Hal Ruhl wrote:
>
> Here is a revised version of my comments on this subject. I think it fixes
> several aspects of what I have had to say earlier.
>
> Standalone deterministic evolving universes:
>
> Such a universe is describable as a concatenation of single output programs
> of the form:
>
> Rj(Aj) -> B; Rj(B) -> C; ... Rj(F) -> G; Rj(G) -> H; Rj(H) -> I;
> ....
>
> "Rj" is a subset of the rules of an N-bit FAS. "Aj" is an axiom of that
> FAS. There are no potential branches in or out. It is an elegant proof
> and defines the complexity of each of its objects B,C,...F,G,H,I ...
>
> Because the proof is everywhere elegant each successive object is more
> complex than its preimage. This is the type of theorem cascade I was
> trying to identify.
>
This last statement is surely incorrect. Because the map Rj is a
mechanical application of rules, the complexity of B is no greater
than that of Aj - you can only get out what you put in.
Cheers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Russell Standish Director
High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965
Australia R.Standish.domain.name.hidden
Room 2075, Red Centre
http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wed Apr 18 2001 - 18:43:43 PDT