Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wolfram's 2,3 Turing Machine Not Universal

Posted by kdawson on from the whoa-not-so-fast-there-big-fella dept.

Fishbat writes "In a cutting message to the Foundations of Mathematics mailing list, Stanford's Vaughan Pratt has pointed out an elementary mistake in the recently announced proof that Wolfram's (2,3) machine is universal." Update: 10/30 04:18 GMT by KD : Ed Pegg Jr. from Wolfram Research points to this response to Dr. Pratt's note, which has been submitted to the FoM mailing list but has not yet appeared there due to moderation.

1 of 284 comments (clear)

  1. duh by zanderredux · · Score: -1, Redundant

    From TFA:

    As Chomsky showed half a century ago, linear bounded automata are not universal Turing machines.

    Well, hello-o? This is absolutely obvious! How could they not realize this? I mean, the universality of Turing machines is... gosh, what the heck does this mean?