Talk:Reversible cellular automaton

{{GA|18:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)|topic=Mathematics and mathematicians|page=1|oldid=685325684}}

{{dyktalk|15 October|2015|entry= ... that for conventional computers, Landauer's principle gives a nonzero lower bound on energy per step, but the energy usage of reversible cellular automata can be arbitrarily close to zero?|nompage=Template:Did you know nominations/Reversible cellular automaton}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|

}}

Undecidability

This part of the lede is ambiguous:

{{quote|However, for cellular automata that are not defined by these methods [block or second-order], on arrays of two or more dimensions, testing reversibility is undecidable.}}

I understand that reversibility testing is undecidable in general, but does this also mean that there cannot exist a third method of constructing reversible automata? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

:I hope this edit makes it both clearer and a little more accurate. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the GA symbol on the article page. Did I do something wrong? Edwininlondon (talk) 06:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

:According to the instructions the symbol is supposed to be added later by a bot. But it also says you should add this article to Wikipedia:Good articles/Mathematics and I don't know whether the bot is triggered by the GA template at the top of this article or by that addition. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)