我认为“图灵完备”概念的重要性在于能够识别一台计算机(不一定是机械/电气“计算机”)，它可以将其过程分解为由越来越简单的指令组成的“简单”指令，通用机可以解释并执行这些指令。

我强烈推荐《注释图灵》

@Mark，我认为你所解释的是通用图灵机和图灵完备的混合描述。

从实际意义上讲，图灵完备指的是一台机器/过程/计算，它可以被编写并表示为程序，由通用机(台式计算机)执行。虽然它不考虑时间或存储，正如其他人所提到的。

在大多数程序员熟悉的实际语言术语中，检测图灵完整性的通常方法是该语言是否允许或允许模拟嵌套的无界while语句(与具有固定上界的pascal风格for语句相反)。

从维基百科:

Turing completeness, named after Alan Turing, is significant in that every plausible design for a computing device so far advanced can be emulated by a universal Turing machine — an observation that has become known as the Church-Turing thesis. Thus, a machine that can act as a universal Turing machine can, in principle, perform any calculation that any other programmable computer is capable of. However, this has nothing to do with the effort required to write a program for the machine, the time it may take for the machine to perform the calculation, or any abilities the machine may possess that are unrelated to computation. While truly Turing-complete machines are very likely physically impossible, as they require unlimited storage, Turing completeness is often loosely attributed to physical machines or programming languages that would be universal if they had unlimited storage. All modern computers are Turing-complete in this sense.

我不知道你怎么能比这更非技术，除了说“图灵完备意味着‘能够在足够的时间和空间内回答可计算的问题’”。

以下是最简单的解释:

图灵完备系统指的是这样一个系统，在这个系统中，可以编写程序来找到答案(尽管不保证运行时间或内存)。

所以，如果有人说“我的新东西是图灵完备的”，这意味着在原则上(尽管通常不是在实践中)它可以用来解决任何计算问题。

有时候这是个玩笑……有人用vi写了一个图灵机模拟器，所以可以说vi是世界上唯一需要的计算引擎。

We call a language Turing-complete if and only if (1) it is decidable by a Turing machine but (2) not by anything less capable than a Turing machine. For instance, the language of palindromes over the alphabet {a, b} is decidable by Turing machines, but also by pushdown automata; so, this language is not Turing-complete. Truly Turing-complete languages - ones that require the full computing power of Turing machines - are pretty rare. Perhaps the language of strings x.y.z where x is a number, y is a Turing-machine and z is an initial tape configuration, and y halts on z in fewer than x! steps - perhaps that qualifies (though it would need to be shown!)

A common imprecise usage confuses Turing-completeness with Turing-equivalence. Turing-equivalence refers to the property of a computational system which can simulate, and which can be simulated by, Turing machines. We might say Java is a Turing-equivalent programming language, for instance, because you can write a Turing-machine simulator in Java, and because you could define a Turing machine that simulates execution of Java programs. According to the Church-Turing thesis, Turing machines can perform any effective computation, so Turing-equivalence means a system is as capable as possible (if the Church-Turing thesis is true!)

图灵等价比真正的图灵完备性更主流;这一点以及“完全”比“等效”短的事实可能解释了为什么“图灵完全”经常被误用为图灵等效，但我离题了。

从根本上讲，图灵完备性是一个简洁的要求，即无界递归。

甚至不受记忆的限制。

我是独立思考的，但这里有一些关于这个论断的讨论。我对LSP的定义提供了更多的上下文。

这里的其他答案并没有直接定义图灵完备性的基本本质。