Talk:Brainfuck is not turing complete

This proof is ridiculously wrong and should get deleted immediately. --None1 (talk) 01:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

it was created as a joke. its entire creation is to prove right the "so extremely fallacious your computer bursts into flames upon displaying" tommyaweosme BRING BACK THE OLDS SANDBOX (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

remove this page, even if it was made as a joke --aadenboy (talk | my esolangs) 21:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

give me a reason why. i dare you to make a counterproof. if you cant make one, then its not false. 0 is not 1, so its true if you cant make a counterproof. tommyaweosme 21:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

On IRC, we considered how to categorize this page. It should not be in Category:Proofs, but we don't have Category:Joke proofs yet. It should be fine if properly categorized; there are plenty of other joke pages in e.g. Category:Joke languages. Corbin (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

i might have inspired a turn in the direction of esowiki. a slight one, but a good one for sure tommyaweosme 22:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

CREATOR OF THIS PAGE SAYS:

do not remove this page.
oh, and also do not edit this page to the degree of removing it.
note that renaming it to the user namespace would be fine.
though, it is not prefered.
 
really, dont delete it.
even though it seems bad, its is worth keeping.
maybe you think not, but the article is short.
of course you should keep it, theres nothing wrong with that.
voiding this page gives no benefit and no harm.
except the harm done to the reputation of your wiki.
 
the world might like the jokes that you are planning to delete.
heck, you might even come off as fun-hating!
i dont want that for you.
seriously, dont delete it.

IN ACRONYM FORRM:

DONT REMOVE THIS

UNNAME4798 SAYS:

I agree with the creator of this page.

你搁着拿1+1=3推导出你是秦始皇呢？

what?

"Are you using 1+1=3 to deduce that you are Qin Shi Huang?" ~google translate

tommyaweosme 15:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The wiki is not made to mislead people. This page should be deleted, or at least moved to userspace. --None1 (talk) 04:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Befunge-93 isn't Turing complete. --None1 07:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

knock knock.

none1: who is it?

befunge-98

none1: drake drake go away

• the door shuts*

--why dont you go eat yourself? twice as big or none at all...... 18:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh no

If brainfuck isn't Turing Complete, and, most Esolangs are brainfuck derivatives... what 'IS' Turing compete? -Someone. (talk)

This proof is nonsense because it misuses the word "is". "is" doesn't always mean equality, for example, brainfuck is Turing complete means that it is in a set of Turing complete languages. --None1 (Nope.) 00:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree. In my opinion, "IS" means ∈ but not ＝. islptng 01:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I know, there's also the "2D=1D, so 2=1" thing, I said that as a """Proof""" that nothing is that nothing is Turing Complete (though, when you think about, that is true, but it's such a stretch that it's false). Also, thank you for ignoring "Turing compete". -Someone. (talk)

baaically 1=2, no matter whether BF is TC or not

As we all know,

Befunge-93 is 2D and Befunge
Befunge-98 is 2D and Befunge

Assume B = Befunge-
Proof:
B93 = 2D and B
B98 = 2D and B
Then B93=B98
Divide by B to get: 93=98
Then 5=10
Then 1=2
Q.E.D.

Maybe you could move this to a user page. Many less notable projects found their way into user pages. For example, joke proofs may go here: Joke computational class proofs (talk) 07:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)