01:02:31 -!- Lord_of_Life has quit (Ping timeout: 258 seconds). 01:02:37 -!- Lord_of_Life_ has joined. 01:03:58 -!- Lord_of_Life_ has changed nick to Lord_of_Life. 01:30:35 -!- Noisytoot has quit (Quit: ZNC 1.8.2 - https://znc.in). 01:30:59 -!- Noisytoot has joined. 01:53:31 -!- razetime has joined. 02:28:43 -!- ais523 has joined. 02:29:13 and is TC always a desirable quality? ← the most interesting esolangs are normally those for which either a) it isn't obvious whether they're TC or not, or b) they fail to be TC in an interesting or unusual way 02:29:32 or, that are TC despite being extremely simple 02:30:18 We all know that in practice we'll often run out of memory or time before a computation ever finishes. ← although in practice it is often possible to write an optimising interpreter that can implement the very slow programs in reasonable time 02:31:49 After much headache, I think I understand the FWC TC-ness. I still feel a real dissonance with my intuition, but I've dealt with that before. Really, thank you for the work ais523. I've started again on the writeup and will post it in here when its done. ← I'm looking forward to it; I've been looking at the M:tG BB construction myself and have been making progress on understanding it, although I still don't have a a grasp of how the whole 02:31:51 thing hangs together 02:32:52 must esolang always execute something? can esolang simply be a markup language? ← esoteric non-programming languages are less popular than esoteric programming languages, but do get discussed on IRC sometimes – I'm not sure if people put them on the wiki 02:42:53 -!- ais523 has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 02:44:06 -!- ais523 has joined. 03:19:25 ais523: I really had problems in mind that exceed our computing facilities... solving chess would be a very likely example. 03:34:53 int-e: ah right, but that sort of computation isn't any better in practical languages than in esolangs 03:35:21 Yes. It wasn't about esolangs at all. 03:37:14 -!- wpa has joined. 04:29:15 -!- ais523 has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 04:30:04 -!- razetime has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds). 04:30:31 -!- ais523 has joined. 04:38:43 -!- razetime has joined. 05:17:27 -!- razetime has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds). 05:20:12 -!- razetime has joined. 06:44:41 -!- tromp has joined. 06:59:56 -!- razetime has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds). 07:30:44 -!- razetime has joined. 07:57:45 -!- tromp has quit (Quit: My iMac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…). 08:04:35 -!- tromp has joined. 08:27:29 [[Special:Log/newusers]] create * Kant2002 * New user account 08:31:24 -!- razetime has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds). 08:32:18 [[Esolang:Introduce yourself]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=118410&oldid=118372 * Kant2002 * (+128) 08:41:18 [[GAXT]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=118411&oldid=106770 * Kant2002 * (+0) 08:56:34 -!- Sgeo has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer). 09:02:28 -!- razetime has joined. 09:33:56 -!- Thelie has joined. 09:58:37 [[Idea]] M https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=118412&oldid=102917 * PkmnQ * (-4) a is just a literal, I think? 10:31:41 -!- razetime has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 10:32:50 -!- razetime has joined. 10:37:58 -!- arseniiv has joined. 10:44:39 -!- razetime has quit (Quit: Go back to your cringe 9 to 5. I'll be gaming.). 11:05:20 -!- __monty__ has joined. 12:22:15 [[GAXT]] M https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=118413&oldid=118411 * PythonshellDebugwindow * (+63) /* Grammar */ Categories 12:23:26 [[Homespring]] M https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=118414&oldid=55494 * PythonshellDebugwindow * (+9) Stub 12:53:43 -!- Thelie has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds). 12:58:07 -!- Everything has quit (Quit: leaving). 13:08:39 -!- Everything has joined. 13:40:51 -!- Thelie has joined. 14:11:51 -!- Thelie1 has joined. 14:11:58 -!- Thelie has quit (Quit: Leaving.). 14:13:06 -!- tromp has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer). 14:16:36 -!- tromp has joined. 14:38:24 -!- Sgeo has joined. 14:50:39 -!- tromp has quit (Quit: My iMac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…). 15:04:59 [[Vertica Smile]] M https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=118415&oldid=25366 * PythonshellDebugwindow * (+24) Category 15:14:16 -!- tromp has joined. 16:58:10 [[User:PaxtonPenguin/Sandbox]] N https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?oldid=118416 * PaxtonPenguin * (+102) Created page with "Welcome to Hell This is where i put my stupid ideas Enjoy. ;) =1= ==2== ===3=== ====4==== =====5=====" 17:01:26 [[User:PaxtonPenguin/Sandbox]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=118417&oldid=118416 * PaxtonPenguin * (+59) 17:03:03 [[User:PaxtonPenguin]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=118418&oldid=118388 * PaxtonPenguin * (+44) 17:20:50 -!- tromp has quit (Quit: My iMac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…). 17:34:28 -!- zzo38 has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds). 17:39:38 -!- sprout_ has joined. 17:42:36 -!- sprout has quit (Ping timeout: 248 seconds). 17:48:18 -!- tromp has joined. 17:50:58 -!- sprout_ has changed nick to sprout. 17:54:22 [[Snek]] https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=118419&oldid=108910 * KingJellyfish * (+11) 18:01:59 -!- Cale has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer). 18:18:16 -!- zzo38 has joined. 18:37:48 -!- kwii has joined. 18:45:35 -!- FortyTwoBB has joined. 18:47:17 -!- FreeFull has joined. 18:51:39 ais523 yeah I understand being confused by the rest of the structure. Probably the most mechanically difficult bits are the transitions before/after worldfire and spite. I'm trying to be overly detailed with those explanations to make sure it all works. Conceptually hardest is definitely understanding how higher tier stages even work (well that and 18:51:39 FWC TC, but you obviously know that already lol) 18:54:56 Also, our particular construction has computation in an awkward spot that makes the structure even more confusing when you consider where we actually benefit from the output. 18:56:58 output=BB zombies -> starlight life -> lingering souls casts -> TYS storm count is finally something preserved through worldfires. 19:02:39 -!- Noisytoot has quit (Remote host closed the connection). 19:03:09 but if you have specific questions I'm happy to provide whatever answers I can 19:03:34 -!- Noisytoot has joined. 19:04:45 what's the context of this topic/what is this esolang? 19:06:12 this is the most damage without going infinite in magic the gathering. the strategy involves implementing https://esolangs.org/wiki/Flooding_Waterfall_Model which was recently proven to be TC 19:07:12 thus the computation produces busy beaver numbers as output 19:08:08 The rest of the deck focuses on iterating the computation as many times as possible to get 'higher order' busy beaver numbers 19:09:17 FortyTwoBB: it took me a while to work out what the lowest-level output was that's the multiplier for the highest stages 19:09:29 but I realised it had to be storm, because it's a resource that can't be spent, only used 19:09:38 BB_0(X)=BB(X) BB_n+1(X)=BB^N(X) 19:09:58 err no 19:10:40 BB_n+1(X)=BB_N^(BB_N(X))(X) 19:11:54 does this mean that you don't have busy beaver factors in the lowest stages? 19:12:58 well storm turns into everything else via fated infatuation 19:13:23 one thing I realised is that if you're using an iterated busy beaver function, the first few iterations don't need to be large enough to be TC, just to create a number larger than themselves 19:13:55 and then the TCness can start showing up after a few iterations 19:14:15 yeah, numbers being too small for the first computation is not really an issue anymore 19:15:13 -!- arseniiv_ has joined. 19:15:47 what resource is spent to cast Fated Infatuation? 19:15:48 Older versions had to prove they could break out with like 70 permanents, this version will have more like 70^^^70 permanents at least 19:16:06 life to pay lingering souls flashback 19:16:17 triggers spellweaver volute 19:16:30 -!- kwii has quit (Quit: Quit). 19:16:35 oh right, there was some discussion in-thread about rulings on Spellweaver Helix 19:16:55 you have a choice about whether or not to copy the spell, and if you do, you have a choice about whether or not to cast the copy (you can just let the copy fizzle without casting it) 19:17:13 so if the Spellweaver Helix trigger gets copied, you can cast the spell from some copies and not others 19:17:22 yeah apparently even if the copy is not something that can normally fizzle like worldfire 19:17:48 right, even if you can't fizzle due to lack of targets you can just not put it on the stack in the first place 19:18:02 which is not how I expected the card to work, but its certainly convenient 19:18:06 it's weird for the card to give you two choices 19:18:23 `card-by-name Spellweaver Helix 19:18:25 Spellweaver Helix \ 3 \ Artifact \ Imprint -- When Spellweaver Helix enters the battlefield, you may exile two target sorcery cards from a single graveyard. \ Whenever a player casts a card, if it has the same name as one of the cards exiled with Spellweaver Helix, you may copy the other. If you do, you may cast the copy without paying its mana cost. \ MRD-R 19:18:29 -!- arseniiv has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds). 19:18:31 3/1/2005 The creation of the copy and then the casting of the copy are both optional. 19:19:46 wording weird enough that they had to write a ruling to say that the card actually does what it says it does 19:20:52 also if it has 3 or more cards imprinted on it you cast them from the same trigger. 19:21:36 so we imprint worldfire, starlight, and the only sorcery we have two copies of 19:21:40 I am a little more concerned about that one because IIRC the rules for copying imprint triggers changed recently-ish, so there are some formerly correct rulings floating around online that are no longer correct 19:21:49 but maybe I'm thinking about something else 19:22:07 we double checked that when it changed 19:23:05 the main difference was with split/double faced cards but it doesn't effect us 19:23:30 I'd expect it to work because imprint doesn't have rules text any more, so it doesn't notionally function any differently from, say, Dauthi Voidwalker 19:25:08 607.3. If, within a pair of linked abilities, one ability refers to a single object as “the exiled card,” “a card exiled with [this card],” or a similar phrase, and the other ability has exiled multiple cards (usually because it was copied), the ability refers to each of the exiled cards. If that ability asks for any information about the exiled card, such as a characteristic or mana value, it gets multiple answers. If these answers are used to 19:25:08 yeah its just cards linked to an ability, there are a few odd corner cases where you can get multiple different linked abilities that don't interact 19:25:09 determine the value of a variable, the sum of the answers is used. If that ability performs any actions on “the” card, it performs that action on each exiled card. If that ability creates a token that is a copy of “the” card, then for each exiled card, it creates a token that is a copy of that card. If that ability performs any actions on “a” card, the controller of the ability chooses which card is affected. 19:25:16 (from the rules dated October 13 2013) 19:25:22 a very clear answer 19:26:06 …although I'd hate having to rule that in languages other than English, which don't make a distinction between "a" and "the" 19:26:18 (the official ruling is presumably "look at the English card text") 19:29:06 Constricting sliver can be artificial evolution-d to grant another linked exile ability to say dauthi voidwalker. you can't use the voidwalker's natural ability to cast the card it exiled due to the sliver's ability 19:29:24 `card-by-name Constricting sliver 19:29:25 Constricting Sliver \ 5W \ Creature -- Sliver \ 3/3 \ Sliver creatures you control have "When this creature enters the battlefield, you may exile target creature an opponent controls until this creature leaves the battlefield." \ M15-U 19:30:10 dauthi voidwalker is a bad example, it uses counters to know which cards it can cast 19:30:52 oh, right 19:31:00 but even if it didnt 19:33:33 intellect devourer then 19:33:43 -!- arseniiv_ has quit (Quit: gone too far). 19:35:45 Jacob Hauken, inspector even has two ways for it to exile cards for it to cast, but couldnt cast something it exiled thanks to the sliver 19:37:05 I guess my key question at the moment is: say the volute hyperstage is locked (it has created a whole load of martyr triggers that are currently in use, and can't be reused without destroying them) 19:37:16 * martyr tokens 19:37:29 is it possible to run a computation for each martyr token? or do we have to unlock the volute first? 19:43:36 have to unlock 19:44:06 this makes me wonder if the foundry stage is worth it at all, then 19:44:30 because it's basically increasing things by an Ackermann function factor, but the busy beaver function grows so fast as to make that factor irrelevant 19:45:02 yes, but thats only the 'topmost' foundry stage 19:45:27 lower foundry stages power the transitions for more computations 19:45:59 couldn't you do that with a layer instead, and save a lot of card slots? 