:

I suppose, but do not know, that Turing, right from the start of his work, had as his goal a proof of the undecidability of the Entscheidungsproblem. He told me that the 'main idea' of the paper came to him when he was lying in Grantchester meadows in the summer of 1935. The 'main idea' might have either been his analysis of computation or his realization that there was a universal machine, and so a diagonal argument to prove unsolvability.

— ibid., p. 76

While Gandy believed that Newman's statement above is "misleading", this opinion is not shared by all. Turing had a lifelong interest in machines: "Alan had dreamt of inventing typewriters as a boy; [his mother] Mrs. Turing had a typewriter; and he could well have begun by asking himself what was meant by calling a typewriter 'mechanical'" (Hodges p. 96). While at Princeton pursuing his PhD, Turing built a Boolean-logic multiplier (see below). His PhD thesis, titled "Systems of Logic Based on Ordinals", contains the following definition of "a computable function":

It was stated above that 'a function is effectively calculable if its values can be found by some purely mechanical process'. We may take this statement literally, understanding by a purely mechanical process one which could be carried out by a machine. It is possible to give a mathematical description, in a certain normal form, of the structures of these machines. The development of these ideas leads to the author's definition of a computable function, and to an identification of computability with effective calculability. It is not difficult, though somewhat laborious, to prove that these three definitions [the 3rd is the λ-calculus] are equivalent.

— Turing (1939) in The Undecidable, p. 160

When Turing returned to the UK he ultimately became jointly responsible for breaking the German secret codes created by encryption machines called "The Enigma"; he also became involved in the design of the ACE (Automatic Computing Engine), "[Turing's] ACE proposal was effectively self-contained, and its roots lay not in the EDVAC [the USA's initiative], but in his own universal machine" (Hodges p. 318). Arguments still continue concerning the origin and nature of what has been named by Kleene (1952) Turing's Thesis. But what Turing did prove with his computational-machine model appears in his paper "On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem" (1937):

[that] the Hilbert Entscheidungsproblem can have no solution ... I propose, therefore to show that there can be no general process for determining whether a given formula U of the functional calculus K is provable, i.e. that there can be no machine which, supplied with any one U of these formulae, will eventually say whether U is provable.

— from Turing's paper as reprinted in The Undecidable, p. 145

Turing's example (his second proof): If one is to ask for a general procedure to tell us: "Does this machine ever print 0", the question is "undecidable".

In 1937, while at Princeton working on his PhD thesis, Turing built a digital (Boolean-logic) multiplier from scratch, making his own electromechanical relays (Hodges p. 138). "Alan's task was to embody the logical design of a Turing machine in a network of relay-operated switches ..." (Hodges p. 138). While Turing might have been just initially curious and experimenting, quite-earnest work in the same direction was going in Germany (Konrad Zuse (1938)), and in the United States (Howard Aiken) and George Stibitz (1937); the fruits of their labors were used by both the Axis and Allied militaries in World War II (cf. Hodges p. 298–299). In the early to mid-1950s Hao Wang and Marvin Minsky reduced the Turing machine to a simpler form (a precursor to the Post–Turing machine of Martin Davis); simultaneously European researchers were reducing the new-fangled electronic computer to a computer-like theoretical object equivalent to what was now being called a "Turing machine". In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the coincidentally parallel developments of Melzak and Lambek (1961), Minsky (1961), and Shepherdson and Sturgis (1961) carried the European work further and reduced the Turing machine to a more friendly, computer-like abstract model called the counter machine; Elgot and Robinson (1964), Hartmanis (1971), Cook and Reckhow (1973) carried this work even further with the register machine and random-access machine models—but basically all are just multi-tape Turing machines with an arithmetic-like instruction set.

Today, the counter, register and random-access machines and their sire the Turing machine continue to be the models of choice for theorists investigating questions in the theory of computation. In particular, computational complexity theory makes use of the Turing machine:

Depending on the objects one likes to manipulate in the computations (numbers like nonnegative integers or alphanumeric strings), two models have obtained a dominant position in machine-based complexity theory:

the off-line multitape Turing machine..., which represents the standard model for string-oriented computation, and the random access machine (RAM) as introduced by Cook and Reckhow ..., which models the idealized Von Neumann style computer.

— van Emde Boas 1990:4

Only in the related area of analysis of algorithms this role is taken over by the RAM model.

