Very nice --Oleg 07:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll return the compliment and say: nice work on BitBitJump! =) --Javamannen 18:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Can this be TC ?
- Not with a finite program. You can never get to values or cell addresses that are not in the original program.
- With an infinite program setup, maybe. --Ørjan (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, makes sense no adder so no way of doing the BF(+[>+]), however, I suppose adding an inc/dec pair of magic memory locations would be (just) enough to change that. (by inc/dec I mean put a value in "X" and value+1 codes out of "Y" put value in "Y" and value-1 codes out of "X".) Rdebath (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
A linear-bounded automaton has storage space proportional to the size of its input. Since this language doesn't mention input at all, I don't think it can fairly be classified as a linear-bounded automaton. I think bounded-storage machine is probably more accurate. --Chris Pressey (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Bounded-storage machine makes sense - I am certain that if not for the inherent limited memory, this would be Turing-complete - so it's basically in the same computational class as any real CPU architecture. I don't want to clutter this discussion page, so I've put the notes on why at User:20kdc/HypotheticalBrainfuckToByteByteJump. --20kdc (talk) 12:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)