Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wolfram Offers Prize For (2,3) Turing Machine

Posted by kdawson on from the universal-or-not dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Stephen Wolfram, creator of Mathematica and author of A New Kind of Science, is offering a prize of $25K to anyone who can prove or disprove his conjecture that a particular 2-state, 3-color Turing machine is universal. If true, it would be the simplest universal TM, and possibly the simplest universal computational system. The announcement comes on the 5-year anniversary of the publication of NKS, where among other things Wolfram introduced the current reigning TM champion — 'rule 110,' with 2 states and 5 colors."

17 of 164 comments (clear)

  1. 33% solved. by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 4, Funny

    One of the colors must be blue so it can emulate Windows.

  2. Cock & Balls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is it just me... or is this graph not family-appropriate?

    1. Re:Cock & Balls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sad thing is, I posted anonymously 'cause I figured the mods would think that was a troll. And now, I'm posting anonymously because this is off topic. Just my luck, this will get modded up as "funny" again, just for the irony.

  3. Re:Sounds like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Wolfram has previously sued his own employees to keep them from publishing results, and there are many stories about him removing peoples' names from credits.

    Perhaps this is the only way he can now get creative people to work on problems like this.

  4. No Halting State by sugarmotor · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The description states that the machine has no halting-state.

    I couldn't make out what is to be interpreted as the result of a particular computation of this machine.

    Seems like a pretty important detail.

    Anyone know?

    Stephan

    --
    http://stephan.sugarmotor.org
    1. Re:No Halting State by drgonzo59 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      If it can emulate a known tag system proven to be a UTM then it is also a UTM. But of course, if you show that it can emulate your typical basic CPU you can also claim it's a UTM. The tag system is easier... I think.



      But the larger question is "so what?". So what if it is? When he found the (2,5) system to be, I don't recall the scientific comunity awarding him a Nobel Prize. No matter how much he can run his rule 110 he will not come up with animals, humans or planets. But the whole implication is that that's how "it" happened.



      I'll admit, I was one of the suckers who bought NKS before it was put online for free. I read it all -- it reads like bedtime story book. Wolframs "proofs" are mostly just statements like I strongly believe..., I am quite convinced... and look at the pretty pattern I just made! and so on. The most interesting thing was the appendix where he lists some the results and publications of actual scientists (you know the ones that don't define their own "new science" and then by definition become "scientists"...). I whish he would have made the appendix the main part of his book and added his "beliefs" as an appendix.



      Of course, he has loads of cash to just sit around and create "cool" patterns and then have a bunch of followers cheering each other on as they play with CA -- it's like they have their own little world, their contests, conferences, classes and so on. Can you say the word "cult" ?

  5. Cult of NKS by drgonzo59 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Let's see what Wolfram's NKS and Scientology have in common.

    1. Both closed self-contained, self-referencial systems. ... "This is the new kind of science, old science is obsolete"

    2. Both venerate a person: Wolfram and L. Ron Hubbard.

    3. Both have this "us" versus "them" mentality.

    4. Both have their beliefs and ideas disregarded and ridiculed by the most sane individuals (this just reinforces the cult group cohesion).

    5. Both have exclusive facilities & training (NKS Summer School), special meetings and conferences for the members. I don't know...looks like a cult to me... ;-)

    1. Re:Cult of NKS by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Thankfully they don't threaten and attack their opponents like scientologists do.

  6. Arrow of time is reversed in CA by hajus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The problem I have with CA being proposed as a model of a reality is that the arrow of time in CA seems to be backwards. In our reality, we know the past, but the future is uncertain. In cellular automata, the future can be predicted perfectly, but the states which were used to get to the current state are ambiguous. Large grids of such give the illusion of life (such as behaviour of predator/prey) but only a macroscopic scale even though time goes backward. But the arrow of time becomes very visible when the cells are focussed in on. If you decide to look at it in reverse time to satisfy the microscopic view, you don't get that feeling of life at the macroscopic scale.

    1. Re:Arrow of time is reversed in CA by julesh · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yep. California is one fucked-up place.

    2. Re:Arrow of time is reversed in CA by egomaniac · · Score: 4, Informative

      In reality the future is completely fixed? I'm guessing you're not a physicist. Quantum mechanics is an inherently probabilistic theory -- you can calculate the probability of given events happening, but that's it. You can smash the same two particles together five times in a row and get five different results.

      The future is absolutely not fixed, because randomness is deeply engrained into our universe.

      --
      ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
  7. NKS online, step right up, get your nonsense! by drgonzo59 · · Score: 4, Informative
    The nonsense is free online. Wow, now millions of people can read it, waste time ...and make fun it.. hopefully.

    Crazy NKS "goodness" for your reading "pleasure": here .

    Trust me, even if it is free, after reading it, you'll want your "free" back.

  8. batshit insanity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    ".. a rare blend of monster raving egomania and utter
    batshit insanity"

    Cosma Rohilla Shalizi on S.Wolfram, A new kind of science

    http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/notebooks/cellula r-automata.html

  9. Re:NKS online, step right up, get your nonsense! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The nonsense is free online. Wow, now millions of people can read it, waste time ...and make fun it.. hopefully. Crazy NKS "goodness" for your reading "pleasure": here .

    Trust me, even if it is free, after reading it, you'll want your "free" back.

    You didn't actually read the damn thing, did you? I'm getting really tired of this mindless NKS bashing, no matter how fashionable it is. A book that was largely favorably reviewed in Notices of the American Mathematical Society cannot be 100% nonsense, can it really? I find it amusing that those who are most critical of NKS are almost never real scientists.

    There are some severe flaws with NKS. The fundamental philosophical claims are highly doubtful, the "new science" mentioned in its title does not live to its name, the egomaniacal tone, the passing off of other people's hard work as Wolfram's own, the revisionist history, etc. But that said, there is a lot to enjoy in the book. The footnotes are worth the price of a copy on their own, as they are in many ways one of the best exposés of the history of the 20th century focusing on computer science, mathematics and physics I have ever read.

    I knew a lot about CAs and discrete models before reading the book, most likely more than you know, or will ever know, and yet I really did learn a lot from it. You just have to be intelligent and well-versed enough to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff. Maybe that's your real problem with the book?

  10. I think Editors should give credit... by xtracto · · Score: 5, Informative

    And the person that made the proof of what is claimed in the summary was Matthew Cook, not Wolfram himself, Wolfram sued him because he presented his proof in another conference (can you believe what a jerk?).

    Of course the person that makes this proof will have to concede every right to Wolfram and therefore in some way the 25K are just a payment for such intellectual property.

    And the name removing has been mostly due to his book A new kind of science, where he "comes up" with several ideas that have been created by other authors. I would like to *believe* he makes the typical Master or junior PhD error of not looking hard for the current work but other people believe he just wanted to plagiarize other's people ideas.

    --
    Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    1. Re:I think Editors should give credit... by john82 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Of course the person that makes this proof will have to concede every right to Wolfram and therefore in some way the 25K are just a payment for such intellectual property. I can't speak to your characterization of the relationship between Cook and Wolfram, however your assertion regarding the disposition of any provided proof is at best uninformed if not outright FUD. From the rules:

      Submissions remain the sole property of submitter(s), but we reserve the right to publish summaries of any winning submission and the name of the submitter(s) on our website. It is also anticipated that any winning submission will be expanded into a scholarly paper that could be published in the Complex Systems journal.

      It was far too easy to follow the link in the original post and investigate.
  11. Re:NKS online, step right up, get your nonsense! by drgonzo59 · · Score: 5, Informative
    Yes I read it. I was one of the suckers who paid money for it before it was available online.

    There are some severe flaws with NKS.

    You bet!

    The fundamental philosophical claims are highly doubtful

    Check.

    ...the "new science" mentioned in its title does not live to its name

    Check

    the egomaniacal tone

    Also "Check"

    the passing off of other people's hard work as Wolfram's own, the revisionist history

    One more big "Check". -- This is what did it for me. I wish he made the appendix section the main part of the book. That's where he actually mentioned who did what before him and I found the examples there more interesting than Wolfram's prose + pictures. Yes, as scientist I am very sensitive and biased when it comes to passing someone's work as your own, that is very much a "no-no" in the scientific community. The only time the rest of the world hears about the scientists is when they discover something really amazing or plagiarize.

    Overall, was the reading insteresting?, -- it was alright for me. I learned some new things as well (but mostly things others did that W. re-did in Mathematica) about CA, tag systems, fractals and such. But it was anything but a "New Kind Of Science". It wasn't "New" (just re-packaged) and it wasn't a "Science" it was just prose. Apart from few examples, W.'s "proofs" consist of phrases like "I strongly believe X", "I am quite confident that Y" and "Look at the pretty picture I generated!".

    Trust me I tried to like it: I paid money for the book and spent time reading it, I didn't want o believe that I somehow 'wasted' it, but in the end I have to be honest to myself and say 'no' it isn't what it claims to be and 'yes' I wish I hadn't spent the time and money buying it.