Kevin Wampler wrote:
>> 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.

Well, yeah. I mean, it was interesting that something as simple as a tiny 
linear CA could be made turing complete without actually obviously emulating 
a machine. I didn't find it "fundamentally" interesting. Certainly not 
something I'd call a "new science" for example. I.e., I think I'm agreeing 
with you.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message