![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Could someone add a citation for: "Class 4 behavior," i'm sure there's some in NKS. It would be very useful. New299 13:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Citations to some sort of news source are also needed for the history section. -- Jordo ex ( talk) 15:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
The pictures don't make any sense to me. What are the pictures of? Are they plots? If they're plots, then what are the axes? What does black represetn, what does white represent?-- ASL 00:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
The large images at the bottom of the article (well, actually most of the article) aren't that easy to follow. How do they interconnect? What the heck do they even do/show? The colored inlays are damned hard to read, even when watching the high-res versions. / 193.11.202.125 14:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
how can rule 110 be only proven rule capable of universal computation: reflections over left right yields rule 124, while switching 1s with zeros yields 145 & 131 as all posible. Saganatsu 23:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be links to rule 181 and 30? I unfortunally do not know how one create an "see also" section.
This topic is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. The section or sections that need attention may be noted in a message below. |
![]() | This article may be
confusing or unclear to readers. (October 2007) |
I think the reasoning behind these tags is self-evident... < eleland/ talk edits> 22:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Can someone please update? See http://blog.wolfram.com/2007/10/the_prize_is_won_the_simplest.html -- cslarsen 12:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I read Smith's proof, downloadable as http://www.wolframscience.com/prizes/tm23/TM23Proof.pdf. Smith shows how to emulate an arbitrary Turing machine A with a machine B that reads a sequence of increasing initial conditions assembled by a machine C. The n-th initial condition allows B to emulate A for n steps. Since A is arbitrary and C is nonuniversal, Smith infers that B is universal. But by taking B to be a linear bounded automaton these conditions are easily met, and it is well known that linear bounded automata are not universal. Smith's argument therefore fails on account of an elementary fallacy of automata theory. -- Vaughan Pratt 08:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
But are touring machines in fact simpler than cellular automata? I believe it may be possible that rule 110 is simpler than the 2,3 machine. I have taken out the part about the 2,3 machine being simpler until someone can show me a citation proving me wrong.
Exploto (
talk) 00:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the idea is that there are 8 possible states on rule 110, on 3,2 machine there is only 6 states. 177.92.128.26 ( talk) 16:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
This article needs to start with an explanation about why this set of state transformations is called "Rule 110".- 69.87.200.16 ( talk) 01:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
See Talk:Rule 30#Suggested name change-- RDBury ( talk) 16:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The article describes class 4 behaviour as "neither completely random nor completely repetitive." However, given that cellular automata are totally deterministic systems, no cellular automaton can be random. Furthermore, since the evolution of a cellular automaton is computed by repeatedly applying the same rules, all cellular automata are, in some sense, completely repetitive. I understand the spirit of the description, but it doesn't seem precise enough. How about describing class 4 behaviour as "neither completely chaotic nor completely stable?" Does someone who knows more about the topic think that this is an accurate description? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.83.176 ( talk) 02:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Having implemented Rule 110 on a 1280 X 1024 monitor screen (that is, to much greater detail than is shown here) I can see the second pattern moving as described, BUT it doesn't seem to comply strictly with the definition of spaceship. To me, it seems more of a "comet" rather than a "spaceship"; in that whilst there is movement, there is no single particular shape that is repeated. For example, in generations (is that the right word?) 600 to 690 (or thereabouts), in the area of interest there is no change at all. Old_Wombat ( talk) 09:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, I've done a few more 110-runs with quasi-random data which has cleared up a lot. There are both comets and spaceships and the example given of pattern 2 is correct but rather poor. I can supply a better one, and I've even coloured it! Old_Wombat ( talk) 08:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
The '64 possible unique' probably needs explaining. I presume the value 64 is derived from:
256 (total rules) / 2 (for 0/1 <-> 1/0 inversion) / 2 (x-axis symmetry) = 64 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.138.80 ( talk) 11:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
So, um is there any particular reason that this article doesn't use the citation templates for its references? And if it must continue not to use them, could someone please add a comment referencing an appropriate style guide for the citation format in use? — SamB ( talk) 16:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Rule 110. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I was contested twice without sources 1 2, but Rule 110 can be used to demonstrate if Computer language is a computable language
@David Eppstein, I don't think I have interest to explain http://stackoverflow.com/a/5239256 or https://github.com/elitheeli/stupid-machines in detail, so just I leave references at talk page.
