[Lornedon]

That's like saying that everything you build with Lego is a pirate ship: To build anything with Lego, you first need Lego bricks. And if you already have those, then you can also build a pirate ship.

Turing completeness is defined on computational models, i.e. sets of instructions that you can use to build algorihms. Not on the algorithms themselves. If you can simulate a Turing machine using only the tools that your model gives you, then it's Turing complete. That doesn't mean that everything else you build using those tools is special in any way.

[nico]

You don’t need a pirate ship to build legos

But you do need an interpreter to interpret/run any algorithm

So you can never really separate the algorithm from the interpreter for any practical application

If your algorithm requires the capabilities that define an interpreter as Turing-complete, then the algorithm will be Turing complete as well

[ftxbro]

is this a derridean 'il n'y a pas de hors-texte' deconstruction of the chomsky hierarchy because if it is then i'm here for it

[nico]

Had never heard of the concept of ‘lil n’y a pas de hors-texted’, reading about it sounds like the same concept: can’t remove the context from the object

> Understood as such, it's not really such a strange idea, that the things outside of the text itself can and do give meaning to it in an ever-evolving way. In a philosophical context we can understand it to assert the idea that context is always present, and isn't necessarily stable.

From: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/40227