Invisible wrote:
>>> I think this is just a case of a flawed proof though. I'm pretty sure
>>> the *result* is correct.
>>
>> He's trying to prove that *his* CA is turing complete. I already know
>> there are lots of turing complete CAs. I'm not sure what "result" you
>> think is correct?
>
> That CA #30 (amoung others) is Turing-complete.
Why would you think this if the proof is flawed?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|