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