There seems to be invalid patterns on the site

[dbell]

I have recently noticed some Life Viewer errors on some of the old patterns.

For example, this old pattern from the 'Can we substantiate this claim' thread generates an error:

Code: Select all

x = 89, y = 53
#C A fly-by deletion of a pond using an unusual spaceship.
#C From a collection by Jason Summers in 2001.
23boo16bo5bo18bo5bo5bo$22bobbo14b3o3b3o7b3o6b3o3b3o3b3o$22bobbo14boboo
boobbo5bobbo6bobooboobbobobboo5bo$23boo6bo9bobo4b3o3b3obbo6bobobobboob
obboo4b3o$30b3o8b3obobobo8b6obbo3bobobobobbo5boboo$bo15bo11bobboo3b8ob
5obobbo4bobo3b3o5b3o3bo5b3o$3o6bo6b3o10bobboo3boboobbo5bobobbo9bo4boob
o7bo5b3o$oboo4b3o5boboo11bobbobbobo4bobbo15bo7bo8b4obboo$b3o3bobboo5b
3o7bo3bobbo9boo30bo3bo$b3obbobobbo5b3o11b4o$boo7bob3obboo12booboo$4boo
6boo3boo14bobbo$bbobbo6bo3boo12bobbobbob3o$bo11bo17bo6boboo$bo35bobbob
oo$40bobo$19bo12bo6booboboo$18b3o10b3o8boboo$18boboo8boobo8bobbo$19b3o
8b3o9booboo$19b3o8b3o6booboobbo$19b3o9boo8boobbobo$19boo20boo$$42bobo$
17bo23bob3o$16b3o21boobobbo$15boobo20bobo$15b3o21bo5bo$15b3o20bo4bobo$
16boo19boo4bobo$37boo$38bobbo$$38b3o$37bobbo$37b5o$37boo$38boobbo$39bo
5bo$38bo5b3o$37boo5boboo$38bo6b3o$38bo6boo$39boboo$40b3o$$43bo$44bo$
44boo$44b3o$44b3o$44boo!

The problem seems to be the inclusion of comment lines after the initial 'x =' line.
This doesn't cause problems for golly, but does for other Life programs (such as my own).

I don't know if the RLE standard allows embedded comment lines, but I thought it didn't.

Someone must have run some script over the patterns on the site to change them in this way. Please change them back so that the patterns run again. Thanks!

BCNU,
-dbell

[muzik]

On a related note, the pattern in the linked post also doesn't seem to be runnable anymore:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1622&p=157568#p157568

It was fixed a bit over a month ago, but seems to have broken again since (almost certaintly due to changes to handling Niemiec cells).

[rowett]

I have recently noticed some Life Viewer errors on some of the old patterns.

The problem seems to be the inclusion of comment lines after the initial 'x =' line.

This has been fixed. Thanks for reporting!

No need to change the patterns it was a different issue. LifeViewer is happy with comment lines in the RLE body.

[rowett]

On a related note, the pattern in the linked post also doesn't seem to be runnable anymore:

Fixed, thanks.

[dbell]

Thanks for the quick fix! It also fixes the other examples I found that didn't work before.

So the real problem wasn't the comment lines after all; that was just a coincidence.

(However, now I have to update my own Life program to accept embedded comments too.)

BCNU,
-dbell

[dbell]

Following up on the previous post:

Some of the patterns on the web site have embedded comment lines, which the viewer is happy to accept.

However, the 'Run Length Encoded` wiki article does not indicate that this is allowed - It only mentions comment lines before the header line.

If embedded comment lines are really allowed, then the wiki article needs updating to say so.

BCNU,
-dbell

[rowett]

Following up on the previous post:

Some of the patterns on the web site have embedded comment lines, which the viewer is happy to accept.

However, the 'Run Length Encoded` wiki article does not indicate that this is allowed - It only mentions comment lines before the header line.

If embedded comment lines are really allowed, then the wiki article needs updating to say so.

BCNU,
-dbell

My post was misleading: LifeViewer isn't happy with comments in the RLE body.

LifeViewer is happy with comments before or after the header line but before the RLE body. Additionally anything after the ! is treated as a comment (without the need for the #C prefix).

Golly is happy with comments anywhere: Extended RLE Format.

