Wolfram's 2,3 Turing Machine Not Universal

Fishbat writes "In a cutting message to the Foundations of Mathematics mailing list, Stanford's Vaughan Pratt has pointed out an elementary mistake in the recently announced proof that Wolfram's (2,3) machine is universal." Update: 10/30 04:18 GMT by KD : Ed Pegg Jr. from Wolfram Research points to this response to Dr. Pratt's note, which has been submitted to the FoM mailing list but has not yet appeared there due to moderation.

"from the whoa-not-so-fast-there-big-fella dept"

[ZorbaTHut]

Yeah, speaking of that . . .

"Wolfram's 2,3 Turing Machine Not Universal". What? Where'd you get that? This issue doesn't prove anything of the sort - it merely shows that this proof is invalid. It may be universal, it may not, but we still don't know.

So, ironically - whoa, not so fast there big editor.

Bad romantic consequence

[Hao Wu]

I hope that this young man's girlfriend stands by him. So many women would be driven away from an otherwise suitable boyfriend who is skilled at the maths.

Where are my meds?

[synthespian]

Jesus Christ, is Wolfram out of Lithium again?

Re:duh

[schon]

the universality of Turing machines is... gosh, what the heck does this mean?

It means you need to study more for your CS exams.

Re:Proven?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently some Slashdot editors have still to defeat the gargantuan misteries of propositional calculus...

Can I get a refund

[stinkfish]

for the Wolfram's 2,3 Turing Machine I bought from amazon?

Re:Proven?

[EvanED]

Apparently some Slashdot editors have still to defeat the gargantuan misteries of propositional calculus...

Or, you know, English.

I rate this proof

[MillionthMonkey]

(Score: 2,3 Possibly Informative)

Re:The Filter

[Anonymous Coward]

"p.s. I have no connection to the book or the author. I'm just a very happy customer."

Hey Michael, long time no post.

The prize stands -

[Anonymous Coward]

he was just using a new kind of proof.

Re:Pay back?

[ruinous]

What does Will Smith have to do with this?!

Re:The Filter

[HeadlessNotAHorseman]

Wolfram's 2,3 Turing Machine Not Universal
HOLLYWOOD - In a shock move, MGM has undercut Universal in its bid for the movie rights to Wolfram's 2,3 Turing Machine. Insiders had predicted that Universal would make the deal to build on the phenomenal success of Wolfram's 2,2 Turing Machine, but it has since become apparent that Universal failed to include an option for all sequels in the original contract. The exact figure offered by MGM is unknown, but is believed to be approximately x + y, and we can confirm that y is a finite number. More details will follow.

Re:Can I get a refund

[rubycodez]

only if the infinite tape is mostly unused

Re:I rate this proof

[Alsee]

(Score: 2,3 Possibly Universal)

-

Re:Can I get a refund

[Anonymous Coward]

Just cut out the used part, and tape the two ends together. No one will ever know the difference.

Re:Wow...

[jpop32]

Jeez, Can someone please give me the short version explanation about why everyone is bagging on Wolfram?

Well, the very short version is that he is not a very nice person. And, basically, he said 'fuck you' to the traditional scientific community and went his separate way, turning from a prodigy to an outlaw. Which the traditional scientific community didn't appreciate much. And now they are, more or less, openly out to get him.

Which is, IMHO, unfortunate, because his scientific ideas should be judged on their merits alone.