Hal Ruhl wrote: > > Here is a revised version of my comments on this subject. I think it fixes > several aspects of what I have had to say earlier. > > Standalone deterministic evolving universes: > > Such a universe is describable as a concatenation of single output programs > of the form: > > Rj(Aj) -> B; Rj(B) -> C; ... Rj(F) -> G; Rj(G) -> H; Rj(H) -> I; > .... > > "Rj" is a subset of the rules of an N-bit FAS. "Aj" is an axiom of that > FAS. There are no potential branches in or out. It is an elegant proof > and defines the complexity of each of its objects B,C,...F,G,H,I ... > > Because the proof is everywhere elegant each successive object is more > complex than its preimage. This is the type of theorem cascade I was > trying to identify. >
This last statement is surely incorrect. Because the map Rj is a mechanical application of rules, the complexity of B is no greater than that of Aj - you can only get out what you put in. Cheers ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Russell Standish Director High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967 UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965 Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED] Room 2075, Red Centre http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks ----------------------------------------------------------------------------