4 ms·
Turing Complete Version Numbers
- thethirdone 7y agoI'm not sure exactly what I was expecting, but I was expecting something more than brainfuck encoded into "(Debian) version numbers". I think I was expecting it to be about the semantics of the sequence of numbers and turing complete metric for deciding if a sequence is valid or not.
- vortico 7y agoYeah, at the end of the article I thought "Wow, he found an example of a set containing at least 8 elements!"
- andrewshadura 7y agoPackage: node-debbundle-acorn (6.2.1+ds+~0.4.0+~4.0.0+really4.0.0+~1.0.0+~5.0.1+ds+~1.7.0+ds+~0.1.1+~0.3.1+~0.2.0+~0.1.0+~0.3.0+~0.3.0-5)
- teddyh 7y ago…in Debian experimental¹. In Debian testing it will probably have a more sane version designator, since all the versions of the package in testing, stable and unstable all have normal versions. 1. https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/acorn https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/acorn
- OJFord 7y agoIt makes for an interesting-sounding title, but: > This is simply Brainfuck with operators that are legal in (Debian) version numbers kept as-is, and some numbers replacing the rest. Is it known to be (or else what is) a minimum number of such operators for Turing completeness? I ended the post thinking that was the more interesting question, but now that I comment, I wonder if that's even meaningful without restricting what it means to be an 'operator' - 6 and 9 from the OP are quite convoluted for example.
- greyfade 7y agoYes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_instruction_set_computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_instruction_set_computer
- tromp 7y agoCombinatory logic [1] is universal and needs only 2 primitive combinators, S and K, as well as an application operator. So 3 operators suffice for completeness without any convoluting. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatory_logic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatory_logic