On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 11:06:11AM -0400, Richard Loosemore wrote: > > In case anyone else wonders about the same question, I will explain why > the Turing machine equivalence has no relevance at all.
Re-read what you wrote, substituting the phrase "Turing machine", for each and every occurrance of the phrase "GoL". The semantics of the resulting text is unchanged, and states nothing particularly unique or original that isn't already (well-)known about Turing machines. You can even substitute "finite state machine" or "pushdown automaton" at every point, and you argument would still be unchanged (although the result would not actually be Turing complete). That's because some finite automata are boring (cyclic in trivial ways), and some are interesting (generating potentially large and complex patterns). Most randomly generated finite automata will be simple, i.e. boring, and some will exhibit surprisingly complex behaviours. To be abstract, you could subsitute "semi-Thue system", "context-free grammar", "first-order logic", "Lindenmeyer system", "history monoid", etc. for GoL, and still get an equivalent argument about complexity and predicatability. Singling out GoL as somehow "special" is a red herring; the complexity properties you describe are shared by a variety of systems and logics. --linas ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=50680105-8a286e
