Timeline for Fewest (distinct) characters for Turing Completeness
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 4, 2017 at 1:15 | comment | added | CalculatorFeline | *the product of two repunits >1 cannot be a repunit | |
| Jun 3, 2017 at 5:21 | comment | added | user62131 | @CalculatorFeline: that's also untrue, 111111 = 111 × 1001. (And even if it were true, I'm not convinced it would be useful.) | |
| Jun 2, 2017 at 23:32 | comment | added | CalculatorFeline | *no repunit divides another repunit | |
| Jun 2, 2017 at 20:49 | comment | added | user62131 | @CalculatorFeline: No they aren't. 111 and 111111 are both divisible by 3, fairly obviously. | |
| Jun 2, 2017 at 19:57 | comment | added | CalculatorFeline | Also, all repunits >1 are pairwise coprime (think about it) | |
| Jun 2, 2017 at 13:34 | comment | added | user62131 | @CalculatorFeline: No, but I didn't think of them until after I already found the construction which didn't need them. It'd certainly help in golfing programs written with this character set. | |
| May 30, 2017 at 19:12 | comment | added | CalculatorFeline | Any particular reason you can't use pairwise coprime repunits? | |
| Feb 21, 2017 at 3:46 | history | answered | user62131 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |