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