Reviewing Special:RecentChanges

[confocaloid]

https://conwaylife.com/wiki/OCA:Pedestr ... _circuitry

Previously, Pedestrian Life listed a series of conduits which supposedly "function well" in this rule.
[...]

Your claim is incorrect. Before your recent edits, the page explicitly listed several conduits claimed to fail in the B38/S23 CA. ("Many Herschel conduits but")
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... ldid=82973

A number of stable [[conduit]]s from Life work in this rule. Many [[Herschel conduit]]s but [[Bx125]], [[Fx158]], [[R190]], [[Rx202]], [[Bx222]], [[Bx106]], [[L122]], [[H-to-MWSS]] and the simplest variant of [[Fx119]] function well. [[Snark]], [[semi-Snark]], [[semi-cenark]], [[tremi-Snark]] and [[quadri-Snark]] can be imported as well. On the other hand, [[glider-to-Herschel converter]]s other than [[Callahan G-to-H]] and [[Speed tunnel]] will fail unsalvagably; the initial glider+block reaction used in [[Herschel receiver]], [[syringe]] and [[bronco]] gives an R-pentomino instead of the [[pi-heptomino]].
[...]

[...]
While reviewing the conduits originally lister, however, I found that most of the conduits which had been previously listed were in fact the ones that DON'T work in Pedestrian Life. Nevertheless, I had to remove those which didn't actually function.
[...]

Why "Nevertheless"?
Your removal is apparently based on a misunderstanding of what exactly the page claimed before your edits. See above.
Your removal is incorrect. For example, after your edits, the page claims that L112 fails in B38/S23. However, L112 does work in B38/S23:

Code: Select all

x = 62, y = 62, rule = B38/S23
42bo$2b2o38b3o$3bo41bo14bo$3bobo38b2o12b3o$4b2o2b2o47bo$8b2o47b2o3$56b
2o$19bo17b2o17b2o$37b2o6$2b2o36b2o$bobo16b2o19bo$bo18bobo15b3o$2o20bo
15bo13b3o$16b2o4b2o19b2o8bo$16bobo25bo6b3o$18bo22b3o$9b2o7b2o21bo$9b2o
13$51b2o$20bo21b2o7b2o$18b3o22bo$17bo25bobo$17b2o19b2o4b2o$9bo13bo15bo
20b2o$21b3o15bobo18bo$20bo19b2o16bobo$20b2o36b2o6$23b2o$4b2o17b2o17bo$
4b2o3$3b2o47b2o$4bo47b2o2b2o$b3o12b2o38bobo$bo14bo41bo$17b3o38b2o$19bo!

[...] What constitutes the phrase "function well"? [...]

It is just a phrase. If you need anything more specific, the details should be stated explicitly.

[...] is it really necessary to list every single conduit which works in this rule, as the same isn't done on the Eightlife page?

It is useful to list a few failing conduits, in cases when many existing conduits from CGoL do work.
It is useful to list a few working conduits, in cases when many existing conduits from CGoL fail to work.

Just because another page does not currently explain some existing knowledge, does not mean it shouldn't. Most pages are written by few people who were interested enough in the topic to understand it and write something on the wiki. All pages are incomplete.

Further, B38/S23 and B3/S238 are not necessarily comparable in terms of how much technology from B3/S23 can be reused, despite syntactic similarities in the notation.
To do a meaningful comparison between two "alien" cellular automata in terms of how much existing tech from Life can be reused, you need some more investigation and explanation in terms of which reactions proceed the same way, which reactions can be made to work as desired despite differing evolution, and which reactions fail without any obvious way to fix them. Merely comparing the rulesets "syntactically" does not suffice.

An earlier unresolved issue:

The wiki edit https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=155833 by User:WhiteHawk incorrectly links to a forum post that doesn't actually support the assertion made in the wiki page.

[Haycat2009]

Just a mention: The conduits stated to not work well in B38/S23 actually do work. I think this was a mistake, so I corrected the statement.

If you are wondering why, I just want to fix it before further actions - a piece of wrong info is misleading.

[confocaloid]

Just a mention: The conduits stated to not work well in B38/S23 actually do work. I think this was a mistake, so I corrected the statement.

I think in this case it is more useful to list those conduits that are known to fail (as the earlier version of the page did). See above.

[dvgrn]

Just a mention: The conduits stated to not work well in B38/S23 actually do work. I think this was a mistake, so I corrected the statement.

