Re: Suggested LifeWiki edits
Posted: August 20th, 2024, 5:37 am
How do we know that the p10 and p36 exist?
Forums for Conway's Game of Life
https://conwaylife.com/forums/
How do we know that the p10 and p36 exist?
Someone said they did in a list of known fleet hassler periods. We found the p36, but not the p10.
The figures about quasi still lifes look normal (although I didn't check those). I was specifically talking about pseudo still lifes in this edit by DroneBetter : https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... did=153714hotdogPi wrote: August 20th, 2024, 10:18 am When I updated the numbers for quasi, I went to the end of each section and manually made sure they were touching (most of them weren't) and not pseudo. I didn't use any automatic definitions.
Code: Select all
x = 26, y = 30, rule = B3/S23
$6bo$5bobo$5bobo$ob2obob2o$2obobo2bo$5bobo$4bo2bo$4b2o$7bo$4b4o$3bo$4b
4o6b3o$7bo$4b2o10bo$4bo2bo8b2o$5bobo7bo$2obobo2bo9bo$ob2obob2o5bo3bo$
5bobo11b2o$5bobo2b2o2b3o5bo$6bo3b2o5bo4b2obo$17bo3bo3bo$17bobo5bo3$16b
2o$16b2o!
Code: Select all
x = 39, y = 20, rule = B3/S23
5b2o9b2o3b2o9b2o$5bo10b2o3b2o10bo$6b3o21b3o$2o6bo21bo6b2o$bo6bobo4bo7b
o4bobo6bo$bobo5b2o2b2o9b2o2b2o5bobo$2b2o10bobo5bobo10b2o$6b2o7b2o5b2o
7b2o$5bobo23bobo$5b2o25b2o5$14b2o$12b2o2b2o$12bo4bo$13bo2bo$11bobo2bo
bo$11b2o4b2o!
Should this be added to the p21 Honey Farm Hasslers, even though it's similar to the one supported by 34p7 (see below)iNoMed wrote: July 31st, 2024, 9:50 am
Actually, they're similar enough to allow a stably-supported monomer of that p21 honey farm hassler to be built:Code: Select all
x = 25, y = 23, rule = B3/S23 7b2o$8bo2bo$5b3o3b3o$4bo3b3o3bo$4b2obo3b3o$8b2obo$3bob2obobo$3b2ob2o3$ 10bobo7b2o$9bobob2o6bo$9bobo9bob2o$4b2o4bo7b2ob2obo$3bobo13bo$3bo15bo$ 2b2o14b2ob2o$o2bobob2o8bo2bobo$2o2b2obo8bