5.3 Universality
This section under major construction.
One of the crowning scientific achievements of the 20th century was formalizing the notion of computation. In this section we address the fundamental question of what is computable in this Universe. Surprising revelation of 20th century is that a general purpose computer is capable of performing any computation that any other computer can. Perhaps the most important idea in all of computer science.
Disruptive technology which ignited the Computer Revolution. Universality helps explain the rapid adoption of the World Wide Web. People already used computers for number crunching and word processing prior to existence of Web. Universal computer was easily adaptable to dealing with Web protocols, MP3 files, and digital photos. Once technology become available, people could immediately harness its power. (Much slower adoption during Industrial Revolution, etc.) "One could hardly imagine an analogue of this process for the television  it would be as though millions of Americans had been induced to buy large inert boxes for their living rooms, and a decade later someone dreamed up the technology to begin broadcasting pictures to them. But this is more or less what happened with the Web." (KleinbergPapadimitriou) We can only imagine what new technologies will emerge in the next few decades, but we can be certain that our universal computer will be capable of taking full advantage of it.
No need for separate machines for processing images and text. One universal machine for all tasks. This is in stark contrast to most other areas. For example, there is no allpurpose universal cooking device. Instead we have separate pieces of equipment for slicing, blending, mixing, baking, boiling, grilling, roasting, toasting, brewing, and radiating. One possible exception in the natural sciences: genome (can change a few symbols in the genome and create a new organism, much like writing a new computer program).
Many different types of computational devices: Cray supercomputer, Dell PC, iMac, Palm Pilot, XBox, Tivo, Turing machine, TOY machine, Java programming language, Microsoft Excel, Java cell phone, quantum Turing machine, Perl programming language. Is there any fundamental difference between what these things can do and what a Gaggia espresso maker can do?
Turing machines are equivalent in power to TOY and Java. Can simulate any Turing machine with a Java program, can simulate TOY with a Turing machine, can simulate, Java with a TOY machine. Same idea works for C, C++, C#, Python, Excel, Outlook. Also Mac, PC, Cray, ENIAC, Konrad Zuse's Z3 (but not proved until 1998), Palm pilot. And TiVo, Xbox, Java cell phone/ But not DFA, Gaggia espresso maker, or this Tinker Toy computer that MIT students built to play TicTacToe.
There is an implicit assumption that the TOY machine and the Java programming language have an unbounded amount of memory (extensible storage). Otherwise the TM is strictly more powerful. Is this assumption reasonable? If infinity scares you, you could think of having a service contract. If you need more memory, you just go out and order some more over the Internet. We implicitly think of stack/queue as infinite, even though memory will eventually run out. The Turing machine is a model of computing, not of computers. Thus, we do not restrict the size of the machine's tape.
Java programs are written to handle inputs of any length. You may not be able to execute the program with a large input on a machine with limited memory, but you can execute the program on a machine with a larger memory. Turing machines model programs, rather than machines: the existence of a fast Java program for a given problem is equivalent to the existence of a fast Turing machine for the same problem.
Informally, an algorithm is a stepbystep procedure for solving a problem. Formally, we define an algorithm as a Turing machine. Each Turing machine is capable of performing a single algorithm, e.g., testing whether an integer is prime. In this sense, Turing machines are analogous to computer programs (software) rather than computers (hardware). Knuth: "An algorithm is an abstract concept unrelated to physical laws of the universe." This means that we might need to build a separate Turing machine for each algorithm that we would like to execute. This is highly impractical!
Universal Turing machine. A Universal Turing machine is a specific Turing machine that can simulate the behavior of any Turing machine (including itself!). This enables a Turing machine to answer questions about other Turing machines (or itself). Alan Turing described such a machine: its existence means that there is a single Turing machine, the UTM, that is capable of running any algorithm. The key idea is to think of the description of a Turing machine itself as data. For example, we can encode the Turing machine illustrated below
with a table as follows. We label each of the five states 0 to 5. We include a row for the index of each state along with its label (left, right, yes, no, or halt). We include a row of four symbols for each transition arrow to denote the current state, input symbol, next state, and write symbol, respectively.
0 L 1 R 2 R 3 Y 4 R 5 N 0 1 # # 2 0 1 x 4 0 0 x 1 2 0 x 1 3 # # 1 4 1 x 2 5 # # 4 5 # #
Now, we can concatenate the table into a single string over the alphabet {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, x, #}.
0 L 1 R 2 R 3 Y 4 R 5 N 0 1 # # 2 0 1 x ... 4 5 # #
and initialize the tape with this input. Since the original Turing machine itself also has an input, e.g., the integer whose primality we want to check, we append this input to the end of the Turing machine description, separating it by a new symbol.
0 L 1 R 2 R 3 Y 4 R 5 N 0 1 # # 2 0 1 x ... 4 5 # # # # 0 0 1 1 1 0 # #
We might also append the start state and the initial position of the tape head.
A universal Turing machine takes as input the description of a Turing machine (along with the initial tape contents of the Turing machine), and simulates the input on that Turing machine. Thus, the UTM can simulate the behavior of any individual TM. In modern terms, the UTM is an interpreter  it performs a stepbystep simulation of any Turing machine. Program and data are the same thing  a program (Turing machine) is nothing more than a sequence of symbols that looks like any other data. When input to a UTM, the program "becomes alive" and begins to compute. (similar for downloading programs from the Web and email viruses  just data until you doubleclick them and feed them to your operating system for execution).
Building such a UTM appears to be a daunting task. Alan Turing described the first such Turing machine in his 1937 paper. In 1962, Minsky discovered a remarkable 7state UTM that executes using a four symbol alphabet, but it is rather complicated to describe.
General purpose computers. First articulated by Ada Lovelace. She described Babbage's Analytic Engine as suited for "developing and tabulating any function whatever... the engine [is] the material expression of any indefinite function of any degree of generality and complexity." She described its use for to scientific computing, including trigonometric functions and Bernoulli numbers. She also championed the idea that it could be used to produce music and graphics. General purpose computers are analogous to universal Turing machines: they are capable of running different algorithms without requiring any hardware modifications. This is possible because modern day microprocessors are based upon the von Neumann architecture. In this model, computer programs and data are stored in the same main memory. This means that the contents of memory can be treated as a machine instruction or data, depending on the context. This is exactly analogous to the tape contents of the UTM which consists of both a program (the original TM) and its data (the tape contents of the original TM). Alan Turing's work on UTM anticipated the development of general purpose computers, and can be viewed as the invention of software!
ChurchTuring thesis.
In 1936, Alonzo Church and Alan Turing independently proposed models of computation that they believed embodied the notion of computation by a mechanic procedure. Church invented the lambda calculus to study notions of computability while Turing used his Turing machines. Although both models appear very different from one another, Turing later showed that were equivalent in that they each pick out the same set of mathematical functions. They arrived at the same conclusion, which we express in terms of Turing machines:Turing machines can do anything that can be described by a purely mechanical process.
In other words, any process that can be performed by an idealized mathematician can be simulated on a Turing machine. This thesis was subsequently extended to assert that all (physically harnessable) processes of the universe can be simulated by a Turing machine, and this is the version we will consider as the ChurchTuring thesis. This reduces the study of computation to the study of Turing machines, rather than an infinite number of potential computing devices. It means that we don't have to seek more powerful machines; our only recourse is to exploit the power of existing machines or create new machines that do things faster. The converse of the thesis also has profound consequences. It says that if something can't be done on a Turing machine, then we can't do it using any purely mechanical process. We will explore the consequences in Section 7.6 when we discover that there are some problems that Turing machines can't solve. Note that the ChurchTuring thesis is not a mathematical statement, and is not subject to rigorous proof. It is a statement about the physically realizable universe. However, like any good scientific theory, the ChurchTuring thesis is subject to refutation. If someone exhibited a strictly more powerful model of computation that was physically harnessable, we would dismiss the ChurchTuring thesis.
The thesis is equivalent to saying that any generalpurpose programming language is sufficient to express any algorithm.
Universality. The ChurchTuring thesis implies a universality among different models of computation. There is ample support suggesting this universality. Adding new capabilities to a Turing machine does not make it more powerful in terms of the languages it can accept or the functions it can compute.
Modified Turing Machine  Description 

Multiple heads  Two or more independent tape heads 
Multiple tapes  Two or more tapes 
Multidimensional tape  Two dimensional tape 
Nondeterministic  NFA controls the tape instead of DFA 
Probabilistic  Can flip fair coins. Accept input if most of coin flips lead to accept state 
Editable  Can insert and delete symbols on the tape 
The definition of a Turing machine is very robust.
The following restrictions do not affect a Turing machine's power
(when applied individually to a standard Turing machine).
Modified Turing Machine  Description 

Oneway infinite  Tape is unbounded in one direction only 
Binary  Tape alphabet consists of only two symbols 
Two state  DFA that controls the tape has two states 
Nonerasing  Turing machine which can never rewrite a symbol once it's written to the tape 
Timereversible  Previous state can always be uniquely determined from the current state and tape contents. 
Mathematicians, computer scientists, biologists, and physicists
have considered numerous other models of computation.
The following is a partial list of such models that have all been
shown to be equivalent in power to the Turing machine, thereby providing
additional support for the ChurchTuring thesis.
Universal Model of Computation  Description 

Post Formal Systems Emil Post, 1920s 
String replacement rules designed to prove mathematical statements from a set of axioms. 
Untyped Lambda Calculus Alonzo Church, 1936 
A method to define and manipulate functions. Basis of functional programming languages, including Lisp and ML 
Universal Turing Machines Alan Turing, 1936 
A Turing machine that can simulate the behavior of any other Turing machine. 
General Recursive Functions Herbrand, 1932 Kurt Godel, 1934 
Functions dealing with computation on the natural numbers. 
Partial Recursive Functions Alonzo Church, 1932 Stephen Kleene, 1935 
Functions dealing with computation on the natural numbers. 
Markov Algorithms Andrei Markov, 1960 
Apply string replacement rules sequentially in a prespecified order. 
Unrestricted Grammars Noam Chomsky, 1950s 
Apply string replacement rules sequentially in arbitrary order until a certain stopping condition is satisfied. Used by linguists to describe natural languages. 
Tag Systems Emil Post, 1921, 1935, 1965 
As long as the string consists of at least k letters: read the first letter, delete the first k letters, and append a string to the end depending on the first letter. 
Extended LSystems Aristid Lindenmayer, 1976 
Apply string replacement rules in parallel. Biologists use to model the growth of plants. 
SemiThue Systems Axel Thue, 1910 
Apply string replacement rules in arbitrary order. 
Horn Clause Logic Alfred Horn, 1951 
Logic based system for theorem proving. Forms basis of Prolog language. 
1D Cellular Automata Matthew Cook, 1983 Stephen Wolfram, 2002 
A one dimensional boolean array of cells whose values change according to the state of adjacent cells. Corresponds to finite impulse response digital filters. 
2D Cellular Automata John von Neumann, 1952 John Conway, 1960s 
A two dimensional boolean array of cells whose values change according to the state of adjacent cells. The most famous example is Conway's Game of Life. 
Post Machines Emil Post, 1936 
A DFA plus a queue. 
Two Stack Machines  A DFA plus two stacks. 
Two Register Machines ShepardsonSturgis, 1963 Marvin Minsky, 1961 
A DFA plus two integer counters which it can increment, decrement, and test against zero. 
Programming Languages  Java, C, C++, Perl, Python, PHP, Lisp, PostScript, Excel, ... 
Random Access Machines  Finitely many registers plus memory that can be accessed with an integer address. Includes TOY and virtually all modern day microprocessors. 
Pointer Machines  Finitely many registers plus memory that can be accessed as a linked list. 
Quantum Turing Machines Richard Feynman, 1965 David Deutsch, 1985 
Computes using the superposition of quantum states. 
