Rule definition terminology

[iddi01]

Probably "There is a clean 1D replicator that works by toggling 2 birth conditions in the rule which has a chaotic 2D replicator."

Again, i never thought about these kind of things before today, so don't expect it to be appropriate.

[confocaloid]

I think this example helps to show the difference between the forums and the LifeWiki.

Some people (not me) argue that there's no difference. Well, here it is.

Probably "There is a clean 1D replicator that works by toggling 2 birth conditions in the rule which has a chaotic 2D replicator."

Again, i never thought about these kind of things before today, so don't expect it to be appropriate.

This 2D chaotic replicator:

Code: Select all

x = 2, y = 4, rule = B3-y4ek5y/S2-i34t6c
o$o$2o!

...is only 2 transitions away from this 1D clean replicator:

Code: Select all

x = 2, y = 4, rule = B3-y4e5y6i/S2-i34t6c
o$2o$o!

Can you please define and expain what you mean by that, exactly? What would you write if you wanted to explain the same thing to a LifeWiki reader, instead of posting it on the forums? [...]

[dvgrn]

Proposal to add a LifeWiki linkable definition of "transition", in the "transition rule" sense
FYI to anyone interested -- I'm currently still planning to add something along the lines of the "green text" definition as a glossary article, a week or so from now -- on the grounds that the many current uses of "transition" on the LifeWiki could really use a place to link to, to clarify their intended meaning.

I'm definitely looking for a good compromise solution here. I agree with silversmith that the support isn't there for changing any of the current uses of "transition" in LifeWiki articles. For something this controversial we'd need a clear supermajority in favor of making the change. A clear supermajority hasn't been demonstrated.

Since it doesn't work to change those existing uses of "transition", it seems like a good idea to explain them -- since we do have good evidence that some people might find those existing uses of "transition" to be confusing, if no attempt is made to clarify that usage for newcomers.

Definition to go in https://conwaylife.com/wiki/Transition_rule ?
I'm thinking that it might work well to have the linked glossary article's name be the uncontroversial phrase "transition rule", rather than the more controversial short form "transition". confocaloid has supplied a definition (item #2) for "transition rule", so that seems like a good starting point for a compromise. I haven't heard any feedback about this idea yet.

I'm still very interested to hear any new opinions, pro or especially con, about this specific proposal:

In articles like the Hensel notation article, add an explanatory link from the first use of "transition" to a glossary article called "transition rule" that explains the meaning of "transition" in that context.

I'll be very happy to change my editing plans as necessary in response to new feedback.

Confocaloid has given the only definite opinion so far about the "green writeup" -- an unfavorable opinion. Anyone who is not clear on that point should please click the link and read that opinion. However, it's not clear to me how that response should be applied to the idea of having the glossary page's name be "transition rule" rather than "transition".

A glossary page for "transition rule" would leave space to also set up a "transition" disambiguation page, exactly as confocaloid has suggested several times.

From my point of view, the key difference here would be that the first use of the word "transition" in places like the Hensel-notation article should link directly to the "transition rule" glossary page.

In a couple dozen places on the current LifeWiki, the intended meaning of "transition" is specifically the "transition rule" meaning. So linking those uses of "transition" to a disambiguation page would be unnecessarily vague. It seems clearer to link directly to the specific intended meaning, instead.

[confocaloid]

[...]
Since it doesn't work to change those existing uses of "transition", it seems like a good idea to explain them -- since we do have good evidence that some people might find those existing uses of "transition" to be confusing, if no attempt is made to clarify that usage for newcomers.
[...]

I think that's an invalid argument. By itself, creating a new page and/or linking to it cannot solve issues with wording/style on existing pages. If there's unclear/ambiguous wording somewhere on LifeWiki, then adding a link from that place will not change much -- the wording will remain unnecessarily confusing.
Those issues can be solved by rewording/rewriting the pages using the word or the phrase.
Those issues cannot be solved without changing the existing explanations, because those issues are problems with the wording in the explanations.

To put it in another way, it should be possible to read and understand a page (at least on some basic level) without jumping back and forth between different pages with definitions of local words and phrases. Do not force newcomers to learn local jargon (which is often counterintuitive, ambiguous, or even self-contradictory), when simple rewording would solve the problem with explanations on the wiki.

Otherwise, I don't object to creating a LifeWiki page transition rule as long as it will define the expected thing.

• "An alive cell stays alive in the next generation if it currently has exactly 2 alive neighbours"
• "A dead cell becomes alive in the next generation if it currently has exactly 6 alive neighbours"
• "A cell lives in the next generation if it currently has exactly 3 alive neighbours"

Third example above combines the B3 rule and the S3 rule. You can include the information about the current state of the middle cell if it's needed to determine what happens, but you don't have to include information that is not needed.
(The main part of) a Golly ruletable can be read line-by-line, with each line defining a transition rule. Again, variables can be used to combine multiple rules into a single composite rule, when there's some repetitive pattern or unnecessary information about states of neighbours that can be ignored.

I think that the above suffices to understand the idea behind transition rules, and that the links I provided suffice to show that both these ideas and this terminology existed long before I joined the community.

[...]
https://web.archive.org/web/20230928182 ... ary_03.htm
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... 314#Page_2
https://web.archive.org/web/20040323172 ... ndixA.html

[confocaloid]

[...]
EDIT4:: changed order of "transition rule" and "transition" in definition; added some suggested wording from confocaloid (in purple).
[...]
The main part of a Golly ruletable can be read line-by-line, with each line defining a transition (in the "transition rule" sense).
[...]

The quoted statement is false. I did never suggest the wording that is currently highlighted in purple in the post. The post currently ascribes to me something I did not suggest.


More generally, I think the "green writeup" shouldn't go to the wiki in its current state, and minor changes cannot fix that. The text (suggested and written by dvgrn, despite claims made in the post) will not help to understand the ideas behind the terminology (i.e. it will not help anyone who is confused, and will likely confuse people who were not confused before reading).
Of course it will not solve existing problems with wording in other pages, either, because those issues can only be solved by going and actually rewording those pages.

[dvgrn]

[...]
EDIT4:: changed order of "transition rule" and "transition" in definition; added some suggested wording from confocaloid (in purple).
[...]
The main part of a Golly ruletable can be read line-by-line, with each line defining a transition (in the "transition rule" sense).
[...]

The quoted statement is false. I did never suggest the wording that is currently highlighted in purple in the post. The post currently ascribes to me something I did not suggest.

Sounds like this needs a clarification. Here's the section I was referring to, from a private message exchange with confocaloid today. Here I have only boldfaced the sentence and added the purple color:

[...]
Do you object to adding a "transition rule" definition as an interim solution, to explain the existing LifeWiki wording?
[...]

I don't object to creating a LifeWiki page transition rule as long as it will define the expected thing.

• "An alive cell stays alive in the next generation if it currently has exactly 2 alive neighbours"
• "A dead cell becomes alive in the next generation if it currently has exactly 6 alive neighbours"
• "A cell lives in the next generation if it currently has exactly 3 alive neighbours"

Third example above combines the B3 rule and the S3 rule. I believe it's pretty uncontroversial that such "composite rules" also can be naturally viewed as transition rules -- you can include the information about the current state of the middle cell if it's needed to determine what happens, but you don't have to include information that is not needed.

(The main part of) a Golly ruletable can be read line-by-line, with each line defining a transition rule. Again, variables can be used to combine multiple rules into a single composite rule, when there's some repetitive pattern or unnecessary information about states of neighbours that can be ignored.

My edit didn't claim that the purple text was an exact quote from confocaloid ... but it's definitely where I got the suggested wording from -- only one word is left off at the end.

It wouldn't have worked well to say in the green writeup the exact thing that confocaloid said -- i.e., the "transition rule" part at the end. "Transition" is the single-word term that I'm using throughout the green writeup, because that matches a lot of other usage on and off of the LifeWiki.

The green writeup is intended to make it clear that the common usage of "transition" is terminology that evolved from the full phrase "transition rule".

[confocaloid]

[...] I'm thinking that it might work well to have the linked glossary article's name be the uncontroversial phrase "transition rule", rather than the more controversial short form "transition". [...]

[...] "Transition" is the single-word term that I'm using throughout the green writeup, because that matches a lot of other usage on and off of the LifeWiki. [...]

If you are planning to create a page defining the term 'transition rule' (as you claimed in a previous post), then you should use the specific term 'transition rule'. Obviously it will not work to somehow shorten it while trying to define it.

Additionally, it does not work very well to shorten 'transition rule' to 'transition' when using it, either. The reason is that transition rules are rules, rather than transitions. Transitions are a very different idea.

[...] My edit didn't claim that the purple text was an exact quote from confocaloid ... but it's definitely where I got the suggested wording from -- only one word is left off at the end. [...]

Again: I did never suggest the wording that you label as "the suggested wording".
Instead, I used a different wording in my post, without suggesting it for any specific purpose.

[...]
More generally, I think the "green writeup" shouldn't go to the wiki in its current state, and minor changes cannot fix that. The text (suggested and written by dvgrn, despite claims made in the post) will not help to understand the ideas behind the terminology (i.e. it will not help anyone who is confused, and will likely confuse people who were not confused before reading).
Of course it will not solve existing problems with wording in other pages, either, because those issues can only be solved by going and actually rewording those pages.

[dvgrn]

Again: I did never suggest the wording that you label as "the suggested wording".
Instead, I used a different wording in my post, without suggesting it for any specific purpose.

Sorry about that. I intended no disrespect. Just wanted to acknowledge where I got the idea from. I've added another edit to the green writeup to say that you've objected to my use of "suggested".

[...] I'm thinking that it might work well to have the linked glossary article's name be the uncontroversial phrase "transition rule", rather than the more controversial short form "transition". [...]

[...] "Transition" is the single-word term that I'm using throughout the green writeup, because that matches a lot of other usage on and off of the LifeWiki. [...]

If you are planning to create a page defining the term 'transition rule' (as you claimed in a previous post), then you should use the specific term 'transition rule'. Obviously it will not work to somehow shorten it while trying to define it.

You might well be right. However, what is obvious to you is not necessarily obvious to me ... as in this case.

I did use the term "transition rule" -- once, at the top, while introducing its common-use synonym "transition".

So I'm trying to define the full term "transition rule", while also acknowledging its short form "transition", which is the term people most often actually use when they are referring to transition rules -- e.g., the seventeen uses in the Hensel notation article.

I want to link the first use of "transition" in that article to the new green-writeup "transition rule" page... for the time being, anyway, until a better solution comes along that I can't see at the moment.

This leaves space for the disambiguation page under "transition" that you've suggested would be useful, in previous discussions.

Let's see what other people think, eh?

EDIT after confocaloid's post below: Let's see what other people think, eh?

[confocaloid]

Relevant: viewtopic.php?p=185767#p185767 viewtopic.php?p=186009#p186009

[...]
I want to link the first use of "transition" in that article to the new green-writeup "transition rule" page... for the time being, anyway, until a better solution comes along that I can't see at the moment.
[...]

Considering the sheer amount of the "green-writeup", the amount of (sometimes announced, other times made silently) edits to said writeup, and the amount of existing unresolved issues with your idea,

I think a better solution would be to supply a very short, clear, unambiguous, self-consistent definition of transition rule that follows existing external sources that were written by people who put some serious effort into making their writing clear and readable.
As a rule of thumb, forum posts cannot be used as sources of intuitively clear, easily understood, helpful, useful terminology.

Failing that, another better solution would be to avoid having any further attempts to push either the "green writeup" or a minor modification of that, and leave things in their current state, unless and until someone else{*} decides to do something to attempt to make LifeWiki a better encyclopedia of Life/CA-related knowledge.

{*}: neither dvgrn nor confocaloid, and hopefully someone who is sufficiently uninvolved to be able to distinguish good ideas from bad ideas.

[dvgrn]

... leave things in their current state, unless and until someone else{*} decides to do something to attempt to make LifeWiki a better encyclopedia of Life/CA-related knowledge.

{*}: neither dvgrn nor confocaloid, and hopefully someone who is sufficiently uninvolved to be able to distinguish good ideas from bad ideas.

@confocaloid, I'm sorry you don't like my plan of defining "transition rule". I've waited a week and asked for objections from other people, but so far you're the only person who has given me any feedback about my plan.

Unless objections from other people show up soon, I'm going to go ahead and create the page anyway. Bear in mind that the page will be a definition of the term "transition rule"; you mentioned yourself that the green writeup is an attempt to describe "transition rule". By creating a definition for "transition rule" rather than "transition", I'm trying to work with you toward a reasonable compromise.

Once the page is created, any LifeWiki editor will be welcome to make incremental improvements, just like any other article on the wiki. I think it will be easier for people to make improvements once an initial version is available to look at.

Incremental improvements
Creating this one minor new page is a good attempt at an incremental improvement, I think. Adding links to this new page in other LifeWiki articles that currently use "transition", will then also be small incremental improvements. The links will explain those existing uses of "transition" to anyone who might be confused about them -- with no immediate need to make any wording changes at all to any of those existing articles.

By contrast, rewording (for example) the seventeen uses of "transition" in the Hensel notation article would be a fairly major overhaul, not really something that can be done incrementally. For your suggested changes to work in the long run, it seems to me that every use of "transition" in the "transition rule" sense would eventually have to be removed from the LifeWiki. If we removed some of them and left others, that would end up being confusing, I would think.

What I'm planning, and why
I'm planning to continue to use the short "transition" form of the term in the "transition rule" definition, specifically so that it works better to link to the page from other pages that use "transition" in the sense that we're talking about here.

I absolutely agree with you that really, in a technical sense, " transition rules are rules, rather than transitions". Please bear that in mind.

However, transition rules are currently _called_ "transitions" very frequently, both on and off the LifeWiki. The LifeWiki uses of the term can't safely be changed until community opinion changes. So I really honestly think that in the meantime, it's a good idea to document and explain the LifeWiki's existing uses of the term "transition" to refer to transition rules.

Longer term possibilities
If and when the community follows your lead decides to abandon the current common habit of using "transition" as a short form of "transition rule" ... then presumably the relevant LifeWiki articles will get adjusted so that they use some other wording than "transition".

At that hypothetical future point, the links I'm planning to add would inevitably get cleaned up, more or less automatically. The "transition rule" page could be patched up so that it doesn't use "transition" in that sense either.

So ... adding the "transition rule" page will meet my immediate goal of explaining the current usage of "transition" in existing LifeWiki articles -- but that won't in any way close the door to making your suggested changes later, if people come around to wanting to see that happen. Everything on the LifeWiki is potentially temporary.

[confocaloid]

[...] So I really honestly think that in the meantime, it's a good idea to document and explain the LifeWiki's existing uses of the term "transition" to refer to transition rules. [...]

[...]
[...] Bear in mind that the page will be a definition of the term "transition rule"; you mentioned yourself that the green writeup is an attempt to describe "transition rule". [...]

That is incorrect. Actually, I wrote "apparently attempts to describe". I do not know (and I cannot know) what your "green writeup" is actually meant to be.

Judging by the first sentence, it appears to be an attempt to define the term "transition rule".
However, if that is indeed the actual goal, then the next two sentences in the same paragraph already undermine that goal: they use local forum jargon instead of the correct term that is supposed to be defined.

Again: documenting existing local jargon can be (and should be) kept clearly separated from defining the preferred consistent terminology for the underlying ideas. These are two different tasks. If you attempt to do both tasks at once, that will be a failure to explain anything. The result will be incorrect and misleading.

• If you are trying to define the term 'transition rule', then you absolutely have to use that specific term consistently through the entire page (perhaps excluding relevant quotes from sources, when sources use different wording that is still somehow relevant).
  When you are defining the term 'transition rule', your goal is to define that term, so that it can be understood correctly, and so that it can be used consistently.
• If you use local forum jargon instead of the term 'transition rule', then that means you aren't defining the term 'transition rule'.
  When you are documenting common local jargon, you are not defining any preferred consistent terminology.

[...]
Once the page is created, any LifeWiki editor will be welcome to make incremental improvements, just like any other article on the wiki. I think it will be easier for people to make improvements once an initial version is available to look at.
[...]

I think your proposed "initial version" is bad enough, that it cannot be fixed in a reasonable time, with reasonable amount of effort, by "incremental improvements". A likely good-faith attempt to improve over your writeup would simply restart everything from scratch.

Your writeup is too long, incorrect in a few ways, and misleading in a few ways. Incremental improvements won't fix that.
Several issues I already posted about were either ignored or dismissed. As an example, "may equally well" down the page is incorrect.

[...] At that hypothetical future point, the links I'm planning to add would inevitably get cleaned up, more or less automatically. [...]

Nothing happens "automatically". Everything relies on enthusiasm. If you destroy the enthusiasm (e.g. by insisting on "documenting common usage" to the point where that completely contradicts the purpose of LifeWiki and prevents actual improvements from people who could make them), then there will be no improvements.

[dvgrn]

Nothing happens "automatically". Everything relies on enthusiasm. If you destroy the enthusiasm (e.g. by insisting on "documenting common usage" to the point where that completely contradicts the purpose of LifeWiki and prevents actual improvements from people who could make them), then there will be no improvements.

Not everyone seems to agree what the "preferred consistent terminology" actually is, or what the precise purpose of the LifeWiki is. A number of people have taken the time to post things that don't line up very well with your theories. If I thought I was completely contradicting the purpose of the LifeWiki or preventing improvements, of course I wouldn't be doing what I'm planning to do!

I honestly think that my plan is in line with the purpose of the LifeWiki, and that I'm enabling improvements -- by creating an article that can be improved, instead of leaving a mysterious empty space that nobody dares to touch. You seem to think that it would be a terrible thing if someone had to rewrite the "transition rule" article from the ground up ... but in fact that kind of thing happens all the time, for all kinds of reasons -- and the magic of wiki collaboration means that it can happen quickly and easily, as long as everyone remembers not to take things personally.

Enthusiasm
We also have very different perspectives on what kinds of behavior are damaging to the LifeWiki and to community enthusiasm.

The thing that I'm seeing that has been consistently destroying enthusiasm, is the way that these discussions keep blowing up into long-drawn out, highly repetitive and extremely boring arguments. Once we've each said the same thing a couple of times, nobody wants to participate any more, because it's no longer a friendly discussion where we're collaborating to find a solution that works for everyone.

I've tried deferring to your strongly held personal beliefs on these issues, on several occasions now. The result has consistently been awkward stalemates that leave the LifeWiki in an inconsistent state, where nobody seems to want to try any improvements for fear of unleashing a fresh flood of argument.

It's time to try something different.

[H. H. P. M. P. Cole]

It's time to try something different.

If what you mean by 'something different' means applying the terminology in this thread to the LifeWiki, then yes.

To confocaloid: If you agree to do so, please like this post.

[dvgrn]

If what you mean by 'something different' means applying the terminology in this thread to the LifeWiki, then yes.

Heh, the "something different" has to do with not waiting around and deferring to confocaloid's opinions for months or years, in cases where doing that leaves the LifeWiki in an inconsistent state. When these kinds of discussions blow up into long-drawn-out arguments, it seems to dampen enthusiasm enough that nobody even tries to make any progress on solving the inconsistencies, pretty much indefinitely.

In this case, when we do a full survey of people who have posted on this topic, it's clear that there isn't a consensus in favor of applying that terminology. On topic where there isn't any consensus, the default is to leave the existing wording until a consensus emerges. So I honestly don't see how we could possibly apply that terminology, just at the moment.

However, there doesn't seem to be any lack of consensus about what a "transition rule" is!

I've heard confocaloid's objections to my plan of creating a definition of "transition rule", but I haven't heard objections from anyone else. If lots of people think it isn't a good idea to define "transition rule", then I'd like to find that out in advance, so that I don't have to bother to create the page and then remove it.

Again, though, everything on the LifeWiki is temporary, and this would be just a matter of creating a single page -- not a big campaign to rewrite dozens of pages to use different terminology from what's there now.

If lots of objections come out of the woodwork after the page is created, ultimately it really will be very easy to remove the page again, or rewrite it, or whatever is needed.

[confocaloid]

[...]
I've heard confocaloid's objections to my plan of creating a definition "transition rule", but I haven't heard objections from anyone else. If lots of people think it isn't a good idea to define "transition rule", then I'd like to find that out in advance, so that I don't have to bother to create the page and then remove it.
[...]

You're misrepresenting my position.

I object to your plan of re-using your "green writeup" as content for a page named "transition rule". The main reason is that the resulting page will be incorrect and misleading. It will fail to define the term 'transition rule' (because you're insisting on using local forum jargon that is not consistent with the term, while trying to define that very term). It will also fail to explain existing common usage (because of attempting to do multiple things at once).