I think in this case it is more useful to list those conduits that are known to fail (as the earlier version of the page did). See above.

Hmm. If there were only a couple of conduits that failed, it would work to just list those few; if there were only a couple of conduits that functioned, it would work to just list those.

Seems like there are too many conduits in both categories -- and the ones listed are just a subset of the hundreds of known Herschel conduits, most of which probably haven't been tested for pedestrian-friendliness. I've re-edited to include both lists.

I'm thinking that "except for" might have been an easier phrasing to understand than just the single word "but". However, maybe it's even easier to avoid making an exception list altogether:

A number of stable conduits from Life work in this rule. Many Herschel conduits such as L112, F116, F117, Fx153, L156, F166, Fx176, Lx200, Fx77, R64, Lx65 duplicator, and the fast and suppressed forms of Fx119 remain functional in Pedestrian Life. By contrast, Bx125, Fx158, R190, Rx202, Bx222, Bx106, L122, H-to-MWSS and the simplest variant of Fx119 are not compatible.

[WhiteHawk]

Your claim is incorrect. Before your recent edits, the page explicitly listed several conduits claimed to fail in the B38/S23 CA. ("Many Herschel conduits but")
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... ldid=82973

A number of stable [[conduit]]s from Life work in this rule. Many [[Herschel conduit]]s but [[Bx125]], [[Fx158]], [[R190]], [[Rx202]], [[Bx222]], [[Bx106]], [[L122]], [[H-to-MWSS]] and the simplest variant of [[Fx119]] function well. [[Snark]], [[semi-Snark]], [[semi-cenark]], [[tremi-Snark]] and [[quadri-Snark]] can be imported as well. On the other hand, [[glider-to-Herschel converter]]s other than [[Callahan G-to-H]] and [[Speed tunnel]] will fail unsalvagably; the initial glider+block reaction used in [[Herschel receiver]], [[syringe]] and [[bronco]] gives an R-pentomino instead of the [[pi-heptomino]].
[...]

I don't see why my claim is incorrect. I said that the page claimed they work, but they don't, which is a correct statement. I was recognizing that the ones listed were the ones that don't work, even though the page claims that they do.

The original phrasing was "A number of stable [[conduit]]s from Life work in this rule. Many [[Herschel conduit]]s but [[Bx125]], [[Fx158]], [[R190]], [[Rx202]], [[Bx222]], [[Bx106]], [[L122]], [[H-to-MWSS]] and the simplest variant of [[Fx119]] function WELL."

[Bx125]], [[Fx158]], [[R190]], [[Rx202]], [[Bx222]], [[Bx106]], [[L122]], [[H-to-MWSS]] and the simplest variant of [[Fx119]] all fail unsalvageably in B38/S23 (the not-so-simple versions of Fx119 don't fail). The above quote is therefore incorrect, as it insinuated that they do work in B38/S23.

Why "Nevertheless"?

Mistake. I do misspell "listed" as well.

[hotdogPi]

You missed a word.

"A number of stable [[conduit]]s from Life work in this rule. Many [[Herschel conduit]]s but [[Bx125]], [[Fx158]], [[R190]], [[Rx202]], [[Bx222]], [[Bx106]], [[L122]], [[H-to-MWSS]] and the simplest variant of [[Fx119]] function WELL."

[WhiteHawk]

You missed a word.

"A number of stable [[conduit]]s from Life work in this rule. Many [[Herschel conduit]]s but [[Bx125]], [[Fx158]], [[R190]], [[Rx202]], [[Bx222]], [[Bx106]], [[L122]], [[H-to-MWSS]] and the simplest variant of [[Fx119]] function WELL."

Ah. I misinterpreted the "but" to mean "Many herschel conduits, but [[Bx125]], [[Fx158]], [[R190]], [[Rx202]], [[Bx222]], [[Bx106]], [[L122]], [[H-to-MWSS]] and the simplest variant of [[Fx119]] function WELL"

I retract my previous assertation.

[confocaloid]

Should we actually put our foot down on the creation of the spam users in Lifewiki?

Previous discussion
viewtopic.php?p=194761#p194761
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=91

Compare and contrast with other wikis:
https://conwaylife.com/wiki/Special:Log/newusers
https://rosettacode.org/wiki/Special:Log/newusers
https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index. ... g/newusers

[confocaloid]

edit 2: readded in https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?type ... did=156608
--------
The edits:
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... did=132682
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... did=132682

are an unexplained removal of a mention of (and a footnote linking to) the previous pseudo period gun design:

... and also beating the previous pseudo-period design with bounding box {{times|113|72}}.<ref name="gun_49_8136" />

The edit summary doesn't mention or explain that removal.

