Thread for basic questions

[dvgrn]

So the current dividing line seems to be between 57 and 58, if I'm not missing something important?

Yup, that seems right. Apparently I hadn't memorized the relevant statistics for that amazing HRx65R conduit yet.

[Anivec]

I think it is Superfountain:

Code: Select all

#N Superfountain eats output of period-48 glider gun
x = 37, y = 40, rule = B3/S23
28b2o$13b2o13bo$13b2o11bobo$26b2o3$bobo3bobo$o6bobo11bo$bo3b2o2bo10bo
bo$3bobo14bobo$4bo3bo11b3o$4bob2o18b2o$2b2o2b2o18bobo$4bo5b2o16bo$10b
2o16b2o8$25bo3$19bo2bo5bo2bo$17b2o2bob5obo2b2o$19bo11bo$17bob2o9b2obo
$15bobo3b3o3b3o3bobo$14b3obo13bob3o$24bobo$18b3o3bobo3b3o$18bo2bo3bo3b
o2bo$17b4o2bobobo2b4o$17b2o2b3obob3o2b2o$16bo3bo3bobo3bo3bo$17bo2bobo
bobobobo2bo$18bobob2o3b2obobo$19bo11bo!

I meant corner spark

[JP21]

I meant corner spark

It might be this one:

Code: Select all

x = 15, y = 17, rule = B3/S23
6bo$3bo2b2o2b2o$6bo4bo$8b3o$3b3o2bo2b3o$bob3ob3obo2bo$obo4bo3bo2bo$obo
2b3obob3o$b2obobo3bo$4bobo4bo$b3o3bo2b2o$o3b2obo$obo2bo2b4o$b3o2bobo2b
o$4b2o3b2o$3bo2b3o$3b2o3bo!

From this post
(or not? it does eat gliders in a particular direction though)

[dvgrn]

It might be this one...
(or not? it does eat gliders in a particular direction though)

Meaning, this direction?

Code: Select all

x = 18, y = 22, rule = B3/S23
o$b2o$2o3$9bo$6bo2b2o2b2o$9bo4bo$11b3o$6b3o2bo2b3o$4bob3ob3obo2bo$3bob
o4bo3bo2bo$3bobo2b3obob3o$4b2obobo3bo$7bobo4bo$4b3o3bo2b2o$3bo3b2obo$
3bobo2bo2b4o$4b3o2bobo2bo$7b2o3b2o$6bo2b3o$6b2o3bo!

It doesn't seem like there's a way to use that corner spark to suppress gliders on lane L while letting them go by on lane L+1, right? The period is too short.

[confocaloid]

There exist mechanisms that are not stable stateless (conduits|supports|catalysts), and yet are functionally equivalent (in some context) to stable stateless mechanisms. Two examples are the snake-bit which is often used as a glider eater to block glider streams, and the p8 glider reflector which is p8 but works the same way regardless of the phase.

Code: Select all

#C This is almost a p777 loop, except for the p1554 snake-bit blocking the output
#C glider stream and the p6216 interaction with the p8 glider reflector. Both the snake-bit
#C and the p8 glider reflector can be viewed as "functionally stable stateless" mechanisms.
#C (In LifeViewer, the "Pattern/Identify/Map" feature shows periods of individual cells)
x = 109, y = 87, rule = B3/S23
43b2o$42bobo$36b2o4bo$34bo2bo2b2ob4o$34b2obobobobo2bo$37bobobobo$37bob
ob2o$38bo2$51b2o$42b2o7bo$42b2o5bobo$49b2o7$39b2o$40bo$37b3o$19bo17bo$
17b3o$16bo$15bobo$15bobo$16bo5$2o$2o2$14bo$13bo$13b3o4b2o$20bobo$2b2o
18bo$3bo9b2o7b2o$2bo10b2o$2b2o$5b2o$2b2ob2o$3bo$bo3b2o$b4o2bo$4bobobo$
b2obo2bo18bo27bo$2bobo19b3o27b3o$bo2b2o17bo33bo7b2o$bobo2bobo14b2o19b
2o10b2o7b2o$2bobo2b2o20bo15bo$3bo23b3o15bobo$26bo19b2o$26b2o6$29b2o$
10b2o17b2o$10b2o$60b2o$60bo13bobobobo$9b2o50b3o9bob2ob2obo22b2o$10bo
52bo9bo3bo3bo22bo$7b3o12b2o48b2o3bob2o21bobo$7bo14bo55bo23b2o$23b3o50b
obo$25bo50b2o2$101b2o$101b2o3b2o$105bo2bo2$104bo$91b2o11bo2bo$91bo5b2o
3b2ob2o$92b3o2b2o3b3o$94bo8bo$92b2o$92bo$19b2obo70bo8b2o$19bob2o69b2o
8b2o!
#C [[ THEME LifeHistory ]]

There is also a periodic C-to-G which can use a blocker or a unix, and works in every phase:

Code: Select all

#C p6/p8 C-to-G
#C Source for p8 version: https://conwaylife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=111999#p111999
#C Source for p6 version: https://conwaylife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=112007#p112007
x = 92, y = 233, rule = B3/S23
28b2o$28bo2bo3$28bob2o31b2o$23b2o2bobo29b2obo2bob2o$23bo4bo30b2o2bo4bo
$27bo36bo$24bo2bo37bobo2$8b2o72b2o$8bobo70bobo$9bo72bo3$21bo48bo$20bo
50bo$19bo52bo$20bo50bo$21b2o46b2o2$2o88b2o$2o88b2o8$28b2o$28b2o3$28b3o
32b2o$23b2o2bob2o28b4o4b2o$23b2o2b2o30b3ob2o2b2o$27b2o35bo3$8b2o72b2o$
8bobo70bobo$9bo72bo3$21bo48bo$20bo50bo$19bo52bo$20bo50bo$21b2o46b2o2$
2o88b2o$2o88b2o8$28b2o$28b2o2$29bo$28bobo29b4o$23b2o2bo2bo28bo7b2o$23b
2obo32bo3b2o2b2o$27b2o31bo2b2o3$8b2o72b2o$8bobo70bobo$9bo72bo3$21bo48b
o$20bo50bo$19bo52bo$20bo50bo$21b2o46b2o2$2o88b2o$2o88b2o8$28b2o$28b2o$
28b2o$29bo31b2o$28bobo29b3o$23b3obobo29bobo2bo2b2o$23b4obo30b2o2b2o2b
2o$27bo35b2o3$8b2o72b2o$8bobo70bobo$9bo72bo3$21bo48bo$20bo50bo$19bo52b
o$20bo50bo$21b2o46b2o2$2o88b2o$2o88b2o8$28b2o$27bo2bo$30bo$30bo29bobo$
24bo3bobo32bo$23bo3bobo29bo4bo2b2o$23bo4bo30b2obo2bob2o$24b4o35b2o3$8b
2o72b2o$8bobo70bobo$9bo72bo3$21bo48bo$20bo50bo$19bo52bo$20bo50bo$21b2o
46b2o2$2o88b2o$2o88b2o8$28b2o$28bobo$29b3o$30b2o$28bobo32bo$23b2o2bobo
29b2o2b2ob3o$23bobo2bo30b2o4b4o$24b4o35b2o$25b2o2$8b2o72b2o$8bobo70bob
o$9bo72bo3$21bo48bo$20bo50bo$19bo52bo$20bo50bo$21b2o46b2o2$2o88b2o$2o
88b2o12$63b2o2bo$59b2o2b2o3bo$59b2o7bo$64b4o3$82b2o$81bobo$82bo3$70bo$
71bo$72bo$71bo$69b2o2$90b2o$90b2o12$63b2o$59b2o2b2o2b2o$59b2o2bo2bobo$
65b3o$65b2o2$82b2o$81bobo$82bo3$70bo$71bo$72bo$71bo$69b2o2$90b2o$90b2o!

Question: What are other known interesting "functionally stable stateless" mechanisms?
("Interesting" is meant to exclude relatively boring examples, such as a semi-Snark followed by a glider eater/a snake-bit.)

[mniemiec]

Question: What are other known interesting "functionally stable stateless" mechanisms?
("Interesting" is meant to exclude relatively boring examples, such as a semi-Snark followed by a glider eater/a snake-bit.)

The domino from a pentadecathlon (or almost any other domino sparker) can remove an unwanted block in one of two ways. If you have a generator that periodically generates unwanted blocks on an edge, a pentadecathlon can asynchronously remove them.

[PHPBB12345]

What does "corderization" means?

[confocaloid]

What does "corderization" means?

• Several different general techniques (forum post)
• A relevant post on the terminology

TBH I think it could be less confusing to refer to these as engineered spaceships. This is longer but much clearer. You engineer a spaceship using some number of copies of a dirty/chaotic reaction.

[BTS-fan]

Why is there a p1 honey hassler?

[muzik]

Why is there a p1 honey hassler?

Many honey farm hasslers hassle buns since they evolve into honey farms. Since a bun can also be stabilised in many ways to create a still life, I assume this is why.

[mniemiec]

What does "corderization" means?

TBH I think it could be less confusing to refer to these as engineered spaceships. This is longer but much clearer. You engineer a spaceship using some number of copies of a dirty/chaotic reaction.

I think the term "corderization" refers to stabilizing a dirty (and ultimately unsuccessful) puffer like Corderman's Switch Engine, solely by using multiple copies of itself in different phases and positions. Engineered Spaceships includes these, but is a much wider category - also including things like B-heptominos tamed by escort *WSS spaceships, and complex constructions like Gemini, HBK, Waterbear, etc.

[dvgrn]

I think the term "corderization" refers to stabilizing a dirty (and ultimately unsuccessful) puffer like Corderman's Switch Engine, solely by using multiple copies of itself in different phases and positions.

Right. To clarify a little more, probably unnecessarily, puffers can be corderized even if they're perfectly successful. For example, the pufferfish spaceship is a corderization of the pufferfish-based p36 block puffer (combining two of them in a way that suppresses the blocks).

I believe that corderized puffers are considered to be valid engineered spaceships, in the "corderized" category as distinct from the "self-supporting" or "self-constructing" categories. "Corderization" is a useful precise term, not about to be discarded any time soon.

[confocaloid]

"Corderization" is a useful precise term, not about to be discarded any time soon.

Unfortunately this clashes with Cordership, which refers specifically to a spaceship based on Life's switch engines (and therefore necessarily moving diagonally with speed c/12 and having period that is a multiple of 96), named after Charles Corderman, who discovered the switch engine.

I personally think this clash is unfortunate and confusing. If it was possible to go back in time, I think it might make sense to pick a completely different term (not referring to Charles Corderman) for the act of arranging multiple copies of a reaction to make a spaceship.

Note that I did read some old relevant forum posts, and I do understand that the consensus is the consensus -- but in this case it is not entirely clear just what is the current consensus on this terminology clash.

[pipsqueek]

is there a simpler way to push a block diagonally and have one returning glider?

Code: Select all

x = 48, y = 47, rule = B3/S23
23bo$24bo$2bo19b3o$obo$b2o9$22bo$16bo3bobo$14bobo4b2o$15b2o2$25bo$26bo
$24b3o12$37bo$38bo$36b3o4$36bo$37bo$35b3o5$46b2o$46b2o!

[dvgrn]

Unfortunately this clashes with Cordership, which refers specifically to a spaceship based on Life's switch engines...

I don't see how this is a clash in any interesting sense. It's a generalization of the first/earliest/best known instance of a category, to apply to later objects in the same category, maybe even in completely different rules. "Corderization" isn't the same word as "Cordership", so it seems like the most that should be needed is a LifeWiki page about "corderization".

Similarly, for example, the term "Geminoid" is distinct from the term "Gemini", and it isn't a clash -- it's a useful conceptual reference back to the original / best-known instance.

We do this kind of generalization all the time, and it doesn't cause any particular confusion -- just like we still use the verb "to xerox" meaning "to copy a piece of paper with a machine", even though the machine in question may be an Epson or a Canon or a who-knows-what.

... As another example, does it also seem like a clash to have the word "glider" in "Gliders in Life-Like Cellular Automata"? Nowadays "spaceship" is a more common term for this concept, but it's okay to say "glider" when you mean a "generalized moving object", as long as the context is clear.

[dvgrn]

is there a simpler way to push a block diagonally and have one returning glider?

Code: Select all

x = 48, y = 47, rule = B3/S23
23bo$24bo$2bo19b3o$obo$b2o9$22bo$16bo3bobo$14bobo4b2o$15b2o2$25bo$26bo
$24b3o12$37bo$38bo$36b3o4$36bo$37bo$35b3o5$46b2o$46b2o!

Can the block push be any distance?

Also, how much of a hurry are you in? Is the speed of completion of the reaction important, or can it take longer?

I'm pretty sure that gencols or some other search can find you a solution that needs less than seven gliders. There are mostly-slow salvos that can manage the trick with 7G, findable just with Seeds of Destruction:

Code: Select all

x = 90, y = 56, rule = B3/S23
obo$b2o$bo5$11bobo37bo$12b2o38bo$12bo37b3o12$27bo$28bo$26b3o5$78bo$79b
o$77b3o$47bo$48bo$46b3o15$88bo$89bo$87b3o4$88b2o$88b2o!

With a bit more work, Seeds of Destruction will give me a sideways glider in 6G, which also implies a kicked-back 180-degree glider in 7G:

Code: Select all

x = 77, y = 51, rule = B3/S23
2bo$obo$b2o35bo$39bo$37b3o12$14bo$15bo$13b3o5$65bo$66bo$64b3o$34bo$35b
o$33b3o15$75bo$76bo$74b3o4$75b2o$75b2o!

I don't really know for sure, of course, but if these are findable completely by hand with mostly-slow gliders, then I would think that the search space ought to be big enough to allow for a solution with just four or five synchronized gliders -- six at the most, but that seems kind of unlikely.

[confocaloid]

is there a simpler way to push a block diagonally and have one returning glider?

Code: Select all

x = 48, y = 47, rule = B3/S23
23bo$24bo$2bo19b3o$obo$b2o9$22bo$16bo3bobo$14bobo4b2o$15b2o2$25bo$26bo
$24b3o12$37bo$38bo$36b3o4$36bo$37bo$35b3o5$46b2o$46b2o!

Here is a 6G solution, where the returning glider does not interfere with the salvo -- it can be repeated every 128 ticks:

Code: Select all

x = 106, y = 189, rule = LifeHistory
2C$2C10$15.2C$6.3C5.2C$6.C9.C$7.C6$18.3C$18.C$19.C21$47.2A$38.3A5.2A$
38.A9.A$39.A6$50.3A$50.A$51.A21$79.2A$70.3A5.2A$70.A9.A$71.A6$82.3A$
82.A$83.A23$22.3C$22.C$23.C6$31.3C$31.C$32.C3$39.3C$39.C$40.C17$54.3A
$54.A$55.A6$63.3A$63.A$64.A3$71.3A$71.A$72.A17$86.3A$86.A$87.A6$95.3A
$95.A$96.A3$103.3A$103.A$104.A!

It seems like these kinds of questions arise frequently, and look like "this should be a solved problem", yet it is not always clear where to find the answers. For example, two natural questions about the above 6G solution are: (a) Is there a cheaper solution (counting in gliders) where the returning glider does not interfere with the salvo? (b) Is there a faster solution, with the same constraints?

Edit: here is a 5G solution from an old thread:

EDIT: The second alternative is somewhat special, because the return glider does not interact with any salvos, that might be still in flight. Though probably it does not matter for your goal.

Code: Select all

x = 77, y = 85, rule = B3/S23
2o$2o7$4b2o$4bobo$4bo4$9b2o$8b2o$10bo5$18b2o$18bobo4bo$18bo5b2o$24bobo
8$11b3o$11bo$12bo24$54b2o$54bobo$54bo4$59b2o$58b2o$60bo5$68b2o$68bobo
4bo$68bo5b2o$74bobo8$61b3o$61bo$62bo!

Edit 2: 5G, can be repeated after 66 ticks:

Code: Select all

x = 56, y = 100, rule = B3/S23
54b2o$54b2o8$41bo$41b2o6b2o$40bobo5bobo$50bo6$37b2o$36bobo$38bo6$24b2o
$25b2o5b3o$24bo9bo$33bo6$20b3o$22bo$21bo5$8bo$8b2o6b2o$7bobo5bobo$17bo
6$4b2o$3bobo$5bo9$33b3o$35bo$34bo4bo$39b2o$38bobo12$17b2o$16bobo$18bo$
22b2o$23b2o$22bo12$3o$2bo$bo4bo$6b2o$5bobo!

[apg]

Unfortunately this clashes with Cordership, which refers specifically to a spaceship based on Life's switch engines...

I don't see how this is a clash in any interesting sense. It's a generalization of the first/earliest/best known instance of a category, to apply to later objects in the same category, maybe even in completely different rules. "Corderization" isn't the same word as "Cordership", so it seems like the most that should be needed is a LifeWiki page about "corderization".

It's interesting how it's ultimately a misnomer: yes, the Cordership was the first example, but it was built by Dean Hickerson, not Charles Corderman, and we've actually verbed the wrong half of the word:

• Corder- = 'pertaining to switch engines'
• -ship = 'is a spaceship rather than a puffer'

Logically it would have been called 'shipping', as in 'can someone please ship these unstable puffer engines?'. But that loses some subtlety, because most spaceships are not the result of corderization. Fortunately, however, the substantially most common word in Life terminology containing 'corder-' is 'Cordership' (the engine itself is just called a 'switch engine'), so the word 'corderization' does convey the intended meaning of 'make it into something analogous to a Cordership'.

[mniemiec]

Unfortunately this clashes with Cordership, which refers specifically to a spaceship based on Life's switch engines (and therefore necessarily moving diagonally with speed c/12 and having period that is a multiple of 96), named after Charles Corderman, who discovered the switch engine.

I personally think this clash is unfortunate and confusing. If it was possible to go back in time, I think it might make sense to pick a completely different term (not referring to Charles Corderman) for the act of arranging multiple copies of a reaction to make a spaceship.

Corderman's Switch Engine was the first object that had this property, but the verb "corderize" evolved into a general term referring to all objects of this same property. This is a common phenomenon.

A "glider" is a spaceship that moves via glide symmetry. This became the proper name for the first observed spaceship with this property, but the other three common spaceships also share this property, as do quite a few other spaceships discovered later. It's usually easy to determine whether the specific or generic meaning is intended from the context.

English is full of specific terms that have later come into common usage as generic terms; e.g. kleenex (for tissue), kool-aid (for powdered drinks), xerox (for photocopying), photoshop (for any kind of image editing), and even coke (for any carbonated soft drink) in the American southeast.

Math and science are also full of terms for discoveries that were named after their supposed inventors, but were really just named after the people who made those discoveries popular, later evidenced by the fact that many such discoveries were found long before by others, but were not well known. E.g. The Pythagorean Theorem was known long before Pythagoras; Fibonacci numbers were not originally discovered by Fibonacci, and his name has later become more generic, with terms like tribonacci, tetranacci, etc.

[otismo]

what would we call this, a P46 Diagonal Quaduoplet Sparker :

Code: Select all

x = 46, y = 32, rule = B3/S23
11b2o$12bo$12bob2ob2obo$13bobobob2o$o13bo$3o$3bo$2b2o2$13bobo6b2obo$3b
2o8bobo6bob2o$3b2o8b3o4$13bo$12bobo4$17bobo3bobo$12bo6bo3bo8bobo2b2o$
13bo13bo3bo3bob3o4b2o$14bo3bo5bo3bo3bo6b2o3b2o$15bo11bo5b5obo$19bo3bo
12b3o$17bobo3bobo$36b3o$33b5obo$17b2o13bo6b2o3b2o$17b2o12bo3bob3o4b2o$
32bobo2b2o!

Cheers !

[pipsqueek]

has anyone tried to search for an elementary replicator before? would it be likely that one exists within a reasonably small bounding box? (like a 25x25)

I think it's definitely possible. Im sure not too many 25x25 patterns are known to occur naturally. and searching all 25x25 patterns would take too long. I bet we'll find it before 2028.

EDIT: that is, if we try to

[hotdogPi]

The best way to search for an elementary replicator is apgsearch with symmetric soups, i.e. we're already doing that.

[pipsqueek]

The best way to search for an elementary replicator is apgsearch with symmetric soups, i.e. we're already doing that.

who's to say that it will be symmetric? and how do you know its the best way? Im sure there is a more efficient specialized method of searching for replicators. if we haven't found one already, then maybe our search efforts aren't effective enough.

[mniemiec]

who's to say that it will be symmetric? and how do you know its the best way? Im sure there is a more efficient specialized method of searching for replicators. if we haven't found one already, then maybe our search efforts aren't effective enough.

It's not necessarily that the replicators themselves are symmetric; only that they are more likely to occur in symmetric soups. E.g. soups with 4-fold symmetries often yield 4 switch engines - and do so with much greater frequency than asymmetric soups yield a single switch engine.

[pipsqueek]

who's to say that it will be symmetric? and how do you know its the best way? Im sure there is a more efficient specialized method of searching for replicators. if we haven't found one already, then maybe our search efforts aren't effective enough.

It's not necessarily that the replicators themselves are symmetric; only that they are more likely to occur in symmetric soups. E.g. soups with 4-fold symmetries often yield 4 switch engines - and do so with much greater frequency than asymmetric soups yield a single switch engine.

why?