— van Emde Boas 1990:16

• B. Jack Copeland ed. (2004), The Essential Turing: Seminal Writings in Computing, Logic, Philosophy, Artificial Intelligence, and Artificial Life plus The Secrets of Enigma, Clarendon Press (Oxford University Press), Oxford UK, ISBN 0-19-825079-7. Contains the Turing papers plus a draft letter to Emil Post re his criticism of "Turing's convention", and Donald W. Davies' Corrections to Turing's Universal Computing Machine
• Martin Davis (ed.) (1965), The Undecidable, Raven Press, Hewlett, NY.
• Emil Post (1936), "Finite Combinatory Processes—Formulation 1", Journal of Symbolic Logic, 1, 103–105, 1936. Reprinted in The Undecidable, pp. 289ff.
• Emil Post (1947), "Recursive Unsolvability of a Problem of Thue", Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 12, pp. 1–11. Reprinted in The Undecidable, pp. 293ff. In the Appendix of this paper Post comments on and gives corrections to Turing's paper of 1936–1937. In particular see the footnotes 11 with corrections to the universal computing machine coding and footnote 14 with comments on Turing's first and second proofs.
• Turing, A.M. (1936). "On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem". Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society. 2 (published 1937). 42: 230–265. doi:10.1112/plms/s2-42.1.230. (and Turing, A.M. (1938). "On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem: A correction". Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society. 2 (published 1937). 43 (6): 544–6. doi:10.1112/plms/s2-43.6.544.). Reprinted in many collections, e.g. in The Undecidable, pp. 115–154; available on the web in many places.
• Alan Turing, 1948, "Intelligent Machinery." Reprinted in "Cybernetics: Key Papers." Ed. C.R. Evans and A.D.J. Robertson. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1968. p. 31. Reprinted in Turing, A. M. (1996). "Intelligent Machinery, A Heretical Theory". Philosophia Mathematica. 4 (3): 256–260. doi:10.1093/philmat/4.3.256.
• F. C. Hennie and R. E. Stearns. Two-tape simulation of multitape Turing machines. JACM, 13(4):533–546, 1966.

• Boolos, George; Richard Jeffrey (1999) [1989]. Computability and Logic (3rd ed.). Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-20402-X.
• Boolos, George; John Burgess; Richard Jeffrey (2002). Computability and Logic (4th ed.). Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-00758-5. Some parts have been significantly rewritten by Burgess. Presentation of Turing machines in context of Lambek "abacus machines" (cf. Register machine) and recursive functions, showing their equivalence.
• Taylor L. Booth (1967), Sequential Machines and Automata Theory, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. Graduate level engineering text; ranges over a wide variety of topics, Chapter IX Turing Machines includes some recursion theory.
• Martin Davis (1958). Computability and Unsolvability. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc, New York.. On pages 12–20 he gives examples of 5-tuple tables for Addition, The Successor Function, Subtraction (x ≥ y), Proper Subtraction (0 if x < y), The Identity Function and various identity functions, and Multiplication.
• Davis, Martin; Ron Sigal; Elaine J. Weyuker (1994). Computability, Complexity, and Languages and Logic: Fundamentals of Theoretical Computer Science (2nd ed.). San Diego: Academic Press, Harcourt, Brace & Company. ISBN 0-12-206382-1.
• Hennie, Fredrick (1977). Introduction to Computability. Addison–Wesley, Reading, Mass. QA248.5H4 1977.. On pages 90–103 Hennie discusses the UTM with examples and flow-charts, but no actual 'code'.
• John Hopcroft and Jeffrey Ullman (1979). Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation (1st ed.). Addison–Wesley, Reading Mass. ISBN 0-201-02988-X. Centered around the issues of machine-interpretation of "languages", NP-completeness, etc.
• Hopcroft, John E.; Rajeev Motwani; Jeffrey D. Ullman (2001). Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation (2nd ed.). Reading Mass: Addison–Wesley. ISBN 0-201-44124-1. Distinctly different and less intimidating than the first edition.
• Stephen Kleene (1952), Introduction to Metamathematics, North–Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam Netherlands, 10th impression (with corrections of 6th reprint 1971). Graduate level text; most of Chapter XIII Computable functions is on Turing machine proofs of computability of recursive functions, etc.
• Knuth, Donald E. (1973). Volume 1/Fundamental Algorithms: The Art of computer Programming (2nd ed.). Reading, Mass.: Addison–Wesley Publishing Company.. With reference to the role of Turing machines in the development of computation (both hardware and software) see 1.4.5 History and Bibliography pp. 225ff and 2.6 History and Bibliographypp. 456ff.
• Zohar Manna, 1974, Mathematical Theory of Computation. Reprinted, Dover, 2003. ISBN 978-0-486-43238-0
• Marvin Minsky, Computation: Finite and Infinite Machines, Prentice–Hall, Inc., N.J., 1967. See Chapter 8, Section 8.2 "Unsolvability of the Halting Problem." Excellent, i.e. relatively readable, sometimes funny.
• Christos Papadimitriou (1993). Computational Complexity (1st ed.). Addison Wesley. ISBN 0-201-53082-1. Chapter 2: Turing machines, pp. 19–56.
• Hartley Rogers, Jr., Theory of Recursive Functions and Effective Computability, The MIT Press, Cambridge MA, paperback edition 1987, original McGraw-Hill edition 1967, ISBN 0-262-68052-1 (pbk.)
• Michael Sipser (1997). Introduction to the Theory of Computation. PWS Publishing. ISBN 0-534-94728-X. Chapter 3: The Church–Turing Thesis, pp. 125–149.
• Stone, Harold S. (1972). Introduction to Computer Organization and Data Structures (1st ed.). New York: McGraw–Hill Book Company. ISBN 0-07-061726-0.
• Peter van Emde Boas 1990, Machine Models and Simulations, pp. 3–66, in Jan van Leeuwen, ed., Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, Volume A: Algorithms and Complexity, The MIT Press/Elsevier, [place?], ISBN 0-444-88071-2 (Volume A). QA76.H279 1990. Valuable survey, with 141 references.