I think the removed part should be readded back. Historical information of this kind is interesting, and should be preserved.
The link leads to an archived copy of the old gun design:

Code: Select all

#C [[ GRID MAXGRIDSIZE 14 THEME Catagolue ]]
#CSYNTH gun_49 costs 8136 cells.
#C period 49 fullperiod 98 bbox 113 by 72
#CLL state-numbering golly
x = 113, y = 72, rule = LifeHistory
72.2A4.A$73.A3.A.A$73.A.3A.A$74.A3.A$76.A$66.AB.2B2A2.3A$65.A.2AB
3AB4.A$65.A.6BA3.2A$64.2A.2A6B2.6B$62.2BA.BA2B.A3B4.B2A4B$62.3BAB
3.BA3B2.3B2A6B$62.3BA.2BAB.A2B.13B$62.6B2A.2A3.12B$63.A6B.A3.13B$
63.B3AB2A.A3.12B$64.2A2B.BA5.10B$78.7B$78.8B$77.10B$77.6B.4B$76.6B
3.3BA$5.B3.B30.A11.2A18.B2.3BA3B4.B2AB$4.7B28.A.A9.B2AB15.7BABA2B
5.ABAB$.2B.3A4B.2B17.A3.2A2.A.A9.3B16.7BABA2B6.4B$2A2BA2BA5B2A2.A
12.A.A2.A2.2A.2A9.B.B14.9BA3B7.4B$2AB.2AB2A2B.B2A2.3A10.A.A3.A.A2.
B8.5B14.11B.B2A6.4B$.B.3BABA3B.B6.A10.A.4A2.AB2A6.6B15.9B2.BA.A6.
4B$4.3B.3B8.2A12.A3.A.A.2A4.8B15.7B7.A7.4B$19.4B9.A2.BA.A2.13B17.
6B7.2A7.4B$4.3B.3B10.3B7.A.2BA.A5.13B16.2BAB18.4B10.2A$.B.3BABA3B.
B6.4B7.2A.2BA5.15B16.2B2A18.4B9.A$2AB.2AB2A2B.B2A5.5B10.3B4.15B17.
2A2B18.4B10.A$2A2BA2BA5B2A4.6B11.2B.B.8B2A7B17.4B11.2A5.4B5.5A$.2B
.3A4B.2B5.8B2.20BAB2A5B18.4B11.A5.4B4.A$4.7B7.33B2A6B18.4B10.A.AB.
7B2.B3A$5.B3.B9.14B3A13BAB2A7B18.4B10.2AB.7B3.2B.A$4.2B14.7B.7BA
13B2A4B3.B2A18.4B11.12B4A$3.4B12.8B4A3BA19B4.A2.A18.4B10.7B2A3BAB
2.2A$.7B11.7B2A10B2.2B2.B3.6B5.2A.A18.4B9.7B2A2B.B3A2.A$10B8.7B2AB
A2BA3B14.6B7.A19.4B8.10B3.B.A.2A$13B2.2B.8BABAB2AB14.9B6.2A19.4B6.
8B8.A$.26B2ABAB15.2A4.4B27.4B4.9B7.2A$3.20B.4B2A2B16.A5.4B27.4B2.
4B2.3B$3.16B2A2B3.8B2.2A7.3A7.4B27.8B3.5B$3.16B2A2B5.B3.2A2.2A7.A
10.4B27.2B2A2B7.2A$4.18B10.A24.4B19.A7.2B2A8.A$11.4B.3B.B12.7A12.B
.3B.4B16.3A6.2BA3B8.3A$12.BABA24.A10.8B2A8B8.A8.8B9.A$13.B2AB10.A
7.2A2.2A3.B5.2B2A5B3AB2A5B7.2A6.10B$14.A3B7.3A7.2A2.8B3.2B2A6B2AB
3A4B2.B.5B5.4B.7B$15.4B5.A16.8B.9B3AB2A5B.6B6.4B.9B$16.4B4.2A15.
19B2A16B4.4B3.9B$9.2A6.9B14.15B.2B2.25B4.10B$10.A7.6B14.17B8.21B4.
A11B$10.A.2A5.6B3.B2.2B2.19B11.19B3.B3A5B.BABA$11.A2.A4.35B12.23B
2A3B4.B2AB$12.2AB3.9B3A15B.7B13.23BABA2B5.A3B$13.13B2AB2A23B10.8B
2.6BA2BA6B2AB7.4B$14.12B2A2BA24B9.2A3.B5.3B2A10B2A9.4B$15.13B2A14B
2.8B11.A7.6BAB3A10B8.4B$15.9B2A6B.B.2B11.6B8.3A6.A.2AB2.3BA2B.2B5.
2A9.4B$16.8B2A5B4.3B10.5B9.A6.3AB2AB2.6B8.A11.4B$16.15B5.A2B.2A7.
4B15.A4.B5.5B9.3A9.4B$17.13B5.A.A2B.A7.4B16.3A.2A5.4B11.A10.4B$19.
13B2.A.AB2.A9.B.B2A16.A.A4.5B24.4B$18.8B4.2A.A.A3.A12.BA.A15.A.A4.
2A28.4B$18.6B6.2ABA2.4A.A13.A16.A6.A29.3BA$18.5B8.B2.A.A3.A.A12.2A
19.3A31.ABA$18.B.B9.2A.2A2.A2.A.A33.A34.2A$19.3B9.A.A2.2A3.A70.B$
18.B2AB9.A.A$19.2A11.A!

