FOM: Rule 110, etc.

[William Tait]

At 7:21 AM -0400 7/18/02, silver_1 at mindspring.com wrote:
>     I''ve looked at the vaunted Rule 110 in Wolfram and cannot see what's the
>big deal. Can someone please explain its deep significance (not by
>paraphrasing Wolfram, please)  When explaining, if at all possible,  please
>refer to the version in sentential logic with the three variables, p, q, and
>r--I understand this version the best.
>      While you're at it, I've now read a good portion of Wolfram's tome and,
>despite getting occasional impressions that he may be onto something
>important, I have difficulty saying what that is--without of course lapsing
>into Wolfram-speak about computational equivalence and the sort.   Much of the
>significance of his actual "results" escapes me--if they indeed can be
>referred to as "results."   (Mostly, they just seem like endless experiments,
>followed by hunches.)   Edification on this score would be very much
>appreciated.   Please though, don't just paraphrase him.   By now, I can
>recite his phrases myself.   I'm just not sure what it all amounts to.

Charles, I would suggest reading John Baldwin's piece---about 4 
pages---which he contributed on the subject a few days ago.

Bill Tait