LifeWiki Edit War Reporting Thread

[confocaloid]

I did put them in glider shuttles-you can check that edit

I did check that edit. That edit didn't put those oscillators in glider shuttles.
Before your edit (in the earlier revision https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?oldid=146544 ) the p118 and the p142 were already correctly marked as glider shuttles.

Your edit ( https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=146544 ) moved the p118 and the p142 from "Glider shuttle" (which you renamed to "Relay") to "Other glider loop" (which you renamed to "Other glider loop/glider shuttle"), without seeking consensus, and ignoring previous related events and previous relevant discussion.

Earlier, you already attempted to rename glider shuttles to relays and reclassify two glider shuttles and a glider hassler: https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=145439
Those changes were reverted: https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=145692

[hotdogPi]

An edit war that belongs in LAME:

User:Tommyaweosme/cupcakes‎‎

The page owner wants all letters to be lowercase, while Unname4798 wants proper capitalization.

[confocaloid]

To add to the edit summary: that is correct (and the page move by Unname4798 should be reverted), but that is not really limited to page moves. That applies to all edits (maybe excluding some obviously trivial and uncontroversial corrections, such as obvious typos). There is a rule that says: do not edit other people's user pages without their permission.

[tommyaweosme]

An edit war that belongs in LAME:

User:Tommyaweosme/cupcakes‎‎

The page owner wants all letters to be lowercase, while Unname4798 wants proper capitalization.

if unname wants to have my thread then they can find a slight variant and claim the variant as theirs. or just outright steal the rule. i dont really care because i already made a good-enough pattern collection for it.

[Haycat2009]

An edit war that belongs in LAME:

User:Tommyaweosme/cupcakes‎‎

The page owner wants all letters to be lowercase, while Unname4798 wants proper capitalization.

I am on Unname4798's side. Frankly if one wants to contribute their knowledge, they should do so properly.

[confocaloid]

[...] Frankly if one wants to contribute their knowledge, they should do so properly.

FWIW going into someone else's userspace and trying to permanently borrow their userpages does not contribute to knowledge in any way.

[tommyaweosme]

probably a cold war, but me and zelectron want analogue wireworld on list of lifelike rules, and hotdogpi doesnt. nobody else is participating in the cold war, and its 1 edit for our side and 1 edit for their side. although i am considering adding it back in, but i know that would mean turning the war hot.
edit: the war is so cold i probably shouldnt have posted it here and let it be

[dvgrn]

edit: the war is so cold i probably shouldnt have posted it here and let it be

Heh, if there's still an open question, it certainly seems better to put a quick post here, than to be tempted to continue an edit war.

The thread in question is B78/S012345: Analogue WireWorld.

At first glance, I'd say that hotdogPi probably has good instincts on this one -- it seems like it was significantly over-ambitious to try to include "WireWorld" in the name of this rule. The current consensus seems to be that things that are being called "wires" really don't behave like wires. Instead, empty channels that look kind of like wires tend to uncontrollably fill up with junk, such that they can't be re-used to send repeated signals.

Now, there are maybe some possibilities for interesting computations that could be done with an arrangement of "one-time" circuitry -- same as we could do in regular Life with non-reusable "computer circuitry" made up of one-time turners and splitters.

However, what is in that thread so far seems to amount to a few wild claims, and a few people questioning and countering those claims.

Ordinarily an edit war report might result in a new discussion thread getting created on this LifeWiki Discussion board. I'd suggest that in this case, if somebody wants to do some more research and development in this rule, it's probably best to put any new discoveries directly on the B78/S012345: Analogue WireWorld -- and let someone like hotdogPi make the judgment about when the new stuff is notable enough to get the rule mentioned in the Life-like Rules list.

[tommyaweosme]

no one deleted my b3/s2378 when i put it there and its probably less notable

[Drelectron8]

edit: the war is so cold i probably shouldnt have posted it here and let it be

Heh, if there's still an open question, it certainly seems better to put a quick post here, than to be tempted to continue an edit war.

The thread in question is B78/S012345: Analogue WireWorld.

At first glance, I'd say that hotdogPi probably has good instincts on this one -- it seems like it was significantly over-ambitious to try to include "WireWorld" in the name of this rule. The current consensus seems to be that things that are being called "wires" really don't behave like wires. Instead, empty channels that look kind of like wires tend to uncontrollably fill up with junk, such that they can't be re-used to send repeated signals.

Now, there are maybe some possibilities for interesting computations that could be done with an arrangement of "one-time" circuitry -- same as we could do in regular Life with non-reusable "computer circuitry" made up of one-time turners and splitters.

However, what is in that thread so far seems to amount to a few wild claims, and a few people questioning and countering those claims.

Ordinarily an edit war report might result in a new discussion thread getting created on this LifeWiki Discussion board. I'd suggest that in this case, if somebody wants to do some more research and development in this rule, it's probably best to put any new discoveries directly on the B78/S012345: Analogue WireWorld -- and let someone like hotdogPi make the judgment about when the new stuff is notable enough to get the rule mentioned in the Life-like Rules list.

Whoops, sorry dude for adding the rule into the list. I just thought that adding some new rules would be better. Won't happen again.

[tommyaweosme]

there is only one question left:

nobody ever deleted b3/s2378, but analogue wireworld gets deleted. why?

[dvgrn]

there is only one question left:

nobody ever deleted b3/s2378, but analogue wireworld gets deleted. why?

B3/S2378 has a long history of discussion on the forums. And it wasn't given a new name when it was added -- so its presence in the list doesn't amount to a claim that the rule supports workable wires.

The other rule added in the same edit, Magnezones, was apparently named only last year and hasn't seen a lot of exploration yet. I haven't looked at it enough to guess whether other people might think it's notable or not -- but the name seems harmless and the thread doesn't make any wild claims that it would be better not to advertise.

So... that's my best guess, at least -- "Analogue Wireworld" got removed at least partly because it didn't seem like a good name for the rule.

[tommyaweosme]

how about analogue replicator?

[dvgrn]

how about analogue replicator?

Why would that be any better? That seems like picking the word "replicator" out of a hat instead of "Wireworld", and attaching it to "Analogue" for no particularly obvious reason. I mean, no doubt the reason is that Entity Valkyrie mentioned a 1D effect in the rule that got labeled as a "replicator" -- but it doesn't really seem to be one, any more than the things that got labeled "wires" are (re-usable) wires. In Conway's Life, we don't call this a "replicator" --

Code: Select all

x = 51, y = 46, rule = B3/S23
7bo$6bobo2bo$6bob6o$4b2obo6bo$3bobo2bob5o$3bo2bobo8bo$2obo8b6o$o2bob5o
bo$2bo6bobo2b6o$3b2ob3o2bobo6bo$4b2o5bobo2b5o$2bo4b2o3b2obo7bo$2b2ob2o
bo6bo2b6o$6bo8bobo$6bobo5b2obo2b6o$7b2o8bobo6bo$17bobo2b5o$18b2obo7bo$
21bo2b6o$21bobo$20b2obo2b6o$23bobo6bo$23bobo2b5o$24b2obo7bo$27bo2b6o$
27bobo$26b2obo2b6o$29bobo6bo$29bobo2b5o$30b2obo7bo$33bo2b6o$33bobo$32b
2obo2b6o$35bobo6bo$35bobo2b5o$36b2obo7bo$39bo2b6o$39bobo$38b2obo2b6o$
41bobo6bo$41bobo2b5o$42b2obo$45bo2b3o$45bobo2bo$44b2obobo$48bo!

"Replicator" doesn't really make make any sense for that kind of behavior, where the reaction in question only works once, and needs support to be able to continue. But there's a very close analogy between the above pattern and the B78/S012345 "one-time use wire" that's labeled as a replicator.

Why does that B78/S012345 rule need to have any kind of name applied to it at all?