• Nachum Dershowitz; Yuri Gurevich (September 2008). "A natural axiomatization of computability and proof of Church's Thesis" (PDF). Bulletin of Symbolic Logic. 14 (3). Retrieved 2008-10-15.
• Roger Penrose (1990) [1989]. The Emperor's New Mind (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press, New York. ISBN 0-19-851973-7.

• Rogozhin, Yurii, 1998, "A Universal Turing Machine with 22 States and 2 Symbols", Romanian Journal of Information Science and Technology, 1(3), 259–265, 1998. (surveys known results about small universal Turing machines)
• Stephen Wolfram, 2002, A New Kind of Science, Wolfram Media, ISBN 1-57955-008-8
• Brunfiel, Geoff, Student snags maths prize, Nature, October 24. 2007.
• Jim Giles (2007), Simplest 'universal computer' wins student $25,000, New Scientist, October 24, 2007.
• Alex Smith, Universality of Wolfram’s 2, 3 Turing Machine, Submission for the Wolfram 2, 3 Turing Machine Research Prize.
• Vaughan Pratt, 2007, "Simple Turing machines, Universality, Encodings, etc.", FOM email list. October 29, 2007.
• Martin Davis, 2007, "Smallest universal machine", and Definition of universal Turing machine FOM email list. October 26–27, 2007.
• Alasdair Urquhart, 2007 "Smallest universal machine", FOM email list. October 26, 2007.
• Hector Zenil (Wolfram Research), 2007 "smallest universal machine", FOM email list. October 29, 2007.
• Todd Rowland, 2007, "Confusion on FOM", Wolfram Science message board, October 30, 2007.
• Olivier and Marc RAYNAUD, 2014, A programmable prototype to achieve Turing machines" LIMOS Laboratory of Blaise Pascal University (Clermont-Ferrand in France).

• Martin Davis (2000). Engines of Logic: Mathematicians and the origin of the Computer (1st ed.). W. W. Norton & Company, New York. ISBN 978-0-393-32229-3.
• Robin Gandy, "The Confluence of Ideas in 1936", pp. 51–102 in Rolf Herken, see below.
• Stephen Hawking (editor), 2005, God Created the Integers: The Mathematical Breakthroughs that Changed History, Running Press, Philadelphia, ISBN 978-0-7624-1922-7. Includes Turing's 1936–1937 paper, with brief commentary and biography of Turing as written by Hawking.
• Rolf Herken (1995). The Universal Turing Machine—A Half-Century Survey. Springer Verlag. ISBN 978-3-211-82637-9.
• Andrew Hodges, Alan Turing: The Enigma, Simon and Schuster, New York. Cf. Chapter "The Spirit of Truth" for a history leading to, and a discussion of, his proof.
• Ivars Peterson (1988). The Mathematical Tourist: Snapshots of Modern Mathematics (1st ed.). W. H. Freeman and Company, New York. ISBN 978-0-7167-2064-5.
• Roger Penrose, The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics, Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York, 1989 (1990 corrections), ISBN 0-19-851973-7.
• Paul Strathern (1997). Turing and the Computer—The Big Idea. Anchor Books/Doubleday. ISBN 978-0-385-49243-0.
• Hao Wang, "A variant to Turing's theory of computing machines", Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery (JACM) 4, 63–92 (1957).
• Charles Petzold, Petzold, Charles, The Annotated Turing, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., ISBN 0-470-22905-5
• Arora, Sanjeev; Barak, Boaz, "Complexity Theory: A Modern Approach", Cambridge University Press, 2009, ISBN 978-0-521-42426-4, section 1.4, "Machines as strings and the universal Turing machine" and 1.7, "Proof of theorem 1.9"
• Kantorovitz, Isaiah Pinchas (December 1, 2005). "A note on turing machine computability of rule driven systems". SIGACT News. 36 (4): 109–110. doi:10.1145/1107523.1107525. S2CID 31117713.
• Kirner, Raimund; Zimmermann, Wolf; Richter, Dirk: "On Undecidability Results of Real Programming Languages", In 15. Kolloquium Programmiersprachen und Grundlagen der Programmierung (KPS'09), Maria Taferl, Austria, Oct. 2009.