Joel Dobrzelewski wrote:
> I do understand all universal computers are
> equivalent. But again: What program are these machines running? It is
> becoming clear to me - that is the real question.
They are running COBOL version 5.3. This language has been, and will remain with
us for ever. ;-)
In a message dated 7/2/2001 8:31:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< George, I like your idea. Is there any way to study/make use of the Zen
non-computer? Where's the mouse & keyboard? How can we explore the
plentitude?
Joel >>
More to the point, how (by what mater
Joel:
>I keep wondering: Exactly how does the Turing Machine read-write head move?
>What propels it? What is fluid motion?
You can conceive a Turing machine as just a table of
number controlling an unbounded one dimensional cellular automata.
But honestly I see it, either through a simple min
Bruno:
> There exists one dimensional *universal* automata.
Yes, but it has many internal states and is not minimal. Also... it does
not specify something very important...
What is this one-dimensional universal automaton doing?
What program is it running?
> If minimality + universality im
George:
> The observer's psyche then becomes the constraint of what he can
> observe. No computer needed. Just an observer and the Plenitude. The
> rest is first person emergent.
Yes, this is true. In fact I agree with you.
As a matter of practicality, it doesn't matter at all "what is at the
Joel (in his reply to Jacques Mallah):
>At this time, none of the elementary one-dimensional minimal
>cellular automata appear capable of universal computation.
>[...]
>Maybe three dimensions is the minimum needed to do this
>successfully. ?
There exists one dimensional *universal* automata.
Joel Dobrzelewski wrote:
> Jacques:
>
> > You guys are going about it all wrong. Sure, some computers seem
> > simpler than others. But there's no one way to pick the simplest.
I agree with Jacques that trying to define a computer is ridiculous. But
if we must choose one, there is a way to p
Jacques:
> You guys are going about it all wrong. Sure, some computers seem
> simpler than others. But there's no one way to pick the simplest.
Why not?
> The set of all is the simplest possibility, rather than choosing
> one "simple" program. (Joel's 3 dimensional cellular automata
> are
>From: "Joel Dobrzelewski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>All of this may seem academic really, since we all know that any
>universal computer is as good as any other. [...]
>But there MAY be some reasons to want to know exactly which algorithm is
>really being run on the bottom...
You guys are going
9 matches
Mail list logo
