>>>> 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?

1. It seems a logical and intuitive result.

2. Nobody has disproved it.

Post a reply to this message