In addition to trying to say too many things at once, your writeup has several other issues (e.g. being too long to be helpful; incorrect / misleading claims).

On the other hand, if someone else (i.e. neither dvgrn nor confocaloid) makes a reasonably short, clear, unambiguous, self-consistent definition for the term 'transition rule' that follows existing external sources, and if they create a wiki page giving that definition, then that page would be reasonably likely to be an improvement.

I don't object to defining the term 'transition rule'. That by itself is a reasonable idea.
I object to dvgrn's idea to mix that goal with trying to "explain existing usage" via a modification of their "green writeup". That will create more confusion and more counterproductive discussions, without solving any actual problems.

[...]
We also have very different perspectives on what kinds of behavior are damaging to the LifeWiki and to community enthusiasm.
[...]

In addition, I object to you misrepresenting my position and/or positions of other people. This is not the first time I have to explain again and again something I already explained, simply because you repeatedly incorrectly restate something I wrote.

Misrepresenting positions / opinions of other participants is one of things that can destroy enthusiasm.

[H. H. P. M. P. Cole]

I object to your plan of re-using your "green writeup" as content for a page named "transition rule". The main reason is that the resulting page will be incorrect and misleading. It will fail to define the term 'transition rule' (because you're insisting on using local forum jargon that is not consistent with the term, while trying to define that very term). It will also fail to explain existing common usage (because of attempting to do multiple things at once).

In addition to trying to say too many things at once, your writeup has several other issues (e.g. being too long to be helpful; incorrect / misleading claims).

My 'non-green writeup' solves many of thse issues by being short, succinct, and clear, and also not misleading, at the same time. (I hope confocaloid agrees with me that my blue writeup is clearer than the green writeup.)

Again, though, everything on the LifeWiki is temporary, and this would be just a matter of creating a single page -- not a big campaign to rewrite dozens of pages to use different terminology from what's there now.

I have made a first draft of the page. It is an orphan page right now, but whoever can add links can do so. Transition rule

NOTE: The links I was referring to above must not have misleading content in them.

[confocaloid]

I don't really know what would be the most clear and unambiguous definition. But having a single aim (e.g. defining a specific term) is a clear advantage (compared to trying to do too many things at once). Having a short definition is also a clear advantage (compared to an overly long writeup).

As long as there is a single self-consistent idea and a single clear goal, the page can indeed be improved incrementally.

[dvgrn]

I have made a first draft of the page. It is an orphan page right now, but whoever can add links can do so. Transition rule

Okay, let's talk about this a bit.

You seem to have taken the spot that I was trying to use for my "green writeup". That's maybe okay -- I can try to find some other place to put the green writeup.

However, the reason I want to put the green writeup on the LifeWiki is so that current uses of the word "transition" can get some links added, so that they don't confuse people. Now that this new campaign has begun to use "transition" on the LifeWiki exclusively in the half-century-old LIFELINE sense, the topic is coming up more often.

From my point of view, the LIFELINE definition is perfectly valid, for the relatively rare cases where people are talking about "LIFELINE-transitions". It's just that the great majority of uses of "transition" on the LifeWiki and the forums actually mean something else.

It seems like newcomers these days will be more likely to get confused by all of these existing uses of "transition" in the "transition rule" sense, now that these competing definitions are floating around.

That's why, as a starting point, I'd like to add a link from the first of those uses of "transition" in each article, to something that explains specifically what those words are intended to mean. There's a single well-defined technical definition that applies to every one of the seventeen uses of "transition" in the Hensel notation article, for example.

The newly created definition of "transition rule", in its current form, doesn't give me any help at all with this problem. I can't add links to that article from existing uses of "transition" -- because there's no mention of the key fact that what you're defining as "transition rules" are regularly called just "transitions", on the LifeWiki and elsewhere.

I can see how the definition you've posted might help you with your long-term goal of getting the wider community to be consistent about not saying "transition" when they mean "transition rule". I'm personally fairly skeptical that anything like that is ever going to happen, but I wouldn't mind being wrong.

But that's very long-term theorizing, whichever way it goes -- not terribly relevant right now. Do you have any suggestions for what could be done to help with my more immediate goal of making the existing LifeWiki uses of "transition" less confusing?

[confocaloid]

[...]
That's why, as a starting point, I'd like to add a link from the first of those seventeen uses of "transition", to something that explains specifically what those words are intended to mean.
[...]
Do you have any suggestions for what could be done to help with my more immediate goal of making the existing LifeWiki uses of "transition" less confusing?

I think you can explain the existing usage of words and phrases simply by creating a separate disambiguation page for every such word or phrase.

For example, create transition (disambiguation) and mention every known common CA-related meaning of that word on that page.

Such a disambiguation page will not pick (and it should not pick) any single unambiguous definition. The sole purpose of the page would be to disambiguate between different existing meanings of a single word/phrase. Within that page, there's no need for an extended discussion of either of those meanings; instead, extended discussion of any single well-defined notable topic belongs to a dedicated article about that topic.

The advantage is that every single page aims to solve just a single problem.
A disambiguation page aims to explain existing meanings of some word or phrase.
An article aims to document existing knowledge about some specific topic.

[dvgrn]

I think you can explain the existing usage of words and phrases simply by creating a separate disambiguation page for every such word or phrase.

For example, create transition (disambiguation) and mention every known common CA-related meaning of that word on that page.

That's fine as far as it goes. I don't necessarily object to the existence of a disambiguation page. But I'm not a big fan of disambiguation pages in general -- and in this case a transition disambiguation page wouldn't do anything to solve the problem I"m describing.

There would be no point in linking the uses of "transition" in the Hensel notation article to a "transition (disambiguation)" page, for example. That wouldn't be helpful at all, in my view -- it would just be saying "these uses of 'transition' might mean any of these things".

I want to say the exact opposite of that: I want any hypothetical confused readers of the Hensel-notation article to be able to click on a "transition" link and see something that explains what that specific use of the term means -- without confusing them with all the other possible things that "transition" might be used to mean elsewhere.

In this case and many other cases across the LifeWiki, "transition" is currently used as a short form of "transition rule". So why not link those uses of "transition" to "transition rule" -- and mention clearly in the "transition rule" definition that "transition" is a common short form of the same term?

EDIT 6/8/2024: Update: I've changed my mind on trying to use "transition rule" as a "transition" link destination -- partly because a competing definition showed up in the transition rule article, and it didn't seem polite to just write over it ... but partly for other reasons!

After a more comprehensive survey, it started looking to me like "transition rule" hasn't actually gotten used enough with the meaning I'm trying to document, in the last ten or twenty years or so. It was indeed used in LIFELINE over fifty years ago, but the most commonly used term now is "transition". Trying to switch the LifeWiki over to use something other than "transition" would be a really big job, and far too many people have objected to that job being done.

The page I ended up putting the "green writeup" on is Transition (rule definition). I've added five experimental links to that new page from the first use of the word "transition" in each of five articles.

[confocaloid]

[...]
In this case and many other cases across the LifeWiki, "transition" is currently used as a short form of "transition rule". So why not link those uses of "transition" to "transition rule" -- and mention clearly in the "transition rule" definition that "transition" is a common short form of the same term?

Because that will not solve the problem with those uses of that word.
The problem is that those existing uses are confusing, as you seemingly acknowledge yourself:

[...] Do you have any suggestions for what could be done to help with my more immediate goal of making the existing LifeWiki uses of "transition" less confusing?

To make the existing LifeWiki uses of the word 'transition' less confusing, I believe you should reconsider actually rewording some of those existing uses of that word.

If a reader cannot quickly understand what some paragraph means (unless perhaps they spend some time jumping back and forth between scattered pieces of text), then that means the confusing paragraph should be reworded. The aim of such a rewording should be making the text easier to understand intuitively, even if the reader is not familiar with relevant definitions.

Adding links without changing the text that is visible to the readers cannot fix existing problems with the text that is visible to the readers.

If you're planning to add links to every affected page, then you will have to edit every of those pages anyway. You might as well fix the wording to make it less confusing, at the same cost.

(And no, of course no sane person will object to the idea of actually improving existing wording of LifeWiki articles to make said articles easier to understand for readers who might be unfamiliar with local quirks/conventions/bad habits/what have you.)

[dvgrn]

I absolutely do acknowledge that existing "transition" terminology is potentially confusing. It's also important to for people to understand it, even though it is potentially confusing -- which is precisely why I think that links to an explanation are a good idea.