[dvgrn]

Despite the edit summary complaining about verbosity, the actual edit changes the meaning. The new version fails to correctly describe that gun, which uses only one p49 pi hassler.

Can you suggest some specific wording that's clearer than the old "instance of" wording? Haycat2009's edit was a reasonable simplification of the wording, from

"The gun uses two instances of the period-49 pi-heptomino hassler."

to

"The gun uses two period-49 pi-heptomino hasslers."

-- with a link to the correct article in both cases. It seems like the link does an adequate job of avoiding any possible ambiguity involving the existence of another p49 pi-heptomino hassler (the one documented under p49 R-pentomino hassler on the LifeWiki).

It sounds like you meant something by "instances of" that wasn't actually conveyed very well by that original wording. What distinction did you want to draw there? It doesn't seem like just the two words "instance of" really did anything to point out the existence of the alternate p49 pi hassler.

I'm not sure why it would be relevant to point out that fact in this particular context. Is that what you were trying to do?

[confocaloid]

I think the old wording (before the edit https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=156612 ) is fine, and should be restored back:

The gun uses two instances of the [[p49 pi-heptomino hassler]].<ref name="post160604" /><ref name="j4136177340" />

I think the old wording made it fairly clear that it's really two instances of one hassler oscillator (and did not require the reader to actually go through the link to understand that).

I think the replacement wording ("two hasslers") is unnecessarily confusing, because it makes the wording sound as if there were two different hassler oscillators in the pattern under discussion (which isn't the case).
Presence of a link "p49 pi-heptomino hassler" doesn't eliminate this confusion; indeed, for all the reader knows at this point, the link might just as well go to a page listing all known p49 pi hasslers, or perhaps all notable p49 pi hasslers, probably beginning with a definition of what "a p49 pi-heptomino hassler" is.

I don't like unnecessarily confusing wording, and I don't like choices that require the reader to jump back and forth between pages to understand the intended meaning (when there is a straightforward alternative wording that avoids the need to switch between pages to understand the idea).

[...] simplification of the wording, from

"The gun uses two instances of the period-49 pi-heptomino hassler."

to

"The gun uses two period-49 pi-heptomino hasslers."

-- with a link to the correct article in both cases. [...]

[dvgrn]

I think the old wording (before the edit https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=156612 ) is fine, and should be restored back:

The gun uses two instances of the [[p49 pi-heptomino hassler]].<ref name="post160604" /><ref name="j4136177340" />

Yup, that was clear from your previous post. The thing is, when Haycat2009 or I read that original sentence, we don't intuitively read it in the way that you intended it to be read.

it makes the wording sound as if there were two different hassler oscillators in the pattern under discussion (which isn't the case).

From Haycat2009's and my point of view, the new wording doesn't imply two different hassler oscillators in any way. It clearly implies two copies of the same oscillator -- the one that the link goes to. The two copies of the exact same oscillator are quite clearly visible in the infobox, so why would anyone guess that the sentence is somehow talking about two distinct oscillators? From our point of view, there simply isn't any ambiguity that's worth worrying about here.

So the three of us are interpreting both the old wording and the new wording in significantly different ways. Neither wording is clear enough to work for all of us, it seems. So if there's a third wording that is clear to us and also clear to you, I can switch to that wording -- but I'm not currently planning to roll back to the old wording, which seems to me to be just as ambiguous its shorter replacement.

