TS;SI: Unless you have a receipt for "A new kind of science" AND "Gödel, Escher, Bach" You can forget figuring out if you know what you are saying: Rule 110 is

TS;SI: Unless you have a receipt for "A new kind of science" AND "Gödel, Escher, Bach" You can forget figuring out if you know what you are saying: Rule 110 is Turing complete. Mathematica, for which the proof of Rule 110 is Turing Complete. C++ The programming language, for which Mathemetica is written in, is Turing Complete. All the theory is correct, BUT any implementation of Rule 110, Mathemetica and C++ are NOT Turing Complete, even if you turned every atom in the universe into the tape of a Turing machine, because the universe is finite. It has a finite number of atoms, but the theory? You have made an arbitrary causal network between the idea of Rule 110, and its implementation in C++. Its arbitrary, and minds much greater than yours can enjoy and understand this distinction, as does Stephen, and I. See Pages 770ff. You can compile rule 110 into a Mathemetica notebook, you can output it in x86 assembler. Since they are the same, i.e. they produce the exact outputs, and can determine computability "Turing completeness is a term in computer science that describes the ability of a system to compute any possible calculation or program, and can be used to describe modern programming languages (Python, C++, etc.). Turing complete describes a programmable system that can solve any computational problem." Now, how about a little bit of reading? https://philarchive.org/archive/CASOTC-3 https://philarchive.org/archive/CASOTC-3 "Virtually all programming languages today are Turing-complete." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_completeness