Billiard Ball Computer FredkinToffoli, 1982 
Indistinguishable billiard balls move in the plane, making elastic collisions with each other and internal barriers. 
Particle Machines  Information is carried through space by particles, and computation occurs when particles collide. 
Filter Automata ParkSteiglitzThurston, 1985 
Cellular automata that use newly computed values as soon as they are available. Corresponds to infinite impulse response digital filters. 
Generalized Shift Maps Christopher Moore, 1990 
A single classical particle moving in a 3D potential well made of parabolic mirrors. 
DNA Computers Len Adleman, 1994 
Compute using biological operations on strands of DNA. 
Shiftlike Dynamical Systems Christopher Moore, 1981 
Dynamics based computing using chaos theory. 
Dynamical Systems SinhaDitto, 1998 
Dynamics based computing using chaos theory. 
Dynamical Systems  Hybrid systems, piecewise affine systems, saturated linear systems. 
Soliton Collision Systems Ken Steiglitz, 2000 
Timegated Manakov spatial solitons in a homogeneous medium. A gateless computer without spatially fixed gates. 
HighLevel Petri Nets Carl Petri, 1962 
Generalization of automata for concurrently occurring events. Applications to management, manufacturing, communication protocols, fault tolerant systems. 
Interactive computation. Perhaps the most natural form of computation is as a calculator  transforming an input into an output. A Turing machines does not accept external input when it computes; this prevents it from directly modeling many natural processes. Our computers perform many operations that are not as natural to put into this framework. For example, your operating system, user interfaces, word processor, video game, soccerplaying robots, networks, sensors. These all involve interactions or communications with the program by an external agent (a person or another program). Interaction machines are natural generalizations of Turing machines that accept synchronous or asynchronous input streams.
Why doesn't this violate ChurchTuring thesis? One could argue that the external agents themselves could be simulated by a Turing machine!
Physics of computation. In their landmark paper Conservative Logic, Fredkin and Toffoli argue that computation is a physical process and is ultimately governed by physical principles. They propose a number of axioms to which all computational process are subjected. Turing's goal was to invent a machine that captured the essence of computation, while still being subject to the laws of physics. Fredkin and Toffoli discuss how Turing machines implicitly embody these first three axioms.
 The speed of propagation of information is bounded. In physics, action at a distance is limited by the speed of light. With Turing machines, the tape head only moves to the left or right one cell at a time. Therefore causality effects can only propagate through local interactions.
 The amount of information which can be encoded in the state of a finite system is bounded. In physics, thermodynamical and quantumphysical considerations suggest such limitations. For example, the holographic principle is a conjecture about quantum thermodynamics that place a limit (10^69 bits per square meter) on the amount of information per surface area (not volume) of spacetime. With Turing machines, each cell only contains one of three possible symbols.
 It is possible to construct macroscopic, dissipative physical devices which perform in a recognizable and reliable way the logical functions AND, OR, and FANOUT. This means that it is possible to fabricate Turing machines out of physical parts, and run them reliably.
Deutsch proposed the ChurchTuring Principle that asserts that the Universe is capable of containing a universal machine that can simulate the universe itself. This connects the notions of computability with physics.
ZuseFredkin thesis. Around 1960 Edward Fredkin first posited the radical notion that the Universe is a (universal) cellular automata, a kind of highly parallel computing device. In the late 1960, Konrad Zuse independently proposed that the Universe is being computed on a computer, possibly a cellular automata. He referred to this as Rechnender Raum or Computing Cosmos.. This controversial thesis became know as the ZuseFredkin thesis. From a physics viewpoint, it is a universal Theory of Everything. It is certainly true that many complex systems can be explained by simple discrete processes. It remains a fascinating open scientific question as to whether it is cellular automata or some other process that is responsible for such complexity in nature. Although the ChurchTuring thesis has been widely accepted, the more farreaching ZuseFredkin thesis has remained in relatively obscurity and has not yet been widely accepted. One of the main challenges is reconciling it with quantum physics. Also, it is hard to verify, and has not yet proved useful in making accurate predictions about the universe that could not be made using traditional methods. The KonradZuse thesis is the cornerstone of two emerging disciplines  Digital Mechanics and Digital Physics. It has deep philosophical ramifications. For example, if the Universe is a CA, then we humans, together with our logical thoughts, are algorithms executing in some spacetime region of the CA. Following on the work of Zuse, Fredkin, and many others, in his book A New Kind of Science, Steve Wolfram promotes the theory that the entire universe is a massive computational process, and that such physical processes are best understood by investigating simple model of computation like cellular automata.
