Talk:Zero

clarification needed
My questions: --GreyKnight (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * what constitues "correct grammar" of a pseudoprogram?
 * does the Halting sequence represent only grammatically-correct pseudoprograms? Or do grammatically-incorrect sequences get represented as 0/1 bits in the Halting sequence?
 * how is a Zero-program executed? Is the result of the xor converted into brainf*ck instructions via the same lookup table, or a different one?  Or is the behaviour of the Zero-program just defined by the pseudoprogram itself?
 * brainf*ck again? Seriously?  In this day and age?
 * My intuitive interpretation of this was
 * Matching brackets, the only grammar brainfuck has.
 * Only include grammatically-correct pseudoprograms, although I misread it on first reading.
 * The same one, that is, you run the original pseudo-program.
 * We'll put User:Phantom Hoover on the case.
 * However, I found this more interesting than the average brainfuck derivative. I thought aloud on the #esoteric channel a bit about whether there's a way to circumvent the undecidability by only using the decidable parts of the halting sequence. Alas my tentative conclusion is no, because of the need to match brackets ruining your ability to ignore arbitrary stretches of undecidable bits, and the (probable) impossibility of controlling what bits can occur in order.
 * --Ørjan (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That is essentially it. Also, it is a BF-derivative because I needed to choose a simple, Turing-complete language as a base, and Brainfuck felt like the most obvious (and boring) choice. The interesting part was meant to be the uncomputability, not anything else. On that note, if I ever figure out how, I'm going to make a language that is unimplementable (without cheating, which I did with Zero) but without any more power than a Turing-complete language.
 * --Tailcalled (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello world!
Damn, User:Nooodl beat me to it! :-P --GreyKnight (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)