[confocaloid]

[...] The thing is, when Haycat2009 or I read that original sentence, we don't intuitively read it in the way [...]
[...] From Haycat2009's and my point of view, [...]

I think it's counterproductive to attempt to speak for others in the way you are doing. If you have an opinion on the issue, please state your opinion/position in a way that clearly separates it from opinions/positions of other people, while also leaving enough space for other people to state their opinions/positions.

[...] It clearly implies two copies of the same oscillator -- the one that the link goes to. [...]

Your "clearly implies" misses the point.

The link only says "p49 pi-heptomino hassler". There's no indication of it leading to a page about a single oscillator, as opposed to a page about multiple different oscillators.
Again, a reader shouldn't be forced to jump back and forth between pages to understand the topic.

The meaning of "two hasslers" is different from the meaning of "two instances of a single hassler".

[dvgrn]

I think it's counterproductive to attempt to speak for others in the way you are doing. If you have an opinion on the issue, please state your opinion/position in a way that clearly separates it from opinions/positions of other people, while also leaving enough space for other people to state their opinions/positions.

I acknowledge that you've stated your opinion again about my "speaking for others" being a Bad Idea. As usual, I don't believe that I'm doing anything out of the ordinary here. Haycat2009 is perfectly free to chime in here and correct anything I've said that isn't true.

However, until that happens, the fact the edit was made does allow me a little bit of leeway to make a reasonable guess that Haycat2009's initial reading of the "instance of" wording might have been similar to my own initial reading. Haycat2009 wouldn't have made that edit if they had thought that your original wording was better.

The meaning of "two hasslers" is different from the meaning of "two instances of a single hassler".

No argument there.

On the other hand, your original wording didn't say anything about "a single hassler".

It just said "two instances of the [[p49 pi-heptomino hassler]]". I think the word "the" strongly implies that there is only one p49 pi-heptomino hassler -- or at least only one that the reader will be likely to think of as relevant in this context.

And I agree with that implication! ... which is why I don't personally think that any further changes need to be made. Your old wording relied on the link to clarify which of the possible p49 pi-heptomino hasslers you were talking about. The new shorter wording relies on the same link for the same purpose.

Sure, there is more than one p49 pi-heptomino hassler. But that just means that there could theoretically be just as much confusion on this point with your old wording as with Haycat2009's new wording. So in my mind, rolling back to the old wording wouldn't accomplish much of anything -- and also I don't see how there's any actual likely confusion with either wording.

I understand that you think that the old wording was more precise. I'm just trying to get the idea across to you that the average LifeWiki reader might not reliably be able to pick up on the nuance of the old wording that you're worried about. If the old wording is precise but not understandable, why not try some new wording instead?

[Haycat2009]

Just for context: I wanted to keep it readable instead of overly verbose.

For example, I could say “My roommate had 4 meals today” instead of “There have been 4 instances of my roommate consuming edible substances in large quantities within this day”

The point is that both have essentially the same meaning, but one is a lot easier to read and interpret than the other. This is a wiki to share information, not obscure it.

[confocaloid]

[...] For example, I could say “My roommate had 4 meals today” instead of “There have been 4 instances of my roommate consuming edible substances in large quantities within this day” [...]

No there is a very clear difference.
If you believe Your roommate had 4 meals today, then (so far) everything is mostly fine.
If you believe There have been 4 instances of your roommate consuming something edible (or doing anything else, for that matter), then it seems to me that something is very very wrong.

At any given time, there should be at most one instance of that your roommate in the room.

[...] The point is that both have essentially the same meaning, [...]

That's incorrect.

Before the edit https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=156612 the page said "The gun uses two instances of the [[p49 pi-heptomino hassler]]."
That means there's only one hassler oscillator, but it appears twice in the pattern.

After the edit https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=156612 the page claims "The gun uses two [[p49 pi-heptomino hassler]]s."
That is false; the gun uses one p49 pi hassler, not two.

Your edit changed the meaning, and turned a correct statement into a false statement.

[...]
I understand that you think that the old wording was more precise. I'm just trying to get the idea across to you that the average LifeWiki reader might not reliably be able to pick up on the nuance of the old wording that you're worried about. If the old wording is precise but not understandable, why not try some new wording instead?

It's not about the old wording being "more precise". It's about the new wording being incorrect.
The old wording is both precise and understandable.

Re: "the average LifeWiki reader" -- obviously you aren't an average LifeWiki reader. Most actual readers can grasp the difference easily.

[dvgrn]

Re: "the average LifeWiki reader" -- obviously you aren't an average LifeWiki reader. Most actual readers can grasp the difference easily.

Why are you so confident about this? By saying this, aren't you speaking for "most actual readers", in exactly the way that you've just tried to scold me for doing?

Speaking only for myself -- you've said some things in this last post where my default interpretation is absolutely not what you intend. I know what you mean, but only because you've explained it at length, not because the actual words convey that meaning to me.

When you say

"the gun uses one p49 pi hassler, not two."

I would ordinarily expect to find just one instance of one hassler in the gun. Instead I find two copies. That doesn't add up to clear communication.

If you wanted to say that the same p49 pi hassler was used twice, I'd expect you to actually say that, not expect everyone to intuitively understand what you mean by using the word "instance", or other very subtle context clues.

Another option that might work to say what you're trying to say would be

"the gun uses one type of p49 pi hassler, not two."

But you can't just say "the gun uses one p49 pi hassler, not two" and expect to be understood -- that's highly ambiguous phrasing.

Please think carefully about the fact that I honestly don't agree with your claim that Haycat's edit turned a true statement into a false statement. I think the statement is still true, and now it's slightly shorter while being no more difficult to understand than it was before.

I do agree with you that it's not _quite_ the same statement as it was before the edit -- but that doesn't mean that the new statement (as I intuitively read it) is a false statement.

[confocaloid]

Re: "the average LifeWiki reader" -- obviously you aren't an average LifeWiki reader. Most actual readers can grasp the difference easily.

Why are you so confident about this?
[...]

Most actual readers are not long-term forum members.
Most actual readers are not LifeWiki editors.
Most actual readers are not long-term users of the local forums jargon.
I could continue, but hopefully the above is sufficient to answer the question.

Why this is even relevant to the discussion? It is relevant, because your intuition is no longer the same intuition as could be reasonably expected from LifeWiki readers. You are very very far away from being a curious "interested-but-not-invested" reader.

[...]
I would ordinarily expect to find just one instance of one hassler in the gun. Instead I find two copies. That doesn't add up to clear communication.

If you wanted to say that the same p49 pi hassler was used twice, I'd expect you to actually say that, not expect everyone to intuitively understand what you mean by using the word "instance", or other very subtle context clues.
[...]

It is strange that you used the same word in your post ("... just one instance of one hassler in the gun ..."), while at the same time claiming that my use of the exact same word with the same meaning is somehow unclear. I think that does not add to clear communication.

I fail to see how 'instance' is "subtle" or otherwise unclear. An instance of a [Life/CA] component or [Life/CA] object is a single occurrence of that component or object in the pattern. That matches common meaning of the word 'instance' (-> an example or single occurrence of something).

[...]
"the gun uses one type of p49 pi hassler, not two."
[...]

"Type of pi hassler" sounds like some technical distinction between several different "types" or "kinds" of pi-heptomino hasslers.

I would expect that for any useful definition of "type of pi hassler", there would be multiple different pi-heptomino hasslers of the same type.
A pattern could then contain some instance(s) of some hassler of type "A", some instance(s) of another hassler of type "A", and/or some more instance(s) of hassler(s) of other type(s).

Your phrase "one type of p49 pi hassler" still leaves the possibility that the gun contains two or more different hassler oscillators, all of the same "type" (whatever that would mean). That phrase certainly fails to carry the idea of one instance or occurrence of an object or component in the pattern.

[dvgrn]

Most actual readers are not long-term forum members.
Most actual readers are not LifeWiki editors.
Most actual readers are not long-term users of the local forums jargon.
I could continue, but hopefully the above is sufficient to answer the question.

Nope, not sufficient. None of this looks relevant.

The question was "Why are you so confident about this?"

Now you're continuing to make more super-confident statements. You seem to be absolutely sure that all this is relevant to the topic.

But you are providing zero evidence that, just because all of these actual readers are not (various things that I am) ... they're bound to be able to intuitively understand the particular phrasing that you're using -- whereas my intuition has somehow been damaged by my specialized experience. I'm sure you honestly believe all of that, but there isn't really any logical connection between these premises you're stating, and the conclusion that you're drawing from them.