I'm not author of the Category:Test items but as author of Category:Test items in computer languages, it wasn't meant to contain "only popular programs". I think that some of the test items can be used rarely. Ushkin N ( talk) 16:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Could someone add a citation for: "Class 4 behavior," i'm sure there's some in NKS. It would be very useful. New299 13:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Citations to some sort of news source are also needed for the history section. -- Jordo ex ( talk) 15:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
The pictures don't make any sense to me. What are the pictures of? Are they plots? If they're plots, then what are the axes? What does black represetn, what does white represent?-- ASL 00:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
The large images at the bottom of the article (well, actually most of the article) aren't that easy to follow. How do they interconnect? What the heck do they even do/show? The colored inlays are damned hard to read, even when watching the high-res versions. / 193.11.202.125 14:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
how can rule 110 be only proven rule capable of universal computation: reflections over left right yields rule 124, while switching 1s with zeros yields 145 & 131 as all posible. Saganatsu 23:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be links to rule 181 and 30? I unfortunally do not know how one create an "see also" section.
This topic is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. The section or sections that need attention may be noted in a message below. |
![]() | This article may be
confusing or unclear to readers. (October 2007) |
I think the reasoning behind these tags is self-evident... < eleland/ talk edits> 22:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Can someone please update? See http://blog.wolfram.com/2007/10/the_prize_is_won_the_simplest.html -- cslarsen 12:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I read Smith's proof, downloadable as http://www.wolframscience.com/prizes/tm23/TM23Proof.pdf. Smith shows how to emulate an arbitrary Turing machine A with a machine B that reads a sequence of increasing initial conditions assembled by a machine C. The n-th initial condition allows B to emulate A for n steps. Since A is arbitrary and C is nonuniversal, Smith infers that B is universal. But by taking B to be a linear bounded automaton these conditions are easily met, and it is well known that linear bounded automata are not universal. Smith's argument therefore fails on account of an elementary fallacy of automata theory. -- Vaughan Pratt 08:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
But are touring machines in fact simpler than cellular automata? I believe it may be possible that rule 110 is simpler than the 2,3 machine. I have taken out the part about the 2,3 machine being simpler until someone can show me a citation proving me wrong.
Exploto (
talk) 00:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the idea is that there are 8 possible states on rule 110, on 3,2 machine there is only 6 states. 177.92.128.26 ( talk) 16:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
This article needs to start with an explanation about why this set of state transformations is called "Rule 110".- 69.87.200.16 ( talk) 01:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
See Talk:Rule 30#Suggested name change-- RDBury ( talk) 16:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The article describes class 4 behaviour as "neither completely random nor completely repetitive." However, given that cellular automata are totally deterministic systems, no cellular automaton can be random. Furthermore, since the evolution of a cellular automaton is computed by repeatedly applying the same rules, all cellular automata are, in some sense, completely repetitive. I understand the spirit of the description, but it doesn't seem precise enough. How about describing class 4 behaviour as "neither completely chaotic nor completely stable?" Does someone who knows more about the topic think that this is an accurate description? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.83.176 ( talk) 02:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Having implemented Rule 110 on a 1280 X 1024 monitor screen (that is, to much greater detail than is shown here) I can see the second pattern moving as described, BUT it doesn't seem to comply strictly with the definition of spaceship. To me, it seems more of a "comet" rather than a "spaceship"; in that whilst there is movement, there is no single particular shape that is repeated. For example, in generations (is that the right word?) 600 to 690 (or thereabouts), in the area of interest there is no change at all. Old_Wombat ( talk) 09:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, I've done a few more 110-runs with quasi-random data which has cleared up a lot. There are both comets and spaceships and the example given of pattern 2 is correct but rather poor. I can supply a better one, and I've even coloured it! Old_Wombat ( talk) 08:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
The '64 possible unique' probably needs explaining. I presume the value 64 is derived from:
256 (total rules) / 2 (for 0/1 <-> 1/0 inversion) / 2 (x-axis symmetry) = 64 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.138.80 ( talk) 11:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
So, um is there any particular reason that this article doesn't use the citation templates for its references? And if it must continue not to use them, could someone please add a comment referencing an appropriate style guide for the citation format in use? — SamB ( talk) 16:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Rule 110. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I was contested twice without sources 1 2, but Rule 110 can be used to demonstrate if Computer language is a computable language
@David Eppstein, I don't think I have interest to explain http://stackoverflow.com/a/5239256 or https://github.com/elitheeli/stupid-machines in detail, so just I leave references at talk page.
I'm not author of the Category:Test items but as author of Category:Test items in computer languages, it wasn't meant to contain "only popular programs". I think that some of the test items can be used rarely. Ushkin N ( talk) 16:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)