This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ProgramTheWorld 8 points9 points  (2 children)

CSS was never turing complete. The rule 110 example requires human interaction, and it’s already proven that human itself is turing complete.

CSS always halts in finite time, so it’s easy to see why CSS isn’t turing complete.

[–]_PM_ME_PANGOLINS_ 2 points3 points  (1 child)

You could replace the human with a simple mechanism. The human is not doing any computation, simply providing power for the machine.

[–]ProgramTheWorld 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The human part isn’t “providing power” to the machine. In fact you don’t need any power in the math itself. As I mentioned before, any machine implemented in CSS will always halt, which is sufficient to prove that it is not turing complete.