Results 1  10
of
11
Pcompleteness of cellular automaton Rule 110
 In International Colloquium on Automata Languages and Programming (ICALP), volume 4051 of LNCS
, 2006
"... We show that the problem of predicting t steps of the 1D cellular automaton Rule 110 is Pcomplete. The result is found by showing that Rule 110 simulates deterministic Turing machines in polynomial time. As a corollary we find that the small universal Turing machines of Mathew Cook run in polyn ..."
Abstract

Cited by 26 (9 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We show that the problem of predicting t steps of the 1D cellular automaton Rule 110 is Pcomplete. The result is found by showing that Rule 110 simulates deterministic Turing machines in polynomial time. As a corollary we find that the small universal Turing machines of Mathew Cook run in polynomial time, this is an exponential improvement on their previously known simulation time overhead.
Four Small Universal Turing Machines
, 2009
"... We present universal Turing machines with statesymbol pairs of (5, 5), (6, 4), (9, 3) and (15, 2). These machines simulate our new variant of tag system, the bitag system and are the smallest known singletape universal Turing machines with 5, 4, 3 and 2symbols, respectively. Our 5symbol machin ..."
Abstract

Cited by 21 (7 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
We present universal Turing machines with statesymbol pairs of (5, 5), (6, 4), (9, 3) and (15, 2). These machines simulate our new variant of tag system, the bitag system and are the smallest known singletape universal Turing machines with 5, 4, 3 and 2symbols, respectively. Our 5symbol machine uses the same number of instructions (22) as the smallest known universal Turing machine by Rogozhin. Also, all of the universal machines we present here simulate Turing machines in polynomial time.
On the time complexity of 2tag systems and small universal Turing machines
 In In 47th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS 2006
, 2006
"... ..."
(Show Context)
A small fast universal Turing machine
 Theoretical Computer Science
, 2005
"... We present a small timeefficient universal Turing machine with 5 states and 6 symbols. This Turing machine simulates our new variant of tag system. It is the smallest known universal Turing machine that simulates Turing machine computations in polynomial time. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 16 (8 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
We present a small timeefficient universal Turing machine with 5 states and 6 symbols. This Turing machine simulates our new variant of tag system. It is the smallest known universal Turing machine that simulates Turing machine computations in polynomial time.
Small semiweakly universal Turing machines
 Machines, Computations and Universality (MCU), volume 4664 of LNCS
, 2007
"... Abstract. We present three small universal Turing machines that have 3 states and 7 symbols, 4 states and 5 symbols, and 2 states and 13 symbols, respectively. These machines are semiweakly universal which means that on one side of the input they have an infinitely repeated word, and on the other s ..."
Abstract

Cited by 12 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. We present three small universal Turing machines that have 3 states and 7 symbols, 4 states and 5 symbols, and 2 states and 13 symbols, respectively. These machines are semiweakly universal which means that on one side of the input they have an infinitely repeated word, and on the other side there is the usual infinitely repeated blank symbol. This work can be regarded as a continuation of early work by Watanabe on semiweak machines. One of our machines has only 17 transition rules, making it the smallest known semiweakly universal Turing machine. Interestingly, two of our machines are symmetric with Watanabe’s 7state and 3symbol, and 5state and 4symbol machines, even though we use a different simulation technique. 1.
Small weakly universal Turing machines
"... Abstract. We give small universal Turing machines with statesymbol pairs of (6, 2), (3,3) and (2,4). These machines are weakly universal, which means that they have an infinitely repeated word to the left of their input and another to the right. They simulate Rule 110 and are currently the smallest ..."
Abstract

Cited by 11 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. We give small universal Turing machines with statesymbol pairs of (6, 2), (3,3) and (2,4). These machines are weakly universal, which means that they have an infinitely repeated word to the left of their input and another to the right. They simulate Rule 110 and are currently the smallest known weakly universal Turing machines. Despite their small size these machines are efficient polynomial time simulators of Turing machines. 1
The complexity of small universal Turing machines: a survey, Theor. Comput. Sci
, 2009
"... ..."
(Show Context)
The complexity of small universal Turing machines
 Computability in Europe 2007, volume 4497 of LNCS
, 2007
"... Abstract. We present small polynomial time universal Turing machines with statesymbol pairs of (5, 5), (6, 4), (9, 3) and (18, 2). These machines simulate our new variant of tag system, the bitag system and are the smallest known universal Turing machines with 5, 4, 3 and 2symbols respectively. O ..."
Abstract

Cited by 5 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. We present small polynomial time universal Turing machines with statesymbol pairs of (5, 5), (6, 4), (9, 3) and (18, 2). These machines simulate our new variant of tag system, the bitag system and are the smallest known universal Turing machines with 5, 4, 3 and 2symbols respectively. Our 5symbol machine uses the same number of instructions (22) as the smallest known universal Turing machine by Rogozhin. 1
What is Naturelike Computation? A Behavioural Approach and a Notion of
 Programmability, Philosophy & Technology, 2012, DOI
"... ar ..."
(Show Context)
NatureLike Computation and a Measure of Programmability
, 2012
"... I will propose an alternative behavioural definition of computation (naturelike) based on whether a system is capable of reacting to the environment—the input—as reflected in a measure of programmability. This will be done by using a phase transition coefficient previously defined in an attempt to ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
I will propose an alternative behavioural definition of computation (naturelike) based on whether a system is capable of reacting to the environment—the input—as reflected in a measure of programmability. This will be done by using a phase transition coefficient previously defined in an attempt to characterise the dynamical behaviour of cellular automata and other rulebased systems. The transition coefficient measures the sensitivity of a system to external stimuli and will be used to define the susceptibility of a system to being (efficiently) programmed.