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 semi-weakly 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 semi-weak machines. One of our machines has only 17 transition rules, making it the smallest known semi-weakly universal Turing machine. Interestingly, two of our machines are symmetric with Watanabe’s 7-state and 3-symbol, and 5-state and 4-symbol machines, even though we use a different simulation technique. 1.

Abstract. We give small universal Turing machines with state-symbol 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

We survey some work concerned with small universal Turing machines, cellular automata, tag systems, and other simple models of computation. For example it has been an open question for some time as to whether the smallest known universal Turing machines of Minsky, Rogozhin, Baiocchi and Kudlek are efficient (polynomial time) simulators of Turing machines. These are some of the most intuitively simple computational devices and previously the best known simulations were exponentially slow. We discuss recent work that shows that these machines are indeed efficient simulators. As a related result we also find that Rule 110, a well-known elementary cellular automaton, is also efficiently universal. We also mention some old and new universal program-size results, including new small universal Turing machines and new weakly, and semi-weakly, universal Turing machines. We then discuss some ideas for future work arising out of these, and other, results.

My supervisor Damien Woods deserves a special thank you. His help and guidance went far beyond the role of supervisor. He was always enthusiastic, and generous with his time. This work would not have happened without him. I would also like to thank my supervisor Paul Gibson for his advice and support. Thanks to the staff and postgraduates in the computer science department at NUI Maynooth for their support and friendship over the last few years. In particular, I would like to mention Niall Murphy he has always been ready to help whenever he could and would often lighten the mood in dark times with some rousing Gilbert and Sullivan. I thank the following people for their interesting discussions and/or advice: