Talk:X-complete

From Esolang
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This sounds like a circuit complexity class. Corbin (talk) 01:34, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Interesting idea

what if some language was X-complete but NOT Turing-complete? --JITJITJITJITJITJIT 08:46, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

what if some language was NOT X-complete but still Turing-complete? --JITJITJITJITJITJIT 08:49, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

That would be interesting, but very hard if not impossible, as Turing-completeness requires a way to do some arithmetic FluixMakesEsolangs (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Surprisingly, no. Check out Aardvark, But Is It Art?, and Wang tiles for counter-examples. Turing-completeness merely requires that computable functions are represented; it's sufficient for the structure of an individual program to imply arithmetic without having any arithmetic operators. Food for thought: Turing machines don't have built-in arithmetic either! Corbin (talk) 14:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Wow, I never knew that before thats actually kinda cool, I guess you really do learn something new every day. - FluixMakesEsolangs (talk) 15:02, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Clarification

what exactly does "functionally complete logic or arithmetic between an arbitrary number of values" mean? aadenboy (talk|contribs) 14:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Functionally complete logic is logic that can recreate all other logic, like how NAND and NOR are functionally complete, and an arbitrary amount is "any" amount, so like between 2 values is like "2+2" but 4 values is like "4*(9/3)-7", it's a rule so X-Complete sytems are actually usable for computation, I might've explained horribly or completely wrong, but that should be hopefully be the answer you're looking for. FluixMakesEsolangs (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)