
Turing Complete Version Numbers - edward
http://joeyh.name/blog/entry/turing_complete_version_numbers/
======
OJFord
It makes for an interesting-sounding title, but:

> This is simply Brainfuck with operators that are legal in (Debian) version
> numbers kept as-is, and some numbers replacing the rest.

Is it known to be (or else what is) a minimum number of such operators for
Turing completeness?

I ended the post thinking that was the more interesting question, but now that
I comment, I wonder if that's even meaningful without restricting what it
means to be an 'operator' \- 6 and 9 from the OP are quite convoluted for
example.

~~~
greyfade
Yes.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_instruction_set_computer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_instruction_set_computer)

------
thethirdone
I'm not sure exactly what I was expecting, but I was expecting something more
than brainfuck encoded into "(Debian) version numbers".

I think I was expecting it to be about the semantics of the sequence of
numbers and turing complete metric for deciding if a sequence is valid or not.

~~~
vortico
Yeah, at the end of the article I thought "Wow, he found an example of a set
containing at least 8 elements!"

------
andrewshadura
Package: node-debbundle-acorn
(6.2.1+ds+~0.4.0+~4.0.0+really4.0.0+~1.0.0+~5.0.1+ds+~1.7.0+ds+~0.1.1+~0.3.1+~0.2.0+~0.1.0+~0.3.0+~0.3.0-5)

~~~
teddyh
…in Debian _experimental_ ¹. In Debian _testing_ it will probably have a more
sane version designator, since all the versions of the package in testing,
stable and unstable all have normal versions.

1\.
[https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/acorn](https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/acorn)

