# Can all mathematical operations be encoded with a Turing Complete language? [closed]

In High School Computing I was taught the Structured Program Theorem - that you could implement any mathematical operation using:

1. Sequence
2. Selection
3. Iteration

After completing a Computer Science degree - we can express what is required for any computable function more formally with M-recursive functions:

1. The constant $0$ function
2. The successor function
3. Selecting parameters
4. Function composition
5. Primitive Recursion
6. The $\mu$-operator (look for the smallest $x$ such that...)

This being the minimal set of axioms. Translating this to code we get:

1. The constant 0
2. Incrementation _ + 1
3. Variable access x
4. Program/statement concatenation _; _
5. Countdown loops for ( x to 0 ) do _ end
6. While loops while ( x != 0 ) do _ end

But I've come away looking for proof. How do we know all this covers all computable functions? Is there an obvious branch of Mathematics for which this is not covered? Is there a shortcoming in Lambda Calculus where it is yet to cover off obscure Mathematical operations?

(Noting of course that

My question is: Can all mathematical operations be encoded with a Turing Complete language?

## closed as off-topic by Kaveh, Radu GRIGore, David Eppstein, Jan Johannsen, Sasho NikolovJul 11 '16 at 10:04

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

• "Your question does not appear to be a research-level question in theoretical computer science. For more information about the scope, please see help center. Your question might be suitable for Computer Science which has a broader scope." – Kaveh, Radu GRIGore, David Eppstein, Jan Johannsen, Sasho Nikolov
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

• By "mathematical operations" you actually mean "computable functions", right? – chi Jul 8 '16 at 14:44
• Well part of my question is 'what is a computable function and what are the limits of that'? So I went back to something more operational. – hawkeye Jul 8 '16 at 21:57