Talk:Braktif

Does anybody have any clue what the other, found only in operation, cell states are, and what they should be represented as in text? I would love it if somebody made a table of all the interactions between every state, so that I can accurately run these programs in notepad and my own brain... --Sillyman, without an account
 * I believe all the information you want is contained in the Alpaca source file at . --Ørjan 20:00, 28 Sep 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. So the bus is actually the most complicated cell in terms of operations? That makes sense. It has to transfer all those signals, you know. And move the pointers. AND actually generate the signals. And... What's this? The Instruction Pointer does no work at all besides waiting, moving, and telling the bus not to generate signals? Lazy... OOH... Whitespace is accepted in Braktif Programs! Right, and the data pointer transforms into "tools" when given signals. Well of course it has to, the data has to read from it! And it has to move on command! Whoa... information rush... I'll stop talking about what most of you already know and start running example programs using only notepad and my brain.--Sillyman, without an account

Turing complete etc
I've been trying to work out where to classify this (cellular automata, Brainfuck translation, turing machine?) but IMO it's only interesting because it's all three at once. You have really made the boundaries look fuzzy here. (It isn't of course because "Input does not exist")

<    *>                       <<[--]*>[---]> 000000000000000000 *[     --] -d-i-               -

Except, it isn't really, because, I think some would argue that this (The cellular automata) is not proven turing complete because the tape is bounded. I, personally, also think it looks untidy for the tape to extend off to the infinite left.

<    *>   <<[--]*>[---]> *[     --]   i-               --d+ 0

So I think you actually need something like this to be TC, where the "d+" (or a "d ") triggers a new tape cell to be built. (You could also flip "<>" back to 'normal' of course) Rdebath (talk) 09:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think it was ever meant to be TC, as it was meant to be able to emulate Smallfuck, not an infinite version of brainfuck. Unfortunately at one point TC categories were erroneously added to the Smallfuck article (perhaps because the computational class section talks hypothetically about how it would be TC with unbounded tape), I have now removed those. --Ørjan (talk) 22:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually if you go to the external ref you'll see it's "believed Turing-complete". But as you say, with the tape explicitly limited like that it isn't. Rdebath (talk) 07:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * As for Smallfuck if you look at the history the authors intent seems to be a TC Brainfuck derivative to show that SMETANA is TC, but the tape limitation in the SMETANA implementation would not allow this. This would make Smallfuck TC and SMETANA not TC. However, I assume everyone is happy with Smallfuck being a non-TC variant of Boolfuck. Rdebath (talk) 07:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)