Thought this result was already established so maybe it's a new angle or simpler proofs? Obligatory Erik demaine linkage for those interested in more tho: <a href="https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/6-849-geometric-folding-algorithms-linkages-origami-polyhedra-fall-2012/" rel="nofollow">https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/6-849-geometric-folding-algorith...</a> <a href="https://erikdemaine.org/" rel="nofollow">https://erikdemaine.org/</a>
now the question is: what is the most complex* object that it is not turing complete?<p>* let's say you have n distinct rules acting against a set S, the complexity is n.<p>p.s. probably something trivial exists such that you can take n as large as we wish to, so probably my definitions are not interesting.
I’ve thought origami was the way to prove p!=np for a while. Just waited for Erik Demaine to prove it though cause he’s like a billion times smarter than I am.