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.