A forum for topics that don't fit elsewhere. Introduce yourselves to other members of the forums, discuss how your name evolves when written out in the Game of Life, or just tell us how you found it. Forum rules still apply.
Hunting wrote: October 27th, 2020, 5:28 am
... @Sch, explain to him.
Explain my idea?
BokaBB wrote: October 27th, 2020, 4:44 am
We can make it to some degree,but the cellular degree will be too hard and everything would be big.
Have a good day!
BokaBB
This is quite an ambitious project. We should start way smaller. Please look at my chemistry CA proposal.
Okay. I accept to stay small first.
Have a good day!
BokaBB
777
I CAN APGSEARCH NOW!
Sure, I was a bad person, but I have changed myself.
I'd love to befriend anybody who's interested.
Have a good day!
Hunting wrote: October 27th, 2020, 5:28 am
... @Sch, explain to him.
Explain my idea?
BokaBB wrote: October 27th, 2020, 4:44 am
We can make it to some degree,but the cellular degree will be too hard and everything would be big.
Have a good day!
BokaBB
This is quite an ambitious project. We should start way smaller. Please look at my chemistry CA proposal.
Okay. I accept to stay small first.
Have a good day!
BokaBB
Not that "stay small first", but you have to stay small all the time. The behaviour of a cell or even part of a cell is complicated, and not one decided only from neighbourhood.
This is quite an ambitious project. We should start way smaller. Please look at my chemistry CA proposal.
Okay. I accept to stay small first.
Have a good day!
BokaBB
Not that "stay small first", but you have to stay small all the time. The behaviour of a cell or even part of a cell is complicated, and not one decided only from neighbourhood.
Oki - doki. Just don't be agressive.
Have a good day!
BokaBB
777
I CAN APGSEARCH NOW!
Sure, I was a bad person, but I have changed myself.
I'd love to befriend anybody who's interested.
Have a good day!
Hunting wrote: October 27th, 2020, 5:35 am
Explain why your idea make sense and making one single cell represent something larger than a real life cell does not.
I'm not so sure about the latter but my idea makes sense because we can make large things without having to make the system too complex. In a human body virtually everything interacts with everything else and we'd need a large neighbourhood but with my chemistry CA we can use the Moore neighbourhood.
BokaBB wrote: October 27th, 2020, 5:34 am
Okay. I accept to stay small first.
Have a good day!
BokaBB
Not that "stay small first", but you have to stay small all the time. The behaviour of a cell or even part of a cell is complicated, and not one decided only from neighbourhood.
Oki - doki. Just don't be agressive.
Have a good day!
BokaBB
You always accuse me of being aggressive while yourself being much ruder.
Schiaparelliorbust wrote: October 27th, 2020, 5:40 am
In a human body virtually everything interacts with everything else and we'd need a large neighbourhood
Hunting wrote: October 27th, 2020, 5:36 am
Not that "stay small first", but you have to stay small all the time. The behaviour of a cell or even part of a cell is complicated, and not one decided only from neighbourhood.
Oki - doki. Just don't be agressive.
Have a good day!
BokaBB
You always accuse me of being aggressive while yourself being much ruder.
At least I show that better and more acceptable way.
Have a good day!
BokaBB
777
I CAN APGSEARCH NOW!
Sure, I was a bad person, but I have changed myself.
I'd love to befriend anybody who's interested.
Have a good day!
Schiaparelliorbust wrote: October 27th, 2020, 5:40 am
In a human body virtually everything interacts with everything else and we'd need a large neighbourhood
Yeah, that's the point.
Ok, can we get started? Let's first decide how many types of atoms there are. I say six should be enough.
Schiaparelliorbust wrote: October 27th, 2020, 5:40 am
In a human body virtually everything interacts with everything else and we'd need a large neighbourhood
Yeah, that's the point.
Ok, can we get started? Let's first decide how many types of atoms there are. I say six should be enough.
That's perfect. And three of them could be the opposite of three others. Do we still use the valence electron system?
Schiaparelliorbust wrote: October 27th, 2020, 5:52 am
Ok, can we get started? Let's first decide how many types of atoms there are. I say six should be enough.
That's perfect. And three of them could be the opposite of three others. Do we still use the valence electron system?
No, I think that would overcomplicate things. They shouldn't be opposites of each other, they should all have different properties: reactivity, heat capacity, bonding capacity etc.
Schiaparelliorbust wrote: October 27th, 2020, 5:52 am
Ok, can we get started? Let's first decide how many types of atoms there are. I say six should be enough.
That's perfect. And three of them could be the opposite of three others. Do we still use the valence electron system?
No, I think that would overcomplicate things. They shouldn't be opposites of each other, they should all have different properties: reactivity, heat capacity, bonding capacity etc.
Oh, okay then. Do we still use the valence electron system, question reposted?
Hunting wrote: October 27th, 2020, 5:54 am
That's perfect. And three of them could be the opposite of three others. Do we still use the valence electron system?
No, I think that would overcomplicate things. They shouldn't be opposites of each other, they should all have different properties: reactivity, heat capacity, bonding capacity etc.
Oh, okay then. Do we still use the valence electron system, question reposted?
Schiaparelliorbust wrote: October 27th, 2020, 5:57 am
No, I think that would overcomplicate things. They shouldn't be opposites of each other, they should all have different properties: reactivity, heat capacity, bonding capacity etc.
Oh, okay then. Do we still use the valence electron system, question reposted?
Advertiser.... Please say me if you accept my agreement proposal,you didn't say even a word.
Have a good day!
BokaBB
I agree with your "interesting idea".
Let's say the first element, notation Sch, is of bonding capacity 1, which means it can bond 1 element (?)
Thanks. Please do a bit of search at least every second day. I please you,you don't have to accept,it is up to you.
Also,please use better and lesser agressive tone. Please again.
Have a good day!
BokaBB
777
I CAN APGSEARCH NOW!
Sure, I was a bad person, but I have changed myself.
I'd love to befriend anybody who's interested.
Have a good day!
BokaBB wrote: October 27th, 2020, 6:04 am
Advertiser.... Please say me if you accept my agreement proposal,you didn't say even a word.
Have a good day!
BokaBB
I agree with your "interesting idea".
Let's say the first element, notation Sch, is of bonding capacity 1, which means it can bond 1 element (?)
First let's make a complete list of the properties.
Ok. What's the exact definition of "bonding capacity"?
Hunting wrote: October 27th, 2020, 6:29 am
Ok. What's the exact definition of "bonding capacity"?
Heat conductivity
Maximum number of atoms an atom can bond to. I think heat conductivity should be a dual-atom property: we define it for atom pairs and not single atoms. So should reactivity.
Hunting wrote: October 27th, 2020, 6:29 am
Ok. What's the exact definition of "bonding capacity"?
Heat conductivity
Maximum number of atoms an atom can bond to. I think heat conductivity should be a dual-atom property: we define it for atom pairs and not single atoms. So should reactivity.
Schiaparelliorbust wrote: October 27th, 2020, 6:32 am
Maximum number of atoms an atom can bond to. I think heat conductivity should be a dual-atom property: we define it for atom pairs and not single atoms. So should reactivity.
BokaBB wrote: October 27th, 2020, 7:25 am
I made an agreement with Hunting where he investigates my rules if he can and if he wish in exchange for lots of fun time in Sandbox.
Have a good day!
BokaBB
I saw. Can we talk about the CA now? Do you want more properties?
