Talk:Truth-machine

From Esolang
Jump to: navigation, search

Shouldn't this be at Truth machine? —Maharba 01:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No. :D It is "truth-machine". --Keymaker 07:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

What if the input is neither '0' nor '1'? (Assuming input for the language works over an alphabet larger than just {0,1}.) I'd assume the behaviour of the program can be undefined in this case, but I thought I'd ask to clarify. (The SMITH truth-machine I just added outputs a single 1 if the input was something other than 0 or 1.) Chris Pressey (talk) 02:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I've been interpreting it as undefined, anyway, in the spirit that this test is meant to be as permissive as possible for languages that have trouble doing much. :) --Ørjan (talk) 04:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, correct, it is undefined. Input that is not 0 or 1 should not happen. --Keymaker (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

About the Kipple "in principle" Truth-machine: if I understand it right, in case of '1' it will push an infinite number of '1's to the output stack, but those 1s will never actually be outputted because the programs never ends. A Truth-machine in Chef would have the same issue, and I guess that's why there is no Chef Truth-machine on the page yet. Should I add one? --Koen (talk) 12:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead. --Keymaker (talk) 13:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

itflabtijtslwi truth-machine simplification proposal

Couldn't
GGiGG/1/11/i
work for the itflabtijtslwi truth-machine? KaiQ (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
No. The problem is that if you input 1, the /1/11/ substitution command runs forever and you never get to the printing step. The complicated self-replicating method for /// and itflabtijtslwi is actually the simplest way we have found to make useful infinite loops in them. --Ørjan (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Good point. KaiQ (talk) 01:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)