I may well align LifeViewer's support with Golly's to ensure better interoperability of patterns between them. Having said that I'm not sure I've ever seen a pattern with comments embedded in the RLE.

So I think the wiki article is correct because it's referencing the original Run Length Encoding format and not extensions to it.

[dvgrn]

The pattern posted in dbell's message is pretty definitely the only example I've ever noticed of comment lines coming after the header line but before the RLE body. I've never ever seen comments in the middle of the RLE body, that I can recall -- not sure what use that would be, since Golly doesn't display them, and RLE is not, as a rule (heh), naturally chunked up at the line level into commentable pieces. If people want to comment their RLE, they're going to use in-pattern labels and/or LifeViewer labels.

I also am not aware of any scripts being run or edits being done in any systematic way, to change the locations of comments like that. The number of people who could conceivably do this is very low -- only Nathaniel has the necessary access, I think, and he would have zero motivation to do such a thing.

Are there any other examples of this? If not, I think Occam's Razor would suggest that this was a one-time editing error on dbell's part, in putting the message together.

[dbell]

> If not, I think Occam's Razor would suggest that this was a one-time editing error on dbell's part, in putting the message together.

This is probably true, but I can't find anything in my files about it. I probably pasted the pattern in by hand and then added the comments. Since the viewer showed it fine, I didn't notice that it was wrong.

Sorry about the hassle.

Anyway, I am happy that we agree that the RLE format shouldn't have embedded comments.

BCNU,
-dbell

[hkoenig]

Posted today were several patterns that appear to have been attempts at jokes. Those need to be removed, as they will clutter up future searches.

[hotdogPi]

Posted today were several patterns that appear to have been attempts at jokes. Those need to be removed, as they will clutter up future searches.

For my "9 oscillator discoveries" post, I made an edit at the beginning of April 2 saying which two of the nine were real. However, the other seven are still valid partials.

[confocaloid]

The recently created page https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?oldid=158075 appears to be another attempt at a joke (only this time it is not even April 1).

The page needs to be deleted. The current pagename violates the forum rules 1 and 2b. The underlying topic of the page isn't notable (LW:NB) for a page either, which cannot be fixed by renaming it. The concept "pattern that looks like it works, even though it doesn't" fails to make a notable topic for the wiki, there are way too many of those "arbitrary animations" (which aren't Life/CA reactions/patterns anymore because they don't follow the Life/CA rules), and posting such "arbitrary animations" in large amounts or otherwise focusing on them would distract from the purpose of this website, which is for sharing interesting reactions/patterns that do work as claimed (and describing those reactions/patterns in a reasonably clear, human-readable and honest manner).

Posted today were several patterns that appear to have been attempts at jokes. Those need to be removed, as they will clutter up future searches.

For my "9 oscillator discoveries" post, I made an edit at the beginning of April 2 saying which two of the nine were real. However, the other seven are still valid partials.

[dvgrn]

The recently created page https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?oldid=158075 appears to be another attempt at a joke (only this time it is not even April 1).

I looked at the page when it was created. It didn't seem to me to be intended as a joke in any way. It's simply a straightforward definition of the term "troll" in the context of Life patterns.

I don't see how the page name violates either rule 1 or rule 2b.

Can you please explain in detail your thought process for claiming a rule-1 violation in this case? I've been really puzzled by the way you seem to interpret that rule, for quite a long time now.

Based on discussions of related issues that the moderator team has had so far, I don't think that anyone on the team would interpret that page name as a rule-1 violation. The moderator team is probably the main audience for claims of rule-1 violations, and dozens of these claims have been getting made recently. So this really seems like a significant issue that needs to be resolved. I definitely hope other moderators will say something on this issue, especially to correct me if I've gotten the wrong impression here.

I think we can rule out any Rule 2b violations here. Rule 2b forbids foul language. "Troll" is not foul language in any way. If "troll" is applied to a person, that's definitely a serious rule violation -- but it's Rule 1, not Rule 2b.

[rowett]

The recently created page https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?oldid=158075 appears to be another attempt at a joke (only this time it is not even April 1).

I looked at the page when it was created. It didn't seem to me to be intended as a joke in any way. It's simply a straightforward definition of the term "troll" in the context of Life patterns.

I don't see how the page name violates either rule 1 or rule 2b.

Agreed, it looks fine to me.

[KittyTac]

Since when is troll a swear word?