Any ideas on how to prove that a cellular automaton gives the same output as another definition? In this case, I could go with formulaic or string-based for the comparison
I'm just a bit stuck on where to start
[#]math #mathematics #maths #CompSci
@graveolensa @mattmcirvin
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from LivInTheLookingGlass@tech.lgbt
Specifics: Wolfram published a definition of the Thue Morse sequence in like 02 based on some Mathematica code that calls CellularAutomaton. The output was the state of the middle cell in a 1D grid at each step in evolving.
I have ~8 other definitions that make for easy comparisons (plus like 12 others that are only useful for number theory nerds like me). Some of them are based on formulas that are trivial to calculate. Others are based on operations of strings, namely substitution and concatenation.
[#]math #mathematics #maths #CompSci
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from LivInTheLookingGlass@tech.lgbt
Current thought: come up with a way to represent the CA rule as a set of matrix operations, then try to make a proof based in this more easily comparable object
[#]math #mathematics #maths #CompSci
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from LivInTheLookingGlass@tech.lgbt This content has been proxied by September (3851b).Proxy Information
text/gemini