"What has happened, though, is that questions that have not been discussed since the 1950s are (this week) back in vogue again."
Key point. This discussion is direct evidence. The majority of the replies to this thread are cheap blows at Stephen Wolfram, and jealous comments about Alex Smith. If you want to discuss the science behind Wolfram's work, then do that. Obviously Wolfram is searching for something that very few understand at all. All of this childish sarcasm shows how Wolfram's concepts in "A New Kind of Science" are less understood then they should be for proper peer review. Stop trying to play if you don't know the rules! It's like discussing free trade with a sociologist and an economist from the University of Chicago - they're not on the same page. Don't get me wrong - the main point is - you're not upsetting Wolfram, you're only inspiring him.
Slashdot Mirror
"What has happened, though, is that questions that have not been discussed since the 1950s are (this week) back in vogue again." Key point. This discussion is direct evidence. The majority of the replies to this thread are cheap blows at Stephen Wolfram, and jealous comments about Alex Smith. If you want to discuss the science behind Wolfram's work, then do that. Obviously Wolfram is searching for something that very few understand at all. All of this childish sarcasm shows how Wolfram's concepts in "A New Kind of Science" are less understood then they should be for proper peer review. Stop trying to play if you don't know the rules! It's like discussing free trade with a sociologist and an economist from the University of Chicago - they're not on the same page. Don't get me wrong - the main point is - you're not upsetting Wolfram, you're only inspiring him.