x = 36, y = 13, rule = B3/S23
10b2o$2o6b2ob2o$2o6bo2bo$8bo2bo$9b2o2$9b2o10b3ob3o$8bo2bo8bob2ob2obo$2o6bo2bo7b2o7b2o$2o6b2ob2o7bob2ob2obo$10b2o9b3ob3o5b3o$33bo$34b2o!
It is at least theoretically possible to use this method to emit a glider without destroying the twin bees.
x = 26, y = 15, rule = B3/S23
16bo$16bo2b2o$2o13bo5bo$2o14bobo2b2o$16bo3b2o$18b3o2$18b3o3bo$16bo3b2o
3bo$2o14bobo2b2o2bo$2o13bo5bo$16bo2b2o2bo$16bo$23b2o$21b2o!
Also, I found this, which starts to emit that glider, destroys it before it can escape, then creates a different glider, all without destroying the twin bees (at least not the first time).
One of the guns in the quadrant that wwei23 constructed was out of phase by 32 ticks, but fortunately that was easy to fix. There's plenty of room for optimization if someone wants to, but it might be better to leave that to a script.
Goldtiger997 wrote: December 8th, 2020, 10:14 pm
One of the guns in the quadrant that wwei23 constructed was out of phase by 32 ticks, but fortunately that was easy to fix.
I think that this is going to look very lopsided compared to other guns, since one wing is different than the others.
EDIT: I originally intended to type something different responding to the quoted text, but changed my mind and forgot to remove it. I have decided to keep it to prevent giving Goldtiger997 a ghost notification. Sorry about that.
x = 20, y = 17, rule = B3/S23
5bo$5b3o$8bo4b2ob2obo$7b2o5bobob2o$14bo$12b2obo$13bo2bo$13bob2o$12b2o
bo$7b3o5bo$7bobo5bob2o$7b3o4b2ob2o$2b2o$bobo$bo$2o!
If there's a sparker or arrangement of sparkers that can create a 3-cell blinker-to-TL push, that could yield new gun engines. Sadly from my experimentation it seems rather hard to convince a blinker to move that far away with only normal low-period sparkers... but perhaps there are ways I don't know about. This reaction with a theoretical blinker factory comes somewhat close:
x = 20, y = 22, rule = LifeHistory
5.D$5.3D$8.D4.2D.2D.D$7.2D5.D.D.2D$14.D$12.2D.D$13.D2.D$13.D.2D$12.2D
.D$7.3D5.D$7.D.D5.D.2D$7.3D4.2D.2D$2.2C4.C4.2A$.C.C4.C4.A.A$.C6.C6.A$
2C13.2A$7.3A5$7.3E!
former username: A for Awesome
praosylen#5847 (Discord)
The only decision I made was made
of flowers, to jump universes to one of springtime in
a land of former winter, where no invisible walls stood,
or could stand for more than a few hours at most...
A for awesome wrote: December 9th, 2020, 12:16 am
Sorry this isn't immediately in the current vein of discussion, but I think this old reaction is worth bringing up on this thread:
Seconded. Sorry for the little-value-post, but it's so soothing to know that the big catalyst can be cut off so many cells:
A for awesome wrote: December 9th, 2020, 12:16 am
Sorry this isn't immediately in the current vein of discussion, but I think this old reaction is worth bringing up on this thread:
x = 20, y = 17, rule = B3/S23
5bo$5b3o$8bo4b2ob2obo$7b2o5bobob2o$14bo$12b2obo$13bo2bo$13bob2o$12b2o
bo$7b3o5bo$7bobo5bob2o$7b3o4b2ob2o$2b2o$bobo$bo$2o!
Indeed, it's good to periodically review the old patterns. We may see something that we didn't before, or new users might get introduced to an interesting old problem.
I took a new look at this, and I came up with an idea for a period-7 sparker that just might get us a p28 gun. Here are some partial results, where the rows show the pattern 7 phases apart (thanks to Scorbie for pointing out that the catalyst can be shrunk):
There are a number of slightly different-looking potential heads with the same central core. I would consider solving this to be difficult, but not impossible.
wwei23 wrote: December 9th, 2020, 8:04 amIs that w13?
Yes, the second partial was found at rotor width 13. However, this shouldn't be taken to mean that I completed any lower-width search. I was just trying to create examples to show that the idea is possible.
Since you seem to be able to deal with high-width rotors with such ease, can you try completing this partial? You'll probably have to slice off some rows first.
yujh wrote: December 9th, 2020, 9:46 am
No result according to wsl at 17*50, for the right ones.
You ruled out w17? How good is your computer?
Idk, but I threw the first 13(11?) cols of the thing into it(that took it about 20 mins.)
It's not clear exactly what has been eliminated by this search. Based on my own searching, I think a 20 minute search would be insufficient to run a complete search at that width. If you still have the search setup, you can save it to a file and post it to the forums so that it can be analyzed.
I'm not sure if this is forward movement towards a solution or merely lateral movement. Each of the three incomplete branches look like they might be easier to solve than the direct symmetric search, but I still haven't managed to solve a single branch.
Sokwe wrote: December 11th, 2020, 9:21 am
I'm not sure if this is forward movement towards a solution or merely lateral movement. Each of the three incomplete branches look like they might be easier to solve than the direct symmetric search, but I still haven't managed to solve a single branch.
I think that this won't work. You're choosing asymmetry over symmetry, and I have a feeling that that makes the search harder.
Sokwe wrote: December 11th, 2020, 9:21 am
I'm not sure if this is forward movement towards a solution or merely lateral movement. Each of the three incomplete branches look like they might be easier to solve than the direct symmetric search, but I still haven't managed to solve a single branch.
I think that this won't work. You're choosing asymmetry over symmetry, and I have a feeling that that makes the search harder.
Each asymmetric part has points where the rotor becomes thin. This often yields a large number of continuations which in turn can give a higher chance of finding a solution. I'm not saying that's necessarily the case here, but it's certainly possible that solving these branches is easier than finding a direct symmetric solution.
I hate to complain after one branch has been completed, but I'd recommend branching out lower down, to improve the clearance. Them we'd have a nice, general-purpose P7 sparker in our hands.
otismo wrote: December 12th, 2020, 10:48 am
Now, we need to remove one gun, the signal gun,
such that the balance of the reaction collapses
cleanly without it, just like the Loafer Guns -
That's nice in theory, but in practice there are very few minimal-glider-count spaceship recipes that mutually annihilate if you remove one glider.
There's no problem setting up a recipe that does that with a few gliders more than the minimal glider count, though. This is just a first-thing-that-worked example, not a good solution:
otismo wrote: December 12th, 2020, 10:48 am
Now, we need to remove one gun, the signal gun,
such that the balance of the reaction collapses
cleanly without it, just like the Loafer Guns -
That's nice in theory, but in practice there are very few minimal-glider-count spaceship recipes that mutually annihilate if you remove one glider.
There's no problem setting up a recipe that does that with a few gliders more than the minimal glider count, though. This is just a first-thing-that-worked example, not a good solution:
