Timeline for Fewest (distinct) characters for Turing Completeness
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 8, 2024 at 16:31 | comment | added | mbomb007 | @kuilin You only count e once. exec contains two e's. | |
| Jun 17, 2020 at 9:04 | history | edited | CommunityBot | Commonmark migration | |
| Jun 4, 2017 at 3:51 | comment | added | CalculatorFeline | I've tried to do something like this but with exc'%125 and my file runner program is ~1880253359823257600 bytes long :( | |
| May 17, 2017 at 2:52 | comment | added | kuilin | I might just be being dumb here, but isn't this 9 because we need the e in exec too? | |
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:39 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://codegolf.stackexchange.com/ with https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/ | |
| Mar 1, 2017 at 21:19 | comment | added | mbomb007 | Prove it. I don't think anyone else agrees with you. Binary isn't a language, but Python is. Look at the Examples in the question... even the OP uses an example, in Python, the same way I did. | |
| Mar 1, 2017 at 21:16 | comment | added | mmachenry | @mbomb007 To put it more succinctly, your language is not Turing Complete in the same way that binary is not Turing Complete and also not a programming language. | |
| Mar 1, 2017 at 21:15 | comment | added | mmachenry | @mbomb007 No my argument is not false. Python is a Turning Complete language, obviously. The computation is being done by calling a Python interpreter from Python using any character you want for the inner call. The language that you're specifying the program in is merely an encoding, not a programming language. Using this, it's trivial to make literally every programming language Turing Complete by using the characters 0 and 1 and viewing the source files as binary. The spirit of the question is to find a syntactic subset of the actual language though. | |
| Feb 24, 2017 at 19:39 | comment | added | mbomb007 | @mmachenry Python is using its own compiler and interpreter. It's not using another separate language. And a brainfuck interpreter has been created in Python, so it's Turing Complete. Using that knowledge, your argument is false. | |
| Feb 24, 2017 at 19:09 | comment | added | mmachenry | This is not really even technically a Turning Complete language though, is it? It has the ability to call the interpreter for a Turning Complete language, which is the embedded Python interpreter. This would work in any language, regardless of whether or not it's Turning Complete, so long as it has the ability to, for instance, invoke a shell command to another interpreter. | |
| Feb 20, 2017 at 20:14 | history | edited | mbomb007 | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 186 characters in body |
| Feb 20, 2017 at 20:02 | comment | added | Martin Ender | It might be worth noting being able to translate every Python program to your reduced character set isn't necessary for Turing-completeness. Although I imagine it will be hard to get the required amount of control flow without using exec anyway. | |
| Feb 20, 2017 at 19:49 | history | edited | mbomb007 | CC BY-SA 3.0 | deleted 17 characters in body |
| Feb 20, 2017 at 18:41 | history | edited | mbomb007 | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 117 characters in body |
| Feb 20, 2017 at 18:40 | comment | added | mbomb007 | If only operator precedence would execute + or - before the %, we could remove a character. | |
| Feb 20, 2017 at 18:20 | history | edited | mbomb007 | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 92 characters in body |
| Feb 20, 2017 at 18:12 | history | answered | mbomb007 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |