No? Why would it?

In the negative case, it would say the idea doesn't pan out.

In the positive case, it would mean that you can use just S instead of S and K when doing combinator reduction, but doesn't change that this kind of reduction is not super efficient practically speaking.

▲

bingobangobungo 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I was thinking in specifically the positive, would compression or encoding potentially allow for more compact representation of programs. Like Kolmogorovs

	▲	inigyou an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		No not really. It's a thing you can do just because you can, like writing a book without the letter "e". Closer to the context of computation, it's like building a computer using only NAND gates. Or, given how restrictive the S combinator supposedly is, using only AND and OR gates. It won't make an efficient computer because your design is convoluted to all hell to make up for your choice to never use a NOT gate. Even the one made from NAND isn't efficient, because even though NAND can make any circuit without being too convoluted, it's not the most efficient way to make all circuits.
	▲	messe an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		If anything, this would be a less compact representation.