What non-existent jargon?? I keep telling you already for two months that you can't overturn a well-known community consensus, just like you can't say "Sir Robin synthesis is not beyond current program reach" and it suddenly is not!!!!!!!Yoel wrote: ↑December 23rd, 2020, 8:00 amPlease try to comprehend that some people may use terminology slightly different from your personal jargon. I keep telling you already for two months that guns, reflectors, splitters and logic rules are not enough as a proof of Turing-completeness, because different rules have different wiring logistics. Now you are just saying exactly the same thing!!!! You just happen to call them "wire signals".Hunting wrote: ↑December 19th, 2020, 9:20 amThis is trivial as long as you have a way to canonise signals, which is very difficult - different rules have different kind of signals, spaceships, wire signals, wickstrechers, and other bizarre stuff. If you restrict it to stable splitters and orthogonal c/2 spaceships as signals I could do such a script in a minute easily.
1D rules are incomparable to 2D rules especially in circuitry, so shut up or at least stop talking nonsense, and respect other people.
No, I do not restrict it to stable splitters and orthogonal c/2 spaceships. Why should I? Can you do such a script in a minute way with unstable splitters and 2c/2 photons that get modified in the process of splitting in a variety of way, and change their phases like my multistate rules?
And where in hell did I claim that 1D rules are comparable to 2D rules (besides in some specific limited aspects or with very many states)? Rule110 units are obviously 2D! Emulators of simple synchronized logic gates. You can implement them easily with transistors, which would make them 3D. So what? Your transistors will suddenly become exotic 1D particles or something? Please try to understand your interlocutors next time before making rude comments.
Because you failed to canonise splitters into a machine-readable form.No, I do not restrict it to stable splitters and orthogonal c/2 spaceships. Why should I? Can you do such a script in a minute way with unstable splitters and 2c/2 photons that get modified in the process of splitting in a variety of way, and change their phases like my multistate rules?
Phasing is also trivial - say your splitter is p2 and it rephases your glider to another phase. Good, then chain it with another splitter and the rephasing is gone.
Is this not you: https://conwaylife.com/forums/viewtopic ... 54#p114203And where in hell did I claim that 1D rules are comparable to 2D rules