The phrasing we're discussing here is not commonly-used forum jargon that's rare elsewhere -- it's just standard English phrasing. I'm not telling you what these subtle variants of phrasing mean to me as a LifeWiki/forums expert. I'm telling you what they mean to me as a native English speaker who pays a lot of attention to standard usage.

It is strange that you used the same word in your post ("... just one instance of one hassler in the gun ..."), while at the same time claiming that my use of the exact same word with the same meaning is somehow unclear. I think that does not add to clear communication.

You clearly understand what "instance" means. I'm trying to have a discussion with you on the forums. I'm making a good-faith attempt to communicate with you using language that you understand. Please don't bother trying to conflate that with the question of which wording makes more sense to use in the LifeWiki article that we're talking about.

I fail to see how 'instance' is "subtle" or otherwise unclear. An instance of a [Life/CA] component or [Life/CA] object is a single occurrence of that component or object in the pattern. That matches common meaning of the word 'instance' (-> an example or single occurrence of something).

Nobody is arguing any of that. Haycat2009's edit was due to noticing that the use of the word "instance" was verbose and unnecessary, not that it was incorrect.

Your phrase "one type of p49 pi hassler" still leaves the possibility that the gun contains two or more different hassler oscillators, all of the same "type" (whatever that would mean). That phrase certainly fails to carry the idea of one instance or occurrence of an object or component in the pattern.

Here again, I'm not suggesting adding the word "type" to the LifeWiki article -- because I don't personally believe that any further changes need to be made. I'm trying to help you clarify your thinking and explain my point of view to you, in hopes that you'll either

A) drop this topic because the issue isn't as important as you thought, or
B) come up with some new alternative wording that Haycat2009 and you and I can all agree is better than what's there right now. Apparently you don't like "type" -- that's fine, but now it's your turn to make a new suggestion.

I'm happy to work with you to make a change to the article, if you can suggest some wording that you think is acceptable, that I also agree is an actual improvement to the article. Rolling back to your original use of "instance" doesn't look to me like an improvement, so I won't be doing that.

I've explained why it doesn't look like an improvement to me. I think it's now up to you to be a lot more flexible than you have been so far, and improve your collaboration and compromise skills. Insisting on rolling back to your exact original wording is neither collaboration nor compromise.

This is not an executive decision
I'd like to be clear here: any other LifeWiki editor or moderator is welcome to agree with confocaloid and roll back Haycat2009's edit. I just won't be doing it myself, because my current impression is that confocaloid's opinion about Haycat2009's new phrasing being a "false statement" is an extreme minority view.

If other people reading this want to speak up and tell me I'm wrong about that, I'll very much appreciate the correction.

[confocaloid]

Most actual readers are not long-term forum members.
Most actual readers are not LifeWiki editors.
Most actual readers are not long-term users of the local forums jargon.
I could continue, but hopefully the above is sufficient to answer the question.

Nope, not sufficient. None of this looks relevant.

The question was "Why are you so confident about this?"

Now you're continuing to make more super-confident statements. You seem to be absolutely sure that all this is relevant to the topic.

But you are providing zero evidence that, just because all of these actual readers are not (various things that I am) ... they're bound to be able to intuitively understand the particular phrasing that you're using -- whereas my intuition has somehow been damaged by my specialized experience. I'm sure you honestly believe all of that, but there isn't really any logical connection between these premises you're stating, and the conclusion that you're drawing from them.
[...]

I mean this:

I was going to write a brief "rough draft" of an intro page, but I am admittedly not anywhere near an expert and multiple, hyperlinked posts/pages would probably work best.

I think this might be a case where it's very useful to be "not anywhere near an expert". It's sometimes hard for the experts to even know what to explain, or to explain anything clearly without using jargon that only other experts can understand anyway.
[...]

[dvgrn]

I mean this:

I think this might be a case where it's very useful to be "not anywhere near an expert". It's sometimes hard for the experts to even know what to explain, or to explain anything clearly without using jargon that only other experts can understand anyway.

I understand. You believe that this edit of Haycat2009's is a similar case -- where I, as some sort of Conway's Life expert, am not able to see something that would be clear to most other people.

On the other hand, it seems to me that by this point, you have pretty near as much claim to be an expert on Conway's Life as I do. Why does this same appeal to humility that you're trying to use on me, not apply equally well to you?

In cases like this, you seem to be so certain that there's only one "right" way to read things, that you aren't able to listen to feedback from people who are trying to tell you that your particular interpretation isn't actually as clear-cut and universally obvious as you think it is.

