Rule 110 automata

it's useless.

>>8866917
First of all, it's impossible to tell if it's a turing machine simply by looking at it.

You need to understand the theory of computation is a spectrum.

>>8866933
this is a recurring theme in science. Most things are a spectrum. Such as gender and sex. As Nye proved.

>>8866933
There is a proof somewhere, that this is actually turing complete machine.

>>8866952
I think it's in steve wolfram's a new kind of science

>>8866952
Oh. Does it prove the entire spectrum?

>>8866964
>>8866945
fuck off you children

File: 1482502439970.jpg (178KB, 750x864px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 750x864px

The main question I have, how would a very simple program look on this thing and how the result would look.
For example 1+2=3

>>8866945
>>8866964
haha meme :)

Have you read this and the paper it links?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_110#The_proof_of_universality

>>8867188
I somehow hoped for something more simple, well, okay..

>>8866917
>For example how would two number addition program or something similar would look?
Doesn't really work that way as far as I know. Yes, all calculations able to performed by a computer COULD be carried out by Rule 110, but all Michael Cook (the person who proved its universality) did was show that it was possible to construct another universal system within it. There might not be a way to easily do so in practice (could take vast amounts of memory).

Decent details here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_110#The_proof_of_universality

Proof here:
http://www.complex-systems.com/pdf/15-1-1.pdf

>>8866933
>>8866945
you remind me of an autist from /djt/, are you just sitting in /sci/ posting this shit in 100% of threads or what?

>>8866917
watch this video, it might give you some insight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP5-iIeKXE8

it's ridiculously complicated to produce, but you can make it so it adds 2 bits together (0+0=0, 0+1 or 1+0 = 1, and 1+1=0 with a carry out 1)

then you could produce an adder for any number of bits