Digital physics: universe is the output of a deterministic computer.
Universal limits on computation. The HawkingBekenstein bound postulates that there is a limit to the amount of information (number of quantum states or number of bits that can be encoded) I that a sphere of radius R with a given energy E can hold: I &le 2 π E R / (ℏ c ln 2), where ℏ = Plank's constant and c is the speed of light. Alternatively, using E = mc^{2}, &le k M R, where M = mass of region and k is approximately 2.57686 × 10^{43} bits / (m kg). The maximum processing speed is bounded by the minimum time for a state transition which is bounded by the time for light to cross the region of radius R = π E / (ℏ ln 2) bits / sec. The Bekenstein bound is based on black hole physics. This implies, that in theory, Turing machines, with their arbitrary size tape, only exist in our imagination (if they are to have finite size and bounded energy). Though in practice, they serve is an excellent model of reality.
Q. Suppose a human brain stores 10^{16} bits, has a mass of 1kg, and is approximately spherical with a radius of 10cm. Compare its efficiency to the Bekenstein bound.
This tighter bound is based on This physics paper by Krauss and Starkmann suggests that if the Universe is accelerating, then there is an inherent limit on the total amount of information that can be processed, even infinitely far into the future. The estimated limit is approximately 10^{120} bits, so there is no need for immediate concern! This Nature paper by Seth Lloyd puts quantitative bounds on the rate at which a 1kg computer occupying a volume of 1 liter can compute and how much memory it can access.
Beyond the ChurchTuring thesis. Are there any types of computation that cannot be done by a Turing machine, but that can be done using some other kind of physical or abstract machine? Yes. We consider a few representative examples of so called hypercomputation.
These models of computation are capable of solving problems (e.g., the halting problem) that cannot be solved using Turing machines. These are not known to violate the ChurchTuring thesis because we do not know how to build such machines.
 Oracle Turing machines. A Turing machine endowed with an oracle to answer questions, e.g., to the halting problem. Such models of computation are strictly more powerful than a Turing machine, but we haven't the vaguest clue as to how to build such machines. As such, they do not (currently) violate the ChurchTuring thesis.
 Turing machine with initial inscription. Turing machine that starts with an infinite number of symbols already on the tape. Again, this leads to a strictly more power model of computation than a Turing machine, but we don't know how to build such a machine because it uses an infinite amount of storage.
 Realvalued Turing machines. This is an abstract model of computation in which each tape cell stores a real value instead of a discrete symbol. The BlumShubSmale model allows each tape cell to store an arbitrary real number, possibly transcendental. Intended to capture continuous problems from scientific computing, computational geometry, computer algebra, continuous optimization. Such machines manipulate real numbers using infinite precision. The basic unitcost computational steps are: arithmetic operations (+, , *, /), arbitrary constants, and comparison operations or (<, >, = if over real field). The inputs and outputs are vectors in R^n. If x is in R^n, then its size is n. (Can replace reals with another field, e.g., complex numbers C, but disallow ordered comparisons. If field is F_2, recover classic Turing model.) Undecidable problems exist under this model: given a complex number z, is it in the Mandelbrot set? Does Newton's method converge, given a starting point x? "NPcomplete" problems exist under this model: Knapsack problem: given n real numbers, is there a subset that sums to exactly 1? Given a degree 4 multivariate polynomial in n variables with real coefficients, does it have a real zero? Given a finite set of complex multivariate polynomials over n variables, do they have a common zero? However, it is unknown whether continuous values truly exist in nature, and if so, whether any natural process can harness their power.