19:46:53 No, a stage powers many more transitions than a layer would 19:47:28 but the number of transitions you get is already a busy beaver number 19:47:43 applying any computable function to that doesn't significantly change its size 19:48:08 because you could just implement the same computable function inside the Flooding Waterfall Model program instead, using a very slightly larger starting state 19:51:42 basically because the higher order stage structure is recursive, we can lose some efficiency at the top for more efficiency on the overall structure 19:53:50 you can think of the martyr/soul foundry stage just below the topmost volute stage as powering a computation per martyr 19:54:29 I think that, if you replaced the foundry stage with a layer, and used the card slots saved by that to give you even one more starting token for the first computation, it would produce a larger output – but I don't fully understand the construction so may well be wrong 19:55:46 because while the volute stage is locked, you don't run computations, so you're creating some function of the amount of life you have – this is a fast-growing function but it's still computable, and thus an irrelevant part of the overall construction 19:56:15 and what's actually needed is to save as many card slots as possible for it, rather than making it grow as fast as possible 19:56:41 err, not of the amount of life, of the amount of martyr tokens 19:57:32 because you could just get the Flooding Waterfall Model program to compute the same function before outputting, with a constant-sized amount of overhead 20:01:22 but a layer at the top of a stage doesn't do anything. just go into the stage with 2 more life or one more 20:01:23 R 20:02:21 exactly – my point is that even that does more than putting a stage below the computation 20:03:32 but its also still a stage for rebuilding the rest of the stack, the real work it does is in providing transitions 20:05:16 I feel like a stage is necessarily either too large or not large enough for that 20:05:33 it isn't large enough to handle BB levels of output, but a layer would be large enough to handle anything smaller 20:06:03 consider after we have run out of life for computations above the first worldfire, we run through the awaiting transition triggers to get back into a state to cast worldfire again 20:07:03 when we cast worldfire, the stack is the same as it was but we are down some fraction of the martyr stage below those transitions 20:10:42 OK, so you're casting worldfire at instant speed with a whole load of martyr triggers on the stack below it, and the number of martyr triggers determines how many times you can cast worldfire at that particular stack state 20:10:52 yes 20:11:24 the topmost martyr stages are worthless yes 20:11:41 but in the middle of the stack they get rebuild with updated BB heights 20:11:47 which a layer could not no 20:11:55 not do 20:12:55 most of the time we will be at the top of the stack and BB computations dominate. 20:13:14 we want to iterate those as much as possible 20:13:26 but in any given batch of consecutive martyr triggers, there's no way to increase the size of the batch based on a computation once the batch has already been created 20:13:40 and the initial size of the batch is based on a BB output 20:14:31 or, hmm, maybe not? this is really confusing 20:14:49 but the number of BB iterations we get is the important thing 20:15:43 what I am wondering about is whether we can just make the batches of triggers larger, rather than using them more efficiently 20:16:20 they get larger as the combo goes 20:16:31 yes, of course 20:17:30 so when we reach the bottom of the stack, we remake the stack with more layers and stages 20:18:41 because BB_N(X+1) so I think the point where the problem is (if there is a problem) is that in the foundry stage, in between creating and using the transition, no computations run, you are just taking tokens and very efficiently converting them to storm 20:20:55 err, not tokens, triggers 20:21:07 only at the very top of the stack, we can leave all of those triggers on the stack and do computations above them, 20:21:32 not while the foundry stage is locked 20:21:35 storm does get converted into computations as well 20:22:10 like, the whole batch of ashnod-triggers has to be converted into storm all at once 20:22:20 you can't do computations in the middle of converting the batch 20:22:47 but that particular conversion might actually already be as simple as possible 20:22:50 in terms of card slots 20:23:13 so maybe there isn't an inefficiency 20:25:06 brb 20:25:08 we can leave ashnod triggers on the stack and retarget the martys when the ashnods resolve 20:35:08 oh, you *iterate* the busy beaver function. so that's why you need to capture the output of the busy beaver in a usable form! that's what I didn't understand the last time 20:37:49 FortyTwoBB: back 20:37:51 I think I was wrong 20:38:04 and I think the reason is that I didn't understand the difference between a hyperstage and two stages 20:38:43 yeah converting the output into the next bb computation input is easy 20:40:21 technically we might only be able to make BB(BB(X)-1) when we iterate but that -1 is pretty irrelevant 20:41:13 b_jonas: it's not just iterating it, it's an Ackermann-like function that has a busy beaver in rather than a multiplication 20:41:14 yeah higher order stages are kind of crazy 20:41:23 and that's just a single stage 20:41:38 the higher order stages are somewhat hard to comprehend, as this conversation indicates 20:42:46 -!- Noisytoot has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds). 20:42:58 [[Cyclic Amplification System]] M https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=118420&oldid=68232 * PythonshellDebugwindow * (+17) /* Another example for a computation that does many executions finitely */ Rectwrap 20:47:18 “ (the official ruling is presumably ‘look at the English card text’)” => it always is, because the other language texts are not generally updated when the oracle text is changed, unless the card is reprinted. also because the comp. rules doesn't have translations, and I don't think there's even an easy way to find the english word from a magic-specific word (eg. keyword or type or 20:47:24 subtype) in a foreign language, there are no translation tables published. as far as the rules go, nothing but the current oracle text matters, and that exists only in English. 20:47:50 also the translations often have major errors in 20:48:10 I think as recently as this year, there was a translated card printed with the wrong mana cost for an ability 20:48:14 -!- Noisytoot has joined. 20:49:28 Yeah they have gotten better, but mistackes still happen 20:50:04 hasnt been another 'card-by-name walking atlas in english for a while 20:50:19 'card-by-name walking atlas 20:50:40 `card-by-name walking atlas 20:50:41 Walking Atlas \ 2 \ Artifact Creature -- Construct \ 1/1 \ {T}: You may put a land card from your hand onto the battlefield. \ WWK-C 20:50:57 (backtick, not quote) 20:51:33 yeah thats the oracle text, the printed card is not an artifact 20:51:56 they just left that word off 20:54:09 “ … in languages other than English, which don't make a distinction between ‘a’ and ‘the’” => since last year they stopped printing new sets in korean, russian, and chinese traditional, so there's at most two of those standing, but there are of course lots of other reasons why it can be hard to figure out the rules from the translated text 20:54:57 But oracle text is almost always good enough to define how the card works within the rules 20:55:02 I expect "an exiled card" would be used only on cards that normally exile multiple, and on those the translated text is likely clear that the second ability affects only one of them 20:56:51 `card-by-name dominating licid 20:56:53 Dominating Licid \ 1UU \ Creature -- Licid \ 1/1 \ {1}{U}{U}, {T}: Dominating Licid loses this ability and becomes an Aura enchantment with enchant creature. Attach it to target creature. You may pay {U} to end this effect. \ You control enchanted creature. \ EX-R 20:57:08 does not work because of layers 20:57:22 does nowadays, they finally errata'd it and/or changed the rules so that it would work 20:57:31 after a small but vocal minority complained for years 20:57:41 ♥ 20:57:42 oh? what changed? 20:58:03 I can't remember 20:58:59 oh, I think the bot may have brought up the post-errata version 20:59:21 "You control enchanted creature" is now part of its text even as a creature, so there isn't a layers issue with whether that ability exists or not 20:59:54 Ah thats a clever change 21:02:52 [[Trigational Pseudoomninumitype]] M https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=118421&oldid=108921 * PythonshellDebugwindow * (+24) Category 21:02:52 yeah, it's mostly just the oracle text that matters, except (1) you have to find the version of the oracle text as it was at the start of a tournament if it's been updated during the tournament, and (2) between a set releases and the comp. rules is updated you have to use the set FAQ / release notes to determine how any new functionality like new keywords work. 21:02:53 -!- Thelie1 has quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds). 21:03:03 [[Trigational Pseudoomninumitype]] M https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=118422&oldid=118421 * PythonshellDebugwindow * (+0) /* Examples */ 21:05:21 the numbers go higher than I can imagine then, if your construction really works 21:05:58 even one iteration of the busy beaver function goes higher than anyone can imagine, if it's starting from a sufficiently large number (which could be quite small) 21:06:08 -!- __monty__ has quit (Quit: leaving). 21:07:27 so roughly the stack structure is some layers at the bottom, then three stages, then worldfire transitions for each red, each worldfire has a spite transition for each 2 life, then each of those has a martyr stage in between. 21:07:35 yes, because the BB of a sufficiently large number will very likely be not determined by ZFC, and even in an esoteric model like this, a few exponentials of code size should be more than enough to reach that stage 21:07:40 and at the top of the stack is computation 21:08:41 unless I made a mistake calculating the complexity class, we're definitely within three exponentials of a Turing machine and probably within two 21:08:42 isn't the bound down to like bb(700) to break out of ZFC? 21:09:00 last time I looked it was a four-digit number, but I haven't been paying that much attention 21:09:51 FortyTwo: not here, because we're using flooding waterfall, and with the matrix entries encoded in unary (eg. you need as many token copies as the sum of matrix entries), that's much less efficient than turing machines or anything like that 21:10:23 yeah so we need like BB(700^^^700) 21:10:51 but I'm hoping that you can generate a large enough number with the parts of the deck outside of the waterfall thing to take off, and that there are enough creature types available 21:11:06 b_jonas: fwiw it wouldn't surprise me if one exponential were possible, via using a fixed-size interpreter that decodes the program to interpret from a constant 21:11:40 [[Yoob]] M https://esolangs.org/w/index.php?diff=118423&oldid=42296 * PythonshellDebugwindow * (-6) /* External resources */ Update link 21:11:41 there are definitely enough creature types available, the original waterfall model can be done in 7 counters, flooding waterfall model can be done in less than 100 21:12:05 and the waterfall thing can take off with hardly any tokens because you don't need to be TC on the first iteration, just generate an output larger than the input 21:12:45 and flooding waterfall model can do an exponentiation on incredibly limited resources, as long as you want to output the result rather than doing further computations with it 21:14:17 you need just one creature type per clock, plus a constant overhead, right? 21:14:44 for flooding waterfall model, it's one creature type per flooding waterclock 21:14:55 good 21:14:59 yeah, so we can have 250+ clocks 21:15:19 there are about 280 creature types in Magic these days 21:15:46 (of course the reality is probably even bigger than what we can prove) 21:16:23 Its still on the order of BB(X) 21:17:10 what is the best way to prove that a language is Turing Complete? 21:17:15 -!- FreeFull has quit. 21:17:21 sorry, I mean the reality for how small code size you need to start to take off is likely lower than what we can prove is enough 21:18:01 fellow: there's a range of languages designed for proving things TC; you have to either write a compiler from one of those into your language, or to write an interpreter for one of those in your language 21:18:07 fellow: compile an existing simple computational model to it, such as two-stack machines, two-counter Minsky machines 21:18:23 one of my big esolang projects has been trying to work out the best languages to use as the source 21:18:29 ais523: but then how are those languages proven to be Turing Complete? 21:18:48 fellow: normally with a chain of progressively simpler languages implementing each other 21:18:49 When You really want to prove something, You will find Ways. 21:19:02 fellow: the same way, just with a few simulation layers until you get to whatever language you take as the definition of Turing-complete 21:19:14 but, most of the chain has been proven already, so you only need to do the bit at the end of the chain 21:19:50 what is relevant here in Minsky machines, which you prove Turing-complete by simulating a finite control multi-stack machine on one 21:19:54 b_jonas: sounds circular to me. if Turing completeness is always defined in terms of another language, how can we ever be sure which language is turing complete. somewhere we need to break the cycle, no? 21:20:05 for what it's worth, I currently believe that the easiest languages to compile from are either simple queue-based tarpits or simple counter-based tarpits, and which is simpler depends on the nature of data storage in your target language 21:20:12 thanks. minsky machine. need to learn about it. 21:20:18 fellow: it's rooted at Turing machines, which are Turing-complete by definition 21:20:22 it eventually comes back down to a turing maching 21:20:33 fellow: no, you define Turing-completeness in terms of one specific language, and then you take a chain of simulations to that one language 21:21:00 you could pick any other TC language as the example that defines the whole set, but Turing machines were picked early and the choice stuck (I guess it doesn't really matter) 21:21:55 so Brainfuck without the two I/O commands is still turing complete if given infinite memory cells? 