Talk:Brainfuck, but every + is replaced with the bee movie script

Doesn't the Bee Movie Script have . and ,?

What happens here? Rdococ (talk) 15:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Oops, didn't read that bit. nvm Rdococ (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

If the script versions have at least one + each (I have no idea), it should still be unambiguous. --Ørjan (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Cheating

You know, I strongly suspect even bignum brainfuck is Turing-complete even without +. Use sequences of every 4th cell as Minsky machine counters, number of consecutive (allowing for the three cells in between) cells is the counter value. You have increment and compare-for-equality; that's enough for Turing-completeness if you have four counters, even without decrement. The only tricky part is control flow, because I'm not 100% sure offhand that the usual tricks for simulating an instruction pointer work, but I think it's highly likely that there's enough control flow left to have Turing-completeness.

Also, an advantage of this construction is that every time you change the value of a counter, it gets slower. --ais523 21:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Isn't there a construction for "use + but only for incrementing 0 to 1"? I think there should be, and it should cover nearly all other TC questions of this sort. (In this case, just replace + with - and 1 with -1.) --Ørjan (talk) 00:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there should be. Actually, I think you only need to emulate three counters (although it would be easier with four). Come to think of it, this is fairly similar to The Amnesiac From Minsk level 3, but without the amnesia (thus making things much easier). --ais523 00:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

There is such a construction: Brainfuck_minus_-, which shows its Turing-completeness via sequential/cyclic tag system to brainfuck translation. It, as mentioned, only ever does 0->1 as memory manipulation. --Keymaker (talk) 08:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)