These models of computation are equivalent to the Turing machine in terms of computability, e.g., neither can solve the halting problem. However, these models can solve problems that falls outside the spectrum of computing functions and deciding languages, e.g., generating truly random numbers.
 Probabilistic Turing machine. A probabilistic Turing machine is like a nondeterministic Turing machine, except that it choose its next transition uniformly at random from the legal choices. A probabilistic Turing machine is equivalent in power to a Turing machine in terms of the languages it can decide or the functions it can compute. However, a probabilistic Turing machine can generate truly random bits, a capability not possible on a conventional Turing machine. Nevertheless, there do appear to exist physical processes that produce randomness using quantum mechanics or other naturally occurring phenomenon. Supporters of the ZuseFredkin thesis would argue that nature only generates pseudorandom numbers and these could be simulated on a deterministic Turing machine.
 Quantum Turing machines. Computation is a physical process, yet the Turing machine ignores quantummechanical effects. Deutsch proposed a quantum Turing machine that behaves like a Turing machine, but harnesses the power of quantum mechanics to perform computations. A quantum Turing machine is equivalent in power to a Turing machine in terms of the languages it can decide or the functions it can compute. However, quantum Turing machines open up new modes of computation since they can perform tasks other than computing functions and deciding languages. One striking example occurs in cryptography. In Chapter 0 we considered a cryptographic scheme known as onetime pads. To make them practical, we need an efficient way to share a key (string of random bits) between two parties without it being intercepted by a third party, or if it is intercepted the two communicating parties should be able to detect it. The problem of unconditional secure key distribution is provably impossible using classical computers and physics. However, by exploiting the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, Bennett and Brassard (1984) devised a scheme to solve the problem. The main thesis of the uncertainty principle is that (i) any measurement that extracts information from a physical system will necessarily change that system and (ii) any measurement that extracts information about a certain quantity will necessarily prevent extracting information about a conjugate quantity. Bennett and Brasard's scheme sends each qubit (the quantum equivalent of a bit) using a single photon. The photon is altered as soon as it is read for the first time, so it cannot be intercepted without detection. While we don't yet know how to build quantum Turing machines, scientists have developed specialized cryptography circuits to implement Bennet and Brasard's scheme and have used it to securely distribute keys across 15 kilometers of fiber optical cable.
Exercises
 Conway's game of life. Universality. Here's Martin Gardner's article from Scientific American in 1970.

Cellular automata.
Cellular automata
are computer simulations
that try to emulate the laws of
nature. They are used to model biological, chemical, and physical processes including:
ferromagnetism according to Ising mode,
forest fire propagation,
nonlinear chemical reactiondiffusion systems,
turbulent flow,
biological pigmentation patterns,
breaking of materials,
growth of crystals, and growth of plants and animals.
They are also used in image processing,
computer graphics,
design of massively parallel hardware, cryptography, and art.
A onedimensional cellular automaton is an array of cells that evolves over time according to a set of rules based on the state of adjacent cells. At a given time t, each cell is either alive or dead. Rule 90 says that cell i is alive at time t if exactly one of its neighbors (cell i1 or cell i+1) is alive at time t1. Program Cellular.java simulates the behavior of this cellular automaton using two Boolean arrays. Array element cells[i] is true if cell i is alive in the current time t, and false otherwise; array element old[i] is true if cell i is alive in the previous time step t1, and false otherwise.
 Cellular automata. Here's a nice review of cellular automata. Here's the Cellular Automata FAQ. Give 1d universal automaton.
 Firing squad synchronization problem. The firing squad problem was first proposed by Mynhill in 1957 and solve by Moore in 1962 in the context of finite state machines. You have a 1D cellular automata with 2^{n} identical cells, each which can take on one of a finite number of colors. They all run at the same speed, and each can only communicate with its immediate neighbors. All cells are initially white. Design the machines so that after a "start" signal is given to the first machine (the general), all machines (the soldiers) turn a special "firing" color for the first time at time t. You don't know the size of the array ahead of time, so your solution must not depend on n. Hint: try to find the middle cell.