21:22:02 different people can have different preferences of the definition, it doesn't matter as long as we can prove them equivalent using simulations 21:22:21 fellow: yes, Brainfuck without IO on an infinite tape is Turing-complete 21:22:29 fellow: for what it's worth, my current "simplest picks" for counter-based languages are https://esolangs.org/wiki/The_Waterfall_Model and https://esolangs.org/wiki/Brainpocalypse_II, and for queue-based languages are the various simplified tag machines, https://esolangs.org/wiki/Cyclic_tag_system or https://esolangs.org/wiki/Tag_system are probably the most commonly used there 21:22:50 fellow: I/O isn't needed for Turing-completeness, the definition doesn't consider IO at all 21:22:55 the Church-Turing thesis showed the computational class all being equivalently powerful for computation/work/simulation/etc 21:23:02 so we sometimes talk about, e.g., BF-completeness when we care about I/O working 21:23:53 for the two Magic: the Gathering constructions, M:tG is simulating Flooding Waterfall, which is simualting The Waterfall Machine, which is simulating a Minsky machine, which is simulating a multi-stack machine 21:24:48 b_jonas: it's simulating Flooding Waterfall Model, which is compiled to from The Waterfall Model, which is interpreting Spiral Rise, which is interpreting a tag system (and Turing machines can be compiled into tag systems) 21:24:51 except that the Flooding Waterfall, Waterfall, and Minsky machine stages are strictly limited in how many clocks or counter they can have, because of the limit of 280 or so creature types 21:25:07 the Spiral Rise interpreter is known to fit within the required number of creature types, which is the reason to do it that way 21:25:07 oh, it goes through tag systems instead of Minsky machines? 21:25:11 I see 21:25:28 ok, what ais523 says then 21:26:04 one weird observation I've had recently, which feels like it might be more than a coincidence, is that it's easiest to compile counter machines into counter machines and queue automata into queue automata (unsurprisingly), but also to interpret counter machines with queue automata and queue automata with counter machines 21:26:06 yeah 7 clocks is enough for a UTM in waterfall, so like 50 clocks is enough to simulate that in flooding 21:26:29 -!- tromp has quit (Quit: My iMac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…). 21:26:31 50 would be enough if you could start up with damage marked on the tokens 21:26:47 in practice you need a few more because that isn't a valid startup state 21:28:06 ais523: um, I don't understand. Minsky machines should be able to interpret multi-stack machines more directly than Minsky machines can interpret queue automata 21:28:08 yeah i dont think we can start predamaged 21:28:47 FortyTwoBB: it's fine, there's already a construction to compute a predamaged state rather than starting in it 21:28:55 it's just, that computation needs extra counters to work 21:29:08 how do queue automata come into this if you start from counter machines (as opposed to if you start from M:tG or Waterfall)? 21:29:28 b_jonas: so the basic idea is that a stack is encoded in counters using the digits of a number 21:29:54 and a queue can be encoded the same way, you just need to know where the back of the queue is in order to push onto it (via addition) 21:30:35 but if you don't track the end of the queue and instead just move the push position a set number of place values each time, the resulting language is still generally TC anyway 21:30:57 ais523: yes, and Minsky machines can only access the lowest digits, like a stack; as opposed to eg. blindfolded arithmetic which could use a number as a deque of digits directly by using an extra counter that stores the unit of the highest digit 21:31:06 (in fact it is possible to design simple TC queue automata where every cycle pushes a constant amount onto the queue, so the position of the back of the queue moves linearly) 21:31:20 oh! 21:31:25 b_jonas: they can only *read* the lowest digits 21:31:39 writing at the most significant end is not particularly difficult, though 21:32:17 so in Minsky machine you can have an unshift-push-pop queue (which can't shift) directly 21:32:23 that's nice, I haven't realized that 21:32:25 right 21:32:50 this is basically the data structure I used in Esimpl, although I didn't realise at the time how well it mapped onto counter machines 21:33:11 how many counters do you need for that to start to work? four? 21:33:27 maybe three is enough 21:33:58 two counters can implement any number of counters, so the answer to that depends on the extent to which you're allowed to cheat, which is hard to objectively define 21:34:07 yeah 21:34:09 lol 21:35:30 maybe I didn't realize this because I don't usually *want* to simulate queues instead of stacks 21:35:38 -!- tromp has joined. 