The thing is, your proposed replacements for that existing terminology are also potentially at least as confusing as simply leaving things as they are.

Put in "condition" in place of "transition", or "transition rule" in place of "transition", or whatever you want to do in each case ... and the article would still benefit from a link to an explanation of whatever your replacement term is. I think that new readers won't actually be able to quickly understand your hypothetical replacement terminology in the way that you suggest -- because there is no plain-English explanation of "transition rule": it's a technical term, and it needs a technical definition, even if that requires a little bit of jumping back and forth to learn it.

Your proposed replacements have a serious disadvantage. They would amount to a significant change to existing, commonly well-understood terminology on the LifeWiki. At the moment it appears that a non-trivial number of people in the community don't want that change to be made. Changing terminology is potentially very confusing, especially when there's no consensus that the change is necessary.

If you're planning to add links to every affected page, then you will have to edit every of those pages anyway. You might as well fix the wording to make it less confusing, at the same cost.

It doesn't seem like the same cost to me at all. I can add a link in just a few seconds per article. To reword every one of those pages so that they don't use "transition", and yet they explain what they're supposed to explain as well as they already do ... well, it wouldn't just be difficult and hugely time-consuming for me. I think I actually couldn't do it at all.

That's because I personally think that "transition" is already the right word to use in those contexts, in those articles. I also think that a small incremental improvement could be made by linking the first use of "transition" in each of those articles, to an explanation of the specific meaning intended in those articles.

[confocaloid]

[...] I think that new readers won't actually be able to quickly understand your hypothetical replacement terminology [...]

I already wrote many times that it is neither "my" terminology nor "hypothetical" terminology. These terms existed long before I joined the community.

Please stop ascribing to me things I did not contribute.

[...] there is no plain-English explanation of "transition rule": it's a technical term, and it needs a technical definition, even if that requires a little bit of jumping back and forth to learn it. [...]

It certainly can be understood intuitively, before/without reading definitions.

A transition rule is a rule.
Rules prescribe something.
Transitions are some events that happen or do not happen.
A transition rule prescribes when a transition happens, by providing a condition for that transition to happen.

That agrees with common-sense meanings of words.

The local habit of using the word 'transition' to refer to transition rules doesn't agree with common-sense meanings of words. (Rules don't happen. Transitions do not prescribe anything.)

It does need a technical definition to know what exactly a term means. However, intuitive understanding comes before technical definitions. And without intuitive understanding, the whole exercise is moot.

[Haycat2009]

I am starting to sound like a broken recorder saying this, but transitions and conditions are different. Transitions are applied conditions (S4t, B2a, etc). Conditions are Hensel notation configurations (4t, 2a, etc).

They are not synonyms and should not be taken as so. For example, Grounded Life has an additional B5 transition, while Grounded Life and Life share a S2 transition. Neither features a 6e condition, but both have a 2a condition of some sort and a 3i condition.

So, wlife is Life but with the B4w transition. Life with the 4w condition can be either B34w/S23, B3/S234w, or B34w/S234w.

[confocaloid]

[...] Conditions are Hensel notation configurations (4t, 2a, etc).

The string 'S4t' also can be used to specify a condition. Specifically, that is the following condition:
"the cell is currently alive and has four alive neighbours that are arranged like cells of a T-pentomino inside the 3-by-3 neighbourhood".

Note that it is impossible to refer to the same condition with just '4t'. By itself, the string '4t' refers to a different condition:
"the cell currently has four alive neighbours that are arranged like cells of a T-pentomino inside the 3-by-3 neighbourhood".

If you instead want to talk about the rules, then you can use 'S4t' to refer to the following transition rule:
"If the cell is currently alive and has four alive neighbours that are arranged like cells of a T-pentomino inside the 3-by-3 neighbourhood, then the cell survives in the next generation".
In this case, the transition that happens is "survival" (1 -> 1).

You can also use 'D4t' to refer to the following transition rule:
"If the cell is currently alive and has four alive neighbours that are arranged like cells of a T-pentomino inside the 3-by-3 neighbourhood, then the cell dies in the next generation".
In this case, the transition that happens is "death" (1 -> 0).

The same goes for other examples (B5, S2, S4w, and so on). Those strings also can refer to conditions that are different from the conditions referred to by omitting the initial letter.

edit 1: clarified a bit, without major changes.