On 07/10/2007, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > William Pearson wrote: > > On 07/10/2007, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The TM implementation not only has no relevance to the behavior of > GoL(-T) at all, it also has even less relevance to the particular claims > that I made about GoL (or GoL(-T)). > > If you think the TM implementation does impact it, you should > demonstrate exactly how. The TM implementation has no impact *itself* to any claims, and its removal equally has no bearing on the properties of the whole system. The impact it does have is to demonstrate the system it is implemented in is Turing Complete. Or computationally universal if you wish to avoid say the word Turing. Lets say I implemented a TM on my laptop, and then had my operating system disallow that program to be run. Would it stop my laptop being computationally universal, and all that entails about its predictability? Nope, because the computational universality doesn't rest on that implementation, it is merely demonstrated by it. And I believe that GoL was shown to be computationally universal in this paper Elwyn R. Berlekamp, John H. Conway, and Richard K. Guy. Winning Ways for your Mathematical Plays, volume 2. Academic Press, ISBN 0-12-091152-3, 1982. chapter 25. Before the Turing machine implementation you are talking about. Although admittedly I haven't read it, I am taking the CA FAQs word for it. Will Pearson ----- 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=50949772-936a60
