# 12.3 Universality

Recall the Turing Machine model from Chapter 6: a Turing Machine consists of an infinite tape divided into discrete square into which symbols from a fixed alphabet can be written, and a tape head that moves along the tape. On each step, the tape head can read the symbol in the current square, write a symbol in the current square, and move left or right one square or halt. The machine can keep track of a finite number of possible states, and determines which action to take based on a set of transition rules that specify the output symbol and head action for a given current state and read symbol.

Turing argued that this simple model corresponds to our intuition about what can be done using mechanical computation. Recall this was 1936, so the model for mechanical computation was not what a mechanical computer can do, but what a human computer can do. Turing argued that his model corresponded to what a human computer could do by following a systematic procedure: the infinite tape was as powerful as a two-dimensional sheet of paper or any other recording medium, the set of symbols must be finite otherwise it would not be possible to correctly distinguish all symbols, and the number of machine states must be finite because there is a limited amount a human can keep in mind at one time.

We can enumerate all possible Turing Machines. One way to see this is to devise a notation for writing down any Turing Machine. A Turing Machine is completely described by its alphabet, states and transition rules. We could write down any Turing Machine by numbering each state and listing each transition rule as a tuple of the current state, alphabet symbol, next state, output symbol, and tape direction. We can map each state and alphabet symbol to a number, and use this encoding to write down a unique number for every possible Turing Machine. Hence, we can enumerate all possible Turing Machines by just enumerating the positive integers. Most positive integers do not correspond to valid Turing Machines, but if we go through all the numbers we will eventually reach every possible Turing Machine.

This is step towards proving that some problems cannot be solved by any algorithm. The number of Turing Machines is less than the number of real numbers. Both numbers are infinite, but as explained in Section 1.2.2, Cantor's diagonalization proof showed that the real numbers are not countable. Any attempt to map the real numbers to the integers must fail to include all the real numbers. This means there are real numbers that cannot be produced by any Turing Machine: there are fewer Turing Machines than there are real numbers, so there must be some real numbers that cannot be produced by any Turing Machine.

The next step is to define the machine depicted in Figure 12.2. A *Universal Turing Machine* is a machine that takes as input a number that identifies a Turing Machine and simulates the specified Turing Machine running on initially empty input tape.

The Universal Turing Machine can simulate any Turing Machine. In his proof, Turing describes the transition rules for such a machine. It simulates the Turing Machine encoded by the input number. One can imagine doing this by using the tape to keep track of the state of the simulated machine. For each step, the universal machine searches the description of the input machine to find the appropriate rule. This is the rule for the current state of the simulated machine on the current input symbol of the simulated machine. The universal machine keeps track of the machine and tape state of the simulated machine, and simulates each step. Thus, there is a single Turing Machine that can simulate every Turing Machine.

Since a Universal Turing Machine can simulate every Turing Machine, and a Turing Machine can perform any computation according to our intuitive notion of computation, this means a Universal Turing Machine can perform all computations. Using the universal machine and a diagonalization argument similar to the one above for the real numbers, Turing reached a similar contradiction for a problem analogous to the Halting Problem for Python programs but for Turing Machines instead.

If we can simulate a Universal Turing Machine in a programming language, that language is a *universal programming language*. There is some program that can be written in that language to perform every possible computation.

To show that a programming language is universal, it is sufficient to show that it can simulate any Turing Machine, since a Turing Machine can perform every possible computation. To simulate a Universal Turing Machine, we need some way to keep track of the state of the tape (for example, the list datatypes in Scheme or Python would be adequate), a way to keep track of the internal machine state (a number can do this), and a way to execute the transition rules (we could define a procedure that does this using an if expression to make decisions about which transition rule to follow for each step), and a way to keep going (we can do this in Scheme with recursive applications). Thus, Scheme is a universal programming language: one can write a Scheme program to simulate a Universal Turing Machine, and thus, perform any mechanical computation.