 Zebra stripes. Produce a picture of synthetic zebra stripes
by simulating a 2D cellular automaton using turtle graphics.

Start by creating an NbyN grid of cells, initializing each to black
or white at random. Then, run 10 phases, where each phase iterates
through the NbyN cells one at a time, updating the color (black or
white) of cell (i, j) as follows:
 For each neighboring cell (i', j') that is black such that i  i' = 0 or 1 and j  j' <= 3, add 2.0 to a running total.
 For each neighboring cell (i', j') that is black such that i  i' = 2 or 3 and j  j' <= 3, subtract 1.2 from the running total.
 If the running total exceeds 1.4, color (i, j) black; otherwise color it white.
 Experiment with a different weighting function (e.g., 2.0 and 0.4) and use the Manhattan distance function i  i' + j  j' instead of the one above.

Start by creating an NbyN grid of cells, initializing each to black
or white at random. Then, run 10 phases, where each phase iterates
through the NbyN cells one at a time, updating the color (black or
white) of cell (i, j) as follows:
 Paterson worms. Paterson worms are a recreation puzzle discovered by John Conway and popularized by Marvin Gardner, much like Conway's Game of Life. Write a program PatersonWorm.java that animates Patterson worms in Turtle graphics.
 Lindenmayer systems. Apply the replacement rule F > F+FF+F to the initial string F+FF+F in parallel. For example, after one application the string becomes F+FF+FF+FF+FF+FF+F. If you interpret F as go 1 step forward, + as rotate 60 degrees clockwise and  as rotate 60 degrees counterclockwise, this sequence of commands draw the Koch snowflake. Write a program Lindenmayer.java that takes a command line argument N and prints the commands for generating the Koch curve of order N. Hint: use the string library method replaceAll.
 Lindenmayer system to generate trees. Write a program LSystem.java that creates treelike graphics using the Lindenmayer system: XYZ.
 Lindenmayer system interpreter. Write a program that reads in the description of a Lindenmayer system and plots the resulting pattern.
 Ackermann's function.
The Ackermann function A(m, n) is a deceptively simple function that
plays a crucial role
in the analysis of algorithms and complexity theory. It's defined
recursively as follows:
A(0, n) = n + 1
Write a program Ackermann.java that takes two command line parameters M and N and computes A(M, N).
A(m, 0) = A(m  1, 1)
A(m, n) = A(m  1, A(m, n  1)) What happens when you compute A(3, 9)? Answer: stack overflow error.

What is A(5, 5)? Answer: too many digits to ever print out.
Here is A(4, 2).
To see how devastatingly fast this function grows,
consider the following equivalent definition:
A(0, n) = n + 1
A(1, n) = 2 + (n + 3)  3
A(2, n) = 2 × (n + 3)  3
A(3, n) = 2 ^{n + 3}  3
A(4, n) = 2^{2...2}  3 (n + 3 terms in the tower)
...
 Buck's function.
Buck's function is defined recursively as:
f(m, n) = f(m1, f(m, n1)) f(0, n) = n + 1 f(1, 0) = 2 f(2, 0) = 0 f(m, 0) = 1 for m = 3, 4, ...
Calculate by hand f(1, n), f(2, n), f(3, n), and f(4, n) as a function of n.
Answer: 2 + n, 2n, 2^{n}, 2^{22...2} (n terms in the tower).
 Cellular automata sand pile. Model sand falling into a pile using a cellular automata model.
 Schelling segregation model. Investigate the Schelling Segregation Model (SSM). "Among first constructive model of a dynamic system capable of selforganization." Modeled an integrated environment where each agent has a slight preference for one's neighbors to be of the same kind could lead to segregation. For every colored cell, if greater than 1/3 (or some other threshold) of neighbors are a different color, move to a randomly selected cell (or have each cell take a random walk). (or perhaps examine all cells within some neighborhood, with weight proportional to 1/d). Schelling won the 2005 Nobel Prize in Economics. Green turtles and red turtles. Preferences ripple through a pond. Even if turtles start out wanting only 30% similarity, they end up with around 70%. Here's a demo.