At 6:34 PM -0800 11/20/02, Steve Gray wrote:
No, your state of dyspepsia emanates from the CORRECT statement of rule 30, which is sufficiently complex to explain everyting from quarks to sociology, not to mention shit and Shinola.
I'm not sure what gave rise to Krantz's state of dyspepsia (my digestion is just fine, thank you), but what's amusing are some ironic perspectives on the passage from Krantz's review that I quoted. In his review, Krantz states that he is "accustomed to a form of discourse that involves carefully formulated statements of assertions ..." and that he likes "to see carefully chosen examples that illustrate the key ideas." If we were to regard what Krantz has written as carefully formulated, he appears to be astonished that "the entire function of the universe ... emanates from a rule such as" right translation. Or more generously, that he is astonished that Wolfram would argue this. Of course, it's obvious that the quote Krantz has chosen does not correctly describe Rule 30. In order to accomodate the claim of careful formulation, it is conceivable that Krantz does not believe his quotation must imply that Rule 30 = "right translation". If so, what is he trying to say? One possibility is that Krantz sincerely believes that interposing "such as" permits him to associate but not equate Rule 30 with a simpler cellular automaton in order to enhance the rhetorical force of his presentation. But it's most likely the case that Krantz should quote a complete description of Rule 30. Turning from Krantz to his audience, why is it so easy to overlook this discrepancy? Paul