There are any number of rules where you can set up ways for information to move from point A to point B in the same way that the "logic gates" are doing in that B78/S012345 thread -- once but not repeatably. The thread shows how structures can be built that will collapse in a predictable way into a permanently broken state while doing some things that can be interpreted as logical operations. We could do that in all kinds of different ways in Conway's Life, too -- but we don't spend much of any time on it, because it just plain doesn't seem to be all that interesting compared to repeatable-use circuitry.

[tommyaweosme]

i totally agree with you. we should keep the rule nameless until somebody rediscovers it (unlikely) and comes up with a good name.

(maybe it could be "one-time analogue wireworld"? i was thinking analogue because 2 states, not 4)

[confocaloid]

I think most rulesets don't really need names.

There are 2^18 = 262144 Life-like CA (2D square grid; range-1 Moore neighbourhood; what happens with a cell during the next tick can only depend on the current state of the cell and on the total number of alive neighbours.) Imagine giving an unique name to 10% of all those rulesets. Would anyone be able to remember all those thousands of names? Would all those names be used in conversations to refer to those CA?

Sometimes two or more different sources give different names to the same thing (e.g. a CA). So, if you want to document that state of affairs properly, without omitting/hiding any relevant information, you will need to attribute every known name to its source; "in such-and-such source, this set of rules is named Squishmallow Flamingoship Rule".

[tommyaweosme]

there are over 4.7223665e+21 possible cellular automata, so i wouldnt be surprised that less than 10% of them should have a name. i mean, most of them are just random explosive (or dying out) chaos.

[confocaloid]

What are differences between (a) the idea of a fuse and (b) the idea referred to with the phrase "one-time wire" on the page https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?oldid=149983?

[hotdogPi]

What are differences between (a) the idea of a fuse and (b) the idea referred to with the phrase "one-time wire" on the page https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?oldid=149983?

A fuse ceases to exist entirely. A one-time wire, after it's used, is still connected but permanently changed.

[tommyaweosme]

i was going to say this, but another post was made

most one-time wires have turners and splitters (i think), and most fuses dont (because once they do, they turn into one-time wires). also most fuses turn from stuff to nothing, while one-time wires can also turn from stuff to different stuff.

also, is there such a thing as two-time wires?

[confocaloid]

A fuse ceases to exist entirely. [...]

[...] also most fuses turn from stuff to nothing, [...]

Not really; a fuse doesn't have to be clean. A dirty fuse leaves byproducts behind.

A reburnable fuse is a rare type of non-clean fuse that's restored after burning, with some displacement in space and/or rephasing in time. If both the displacement and the rephasing are zero (i.e. the fuse is restored unchanged), then it's a wire.

[dvgrn]

also, is there such a thing as two-time wires?

"Two-time wire" doesn't have any known examples that I can think of. There are twice-burnable fuses, for sure! But there isn't really any such thing as either "two-time wire" or even "one-time wire".

I'm thinking maybe the term came from my use of "one-time use wire" this morning. But notice that I put the phrase in quotes in that post. I did that because "one-time use wire" or "one-time wire" is kind of a vague and muddy concept. It might not be a particularly good idea to spread it around or try to extend it, without thinking carefully about what it means.

What I meant when I put "one-time use wire" in quotes there was something along the lines of "these fuse things that people seem to want to call 'wires', but that don't behave like wires".

[tommyaweosme]

tradition isn't notable

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... on=history
its my userpage

[unname4798]

Tradition isn't notable.

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... on=history
its my userpage

That is not an edit war. The edit sequemce "edit-undo-reedit-reundo" repeated 2 or more times is an edit war.

[tommyaweosme]

i am the only thing in the way of stopping a domino chain effect happening and an edit war happening.

unname4798 removes red state
tommyaweosme adds tradition
unname4798 removes tradition - where we are now
tommyaweosme adds tradition back - what sparks the edit war
edit war officially begins
page gets protected
everyone is sad