This is stretching it, but if you accept automata theory as a part of CS (not very controversial) and accept cellular automata like the game of life as a branch of automata theory (not very controversial) and accept some research methods involving experimentation and observation of the behavior of random seeds as part of cellular automata theory (not very controversial) then the very extended argument stretches from hard core CS to &#x27;stick a random seed in the CA, run it, and ta da, we observe the un predicted existence of gliders!&#x27;.  Its stretching it but I think its acceptable.<p>I was going to list some formal percolation theory studies in as an applied version of imaginary network routing protocols or could be seen as a very weird emulation of a CA, kinda, but that&#x27;s probably going way too far.  Practical simulation of a specific algo is obviously cheating, but simulation of an abstract concept is maybe not cheaty.  Possibly there is, or will be, an analytic topological pure math theory that could be applied to mathematically prove constants currently only discovered by experiment in perc theory.  If you&#x27;re ever bored and want to run some simulations, perc theory is very project euler like in that a short(ish) question quickly results in &quot;I guess I gotta run it and see&quot;.<p>Another &quot;stretch the limits&quot; is there is no unclassified explanation of some peculiar corners of some crypto algos.  Hard to know if they&#x27;re truly random, determined by experimental runs against possibly classified cracking techniques, or intentional back doors, or intentional classified design techniques.  But relying on military intel classification &quot;we can&#x27;t rule out experimental methods being used in secret&quot; is kinda cheaty in the spirit of the discussion.