| I know I shouldn't bite, but I just want to so bad... >so all you've said is Actually what I said was "a generalized set of the rules" for Go is Turing Complete. Go in itself is not, because the end-state of the game is indeterminate. Just as a "regular-ass" game of MtG without a very specific and artificial construction is not Turing Complete, in and of itself. >That's cool I can appreciate stamp collecting, and I don't want to say that it's an invalid use of time. There are plenty of worse hobbies. But my point is that any of an infinite, arbitrary, and inconsequential number of conceivable systems are "Turing Complete," and personally I don't find this very compelling. How many books in the Library of Babel[1] describe a Turing Complete system? >Turing completeness is/is not I stated as much in a comment below, or you could have inferred the same by my interpretation of the XKCD comic, but thanks for assuming I'm incompetent and acting in bad faith. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Library_of_Babel |
I think most people assumed that Turing-Completeness requires a specific and artificial construction, which is where the disconnected (and downvotes) are coming from. Especially for something wasn't previously believed to be a model of computation at all, much less a Turing-Complete one.