Talk:(top, height)

A few notes on the computational class:

1. There is a difference between something being a push-down automaton and being able to emulate any push-down automaton. The latter is strictly more powerful, since there are no universal push-down automata.
2. Conditional branches can take many forms. While I don't know how to prove this language's computational class, the core idea of the language seems like a potentially valid conditional. The value at the top of the stack determines the next instruction, which is a conditional branch except that it checks every value rather than a single condition.
3. The conditional branch doesn't check all data; it doesn't care about the value of any element other than the top, so it may be possible to specialize a conditional to a finite amount of values (this may require unbounded stack elements (a 32-bit/64-bit integer won't cut it, only an arbitrary-precision integer)).

BoundedBeans (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

in the computational class you say that if it can make the bracket checker it IS a FSA. but unless you have a direct proof against it being possible to be turing complete this will only proove that it is at least as powerful as a FSA. and also if it had two unbounded stacks iand it was a PDA it would be turing complete(i think). Gggfr (talk) 04:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)