Math Mutation 46: The World's Simplest Computer Just last month, a new theorem was proven that defines, in a theoretical sense, the simplest possible computer. Now this isn't an engineering question-- this was a proof from the domain of automata theory, part of theoretical computer science. Surprisingly, the author is a 20-year old undergraduate student at the University of Birmingham, in the UK, named Alex Smith, who created his proof in response to a prize competition by the Wolfram Institute. Actually, he was initially trying to disprove the theorem, thinking that this automaton was way too simple to truly be a universal computer, but ended up accidentally proving it instead! So what is this simplest computer? Here's how it works. You have an infinitely long input/output tape, divided into squares. Each square can be one of three colors, let's say red, green, and blue. There is also a reader which, at any given moment, points to one of the squares, and contains a light bulb which can be on or off. The entire operation of this computer consists of a table of six rules: for each possible color of the current square and current state of the light bulb, the rules describe whether the machine changes the color of the current square, turns the light bulb on or off, and moves to the left or the right. For example, the first rule is that if the current square is red, and the bulb is on, change the square to green, turn off the bulb, and move the reader to the right. I won't bore you with a detailed retelling of the rules, but you can find them at the references in the show notes. According to Smith's proof, by properly coloring the input tape and choosing the starting light bulb state, this is enough to emulate the functioning of any possible computing device. So we know it's universal. But why do we say this is the simplest possible computer? Well, it's part of a general class of devices known as Turing Machines, which are similar in design but can contain an arbitrary number of colors in each square, and an arbitrary amount of memory in the reader device rather than just a 2-state light bulb. Turing Machines are generally used as the definition of computation, and it is known that they are computationally universal. But there is a limit to how simple a Turing Machine can be and remain universal: it is known that one with just two colors on the tape and just two reader states is NOT universal. So Smith's theorem, since it augments a known non-universal machine with just one more tape color and makes it universal, must be describing the simplest possible universal Turing Machine. Of course, the next question is: what does this mean? Well, as I mentioned, it's really a result of theoretical interest. While the Turing Machine described can emulate any computer in existence, it can't do it especially efficiently, and thus is not of practical use in designing real computers. In other words, it's not going to result in extra gigahertz of CPU speed on your desk-- sorry about that. The contest to prove it was created by the somewhat controversial Stephen Wolfram, who I mentioned in an earlier podcast, and who believes simple models of computation like this will result in revolutionary advances in biology, chemistry, and physics, which we have not quite seen yet. Wolfram does point out the intriguing possibility that such simple models of computation might turn out to be a key enabler one day for useful biology-based computers-- after all, our DNA is based on simple encodings using four types of molecules, so the idea might not be that farfetched. But regardless of whether you think Wolfram will ultimately win a Nobel Prize or end up in the loony bin, I think the fact that such a simple model is capable of universal computation does say something profound about the nature of computing. I would like to congratulate Alex Smith on his achievement. And this has been your math mutation for today. References: