
Wolfram's 2,3 Turing Machine Proof of Universality Flawed - nickb
http://cs.nyu.edu/pipermail/fom/2007-October/012156.html
======
Elfan
Or not? I do not have the expertise to evaluate the disagreement.

[http://forum.wolframscience.com/showthread.php?s=c34045c0fea...](http://forum.wolframscience.com/showthread.php?s=c34045c0feab14e8092c93f9d4f0268b&threadid=1472)

Wolfman responds as well:

<http://cs.nyu.edu/pipermail/fom/2007-October/012149.html>

~~~
aristus
"I don't think that the details of which particular Turing machine is or is
not universal are all that significant. What is significant, though, is how
widespread universality is in general. And currently the only way we have of
establishing that is to do the hard work of proving the universality or non-
universality of particular Turing machines."

I smell a rat. His "Universality" and how often it occurs is what he has yet
to prove.

~~~
Tichy
He proves it in all kinds of examples (I think NKS is full of them). Other
than that, he is just putting forward a hypothesis that some people might find
interesting to consider. What is wrong with that?

------
aristus
It's very interesting how much elbow room (or is it rope?) these
mathematicians give Wolfram regarding his new theory. I've read NKS, but
cannot claim to understand it. I am not qualified to judge his other
theoretical contributions. Does anyone here have the math chops to explain
the, as it were, political situation?

~~~
cperciva
Wolfram was smart once, but has become increasingly wacky lately. Nobody wants
to actually come out and say that Wolfram is nuts, but people are treating him
that way -- metaphorically speaking, smiling and nodding politely while
backing away slowly. Keep in mind that this is a culture where the quality of
one's mind is all-important, so accusing someone of being crazy is the worst
possible insult.

Maybe it will turn out that Wolfram has been right all along -- but until and
unless that happens, I think it's good that people who make wild and utterly
unsupported claims are met with great skepticism.

~~~
Tichy
So what wild and unsupported claims does Wolfram supposedly make? Seems to me
he went at great lengths to spell everything out, so "unsupported" sounds a
bit unfair to me.

~~~
ced
He claims that what he's shown in A New Kind of Science is revolutionary, but
the revolution has yet to happen. Maybe he's the only one to really get it and
he doesn't have enough time to better show "us" the way. It seems unlikely
though.

~~~
Tichy
OK, but that is not a mathematical claim. I thought you have a criticism of
his mathematical claims.

I think NKS ist at least entertaining, more than what can be said for many
other mathematicians work. And people are still wondering about the origin of
life, seems to me NKS could do more to show that life is likely to emerge than
many other approaches. It seems like a small thing, but maybe it is
revolutionary after all, if no other approach is making any headway.

~~~
ced
I personally don't have anything to oppose to the maths. Wolfram goes pretty
deep, and nothing is _obviously_ wrong, although some of it didn't feel right.
This review, however, goes into the details:
<http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/reviews/wolfram/>

Search for "untrue" if you want to get there directly.

I enjoyed NKS as well. It's good intellectual stimulation, but the hyperbole
was still annoying.

