Verified answer

I have written a short pseudo code example below which uses graph theory to connect 2 separate graphs: Evidence & Suspects. It should be noted that the below code assumes that there is exactly one guilty criminal in the suspect list, AND there is sufficient evidence available prior to the detective work, else the logic breaks (greedy method implementation).

Create Suspect Map (not connected)

Create Evidence Map (not connected)

Map evidence to suspects using innocence/guilt indicator

while remaining suspect number > 1

... search for evidence

... if evidence proves innocence:

... ... Remove all suspects connected to it as innocence

... if evidence proves guilt:

... ... Remove all suspects not connected to it as guilt

end while

Focus on remaining suspect

Well, lol, I personally would argue that at the most-near-fundamental level (or any level really), ASM that is, there are no thoughts. Only calculations. The computer is just a very fast calculator, believe it or not. A super-calculator with many peripherals. lol

And if one were to attribute the word "thought" to a computer's underlying fundamental calculations, and I would have to use the term quite loosely, I would say the resultants are not quite as valuable, intelligible, or conceivable as a whole of unit; rather just a massive amount of consecutive logic appropriations and data manipulations across the bus.

Perhaps I misunderstand your question, and you are simply looking for this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudocode

In which case I'd say you answered your own question with your provided example. However, I'd like to note that you aren't really detailing the thoughts of a computer, but rather outlining your own intentions for the computer. Which is quite interesting considering the question, in my opinion. :)