Talk:Stackowey

If anyone wonders why I undid https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?title=Stackowey&oldid=155573: I thought wrong when adding it (because I had just read the remark about C not being Turing-complete because an implementation detail slipped into the language definition. The exact same thing happened here too. The 64-bit stack element size is not even needed for most programs to still behave the same, as whatever you set the stack element size to be will still overflow if you for example do 5_+. --Lampe2020 (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

There are still issues with the current definition and its class. There's no way to use the stack like a queue or tape and elements are implicitly bounded. At least unbounded queue behavior or unbounded elements are needed for Turing completeness. For the former, grille could be changed to index relative to the bottom of the stack, allowing for queue behavior. For the latter, technically the specification does support unbounded elements, but I believe it can lead to uncomputable behavior. The reason is the stumble command, which inverts all bits. If values are unbounded then stumble maps positive integers to their 2-adic inverse - 1. 2-adic numbers are uncomputable in general so one might assume that elements should be finite. Although, thinking about it, p-adic digit inversion and addition is probably not uncomputable when starting from naturals. stkptr (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)