It doesn't work to just keep saying that you're absolutely sure that your interpretation is the right one and everyone else who speaks up is wrong. You could perfectly well be playing the role of the "expert" in this situation -- you have expert knowledge about the information that you intend to convey, but you don't realize that what you're saying is not actually conveying that information clearly to everyone else.

[confocaloid]

[...] On the other hand, it seems to me that by this point, you have pretty near as much claim to be an expert on Conway's Life as I do. Why does this same appeal to humility that you're trying to use on me, not apply equally well to you? [...]

Because there's a significant difference between
(a) merely being far away from being a curious "interested-but-not-invested" reader,
(b) being very very far away from being a curious "interested-but-not-invested" reader.

As time goes, you gradually gain more and more proficiency in local jargon (although not necessarily good knowledge or good understanding alas; understanding is sometimes even damaged by knowledge of jargon), while also gradually losing curiosity, and gradually losing understanding of what makes sense from the viewpoint of someone who is still curious.

[...] I think it's now up to you to be a lot more flexible than you have been so far, and improve your collaboration and compromise skills. [...]

[...] to listen to feedback from people [...]

I do listen to feedback from those people who know what they are talking about.
I just won't be taking lessons on collaboration skills from you, because one cannot teach without understanding.

Returning back to the topic,

[...] Haycat2009's edit was due to noticing that the use of the word "instance" was verbose and unnecessary, not that it was incorrect. [...]

I disagree with that. The use of the word "instance" is necessary, because without that word, the page now incorrectly claims that the gun uses two pi-heptomino hasslers, while the actual pattern uses only one pi-heptomino hassler (twice):
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=156612

Code: Select all

#C Source: https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff=156628&oldid=156612
x = 96, y = 26, rule = B3/S23
17b2o$17bo$9bob2ob2obo43b2o$9b2obobobo6bo37bo$15bo6bob2o18bo8bob2ob2o
bo27bo$23b6o15b3o6b2obobobo6bo21b3o$26b3o7b2o9bo11bo6bob2o22bo$18b2o16b
2o8b2o19b6o18bo$4bo8bo3b2obobo47b3o7b2o9bo2bo$3bo3bo4bobo5b3o39b2o16b
2o13bo$7bo3bo3b4o4bo33bo3b2obobo25bo2bo$3b2ob2o4bo5b5o6b2ob2o3b2o13bo
3bobo5b3o26b2o$13b2o3b2ob2o6b5o5bo3bo6b2ob3o3b4o4bo$28bo4b4o3b3ob2o6b
o3bo5b5o6b2ob2o3b2o$b2o26b3o5bobo3bo13b2o3b2ob2o6b5o5bo4b2ob2o$o2bo25b
obob2o3bo33bo4b4o3bo3bo$o13b2o16b2o39b3o5bobo4bo3bo$bo2bo9b2o7b3o47bo
bob2o3bo8bo$4bo18b6o29b2o16b2o$3bo22b2obo6bo21b2o7b3o$4b3o21bo6bobobo
b2o24b6o$6bo27bob2ob2obo27b2obo6bo$34bo37bo6bobobob2o$33b2o20bo22bob2o
b2obo$56bo21bo$54b3o20b2o!

[get_Snacked]

The use of the word "instance" is necessary, because without that word, the page now incorrectly claims that the gun uses two pi-heptomino hasslers, while the actual pattern uses only one pi-heptomino hassler (twice):
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=156612

not really. the single p49 pi hassler that is being used is linked, so it should be common sense to know that both p49 pi hasslers used in the gun are the same one.

[confocaloid]

The use of the word "instance" is necessary, because without that word, the page now incorrectly claims that the gun uses two pi-heptomino hasslers, while the actual pattern uses only one pi-heptomino hassler (twice):
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=156612

not really. the single p49 pi hassler that is being used is linked, so it should be common sense to know that both p49 pi hasslers used in the gun are the same one.

That assumes that it's a good idea to expect the reader to follow the link to understand. Imagine there is no link.

The phrase "p49 pi-heptomino hassler", by itself, does not in any way imply that there's only one example (indeed, there are at least two known examples). It is reasonable to expect that a page with that name would list all notable examples at least, instead of picking just one hassler.

[get_Snacked]

That assumes that it's a good idea to expect the reader to follow the link to understand.

you got that right, following the link is a good idea. if someone genuinely got confused because they knew so much about CGOL to the point where they know two different p49 pi hasslers like the back of their hand, then only would they click the link.