|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Darren New wrote:
>
> That seems to be talking about TMs, not CAs.
I can't believe I missed that. Once I read enough to see that the was
the link I remembered I clearly didn't read enough extra to verify that
it was actually talking about a CA! That'll learn me. The overall gist
still seems relevant though.
>
> Sure. I just didn't find it interesting, given there *are* CAs that are
> known to be (and easily provable to be) turing complete.
Personally I find it interesting, but interesting in a "ok, that's sort
of neat" way rather than as providing any sort of fundamental insight.
I basically agree with your assessment otherwise though.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |