I would say there are 10 states. Any square can be empty or have an ant, and if the ant is there its direction is known. That gives 5 states of ant presence and direction, and since a square has 2 color states, that's 10 total states.

I'm counting "states" as the term's used in (tape) Turing machines, where you distinguish the internal states of the finite automaton (tape head) from the memory states of the unbounded tape (symbols or colors). So this ant would be analogous to a 4-state, 2-color Turing machine. The ant has four possible states; each cell of the grid has two.

What about when the ant reaches the edge of his grid? (this part I couldn't find an explanation for on the wiki)

The grid has no edges, it's infinite in all directions!

I see. It would be interesting to see this on a finite universe - a curved universe where opposite edges join

>English spends a lot of characters on structure - words that are required grammatically but don't change the meaning of the sentence. Chinese's famously simple grammar doesn't do that.

I admit that I only got as far as Mandarin I in school, but it seems to me that the existence of classifiers in Chinese languages contradicts that.

My understanding of the No True Scotsman fallacy involves changing a definition during an argument in order to hold on to some assertion.

This is not the same thing as a person feeling that a particular word should have a particular meaning.

The problem is the person seen as "changing a definition" could very well have had the second definition in his mind all along.

Well, "blue-reddish" might be a bad example; that'd be magenta.