21:35:43 but, Spiral Rise can be implemented with (6 + 1 halt) Waterfall Model counters or (5 + 1 halt) tag system states 21:36:04 which gets around the lack-of-objective-definition problem by charging for the control flow in addition to the data storage 21:36:21 err, tag system symbols, not states 21:37:52 and this matters because the translation from Waterfall to Flooding Waterfall is somewhat inefficient in the number of clocks, right? 21:38:38 b_jonas: yes – it's linear but the constant factor is fairly bad 21:38:48 its like 7 clocks per clock plus some overhead 21:39:07 ok 21:41:53 I think it's 6 clocks per clock, + constant overhead, + startup overhead, but the startup overhead is linear in the number of clocks 21:42:04 at least with the way ais523 found to do it. its possible that theres a better way, but that's not super relevant 21:42:45 there is almost certainly a better way, but not much incentive to find it at this point 21:43:32 right 21:43:55 yeah this works comfortably and isn't massively more inefficient than necessary 21:44:41 because as long as you fit in the 280 or so creature types, the actual number of creature types is unlikely to matter for the M:tG construction 21:44:49 exactly 21:47:42 if we were more limited and adding clocks to keep the necromancers alive and a clock or two to keep the output nice was starting to run into the limits of the namespace id be worried, but its nowhere close 21:50:06 this is so theoretical, in real games I think three is the largest number of different tokens that I've produced, perhaps four if I forgot something 21:50:33 absolutely 21:51:35 this deck is unlikely to win any normal game of vintage 21:52:48 a single force of will or force of vigor or force of negation in the wrong spot kills us 21:53:03 or not drawing the correct starting hand 21:53:38 the correct top like 19 cards 21:54:50 but I mean even in those 1/60! games we still force the opponent to draw, and nearly every deck has some 0 mana interaction on the draw. 21:54:54 my competitive version of the deck (which just aims to do a computation, not to do anything with the output) is now only six sideboard slots away from a real Legacy deck (Legacy rather than Vintage so that there's less disruption to fight through), although that deck cares a lot about its sideboard space 21:55:21 yes, it's ais's deck that tries to win games, but the part where the Flooding Waterfall program should fit in the 280 or so creature types applies just as much to ais's dekc 21:55:49 FortyTwoBB: one of the top Vintage decks at the moment is mono-white initiative, I don't think it has zero mana interaction pre-board other than start-of-game actions 21:56:03 so drawing it extra cards is not necessarily going to ruin your chances 21:56:26 solitude 21:56:46 ah yes 21:58:07 really its just the non-blue shops decks that might just have a mental misstep preboard 21:58:29 colorless shops doesn't even run that, apparently (I just checked a list of the top vintage decks) 21:59:00 although it has mindbreak traps in the sideboard, in case it goes up against a turn 1 combo deck 21:59:35 and we don't care about mental misstep 21:59:52 that said, the deck might potentially be able to combo through a solitude? 22:00:33 no solitude can interrupt computations 22:01:10 but that makes the deck go cooperatively infinite, and the opponent in this situation presumably isn't cooperating 22:01:46 well then the exile our riftsweeper and fizzle us 22:02:41 ah right, that's the chokepoint 22:03:32 the infinite in my competitive deck is *really* janky, it involves using a set of copies of Fractured Identity to transfer a Riftsweeper token back and forth between the players, while there are relevant cards in exile 22:03:32 I think we can still kill them, but its not nearly as impressive 22:03:54 but enough of them so that the opponent can't unexile enough to stop the combo 22:04:15 -!- tromp has quit (Quit: My iMac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…). 22:04:49 yeah trying to make SB cards do double duty as actually reasonable magic cards is tricky 22:07:02 anyway i g2g soon any thing else i can answer in the next few mins? 22:07:17 I don't think there's any pressing issues remaining 22:07:29 at least, not that I can think of right now 22:07:41 it is fun watching the progress of the construction in the thread 22:07:58 ill still logcheck if you think of something 22:08:14 ais523: you should still summarize or at least link your Netrunner construction from the wiki 22:08:28 b_jonas: I did on my user page, didn't I? 22:08:33 unless you are ok with me just reformatting the whole thing to wiki 22:08:42 ah yes, your user page links to it 22:08:51 -!- FortyTwoBB has quit (Quit: Client closed). 22:08:55 but even so, it should have a link from the main namespace too 22:09:10 so that it's found in normal searches