d-Pixie

Not yet :)

1. Sure, but just since finite input can be handled quickly doesn't mean it's not turing complete. A million cell tape for the Rule 110 automaton in any language will probably execute in milliseconds, if at all optimised... There might be other turing complete problems that can reuse tape the way you suggest, but Rule 110 isn't one of them.

2. In Turings own paper he envisions the "crank" to be a human. I think we can all agree that a human is more than turing complete. The process of feeding the next cell etc isn't part of what makes something Turing complete. There is no requirement that it be self-cranking in Turings papers, nor the current formal definitions I have read. Could you supply an example of where this is brought up as a formal requirement?

3. Well, yes. The point here lies in the _rules_. The method of executing the rules doesn't really matter, as discussed in 2. Humans are > Turing complete ...

I completely agree that it's not a good thing. I know that the browser maintainers also see the increasing complexity of CSS as a bad thing. That's why I was so sceptical to it from the start ...

Barring IE, that requires the old syntax and or had bugs, support for the standard flexbox is now in every modern browser: http://caniuse.com/#feat=flexbox

Maybe it's time to stop blaming the standard and start blaming 1. Users who do not use modern browsers or 2. Developers that don't update/use the new toys out there :)

What relevant CSS rule can't be applied to this? We know our previous context and everything before which is what CSS acts on anyway, no lookahead rules in CSS :)

And yes, there could come an yet as to unknown element later that changes the display, displays on top of using position:absolute; for example, of current content. But not that changes how current content itself is displayed.

Sure, but the work that the entire internet based the claim on until now was in fact not a proof at all. Which is the main point, for me at least.

Isn't it strange that Wikipedia, some CS professors and many, many other places didn't even take the time to look at the "proof" before announcing the "fact" that CSS was turing complete? I like my proofs a little more proofed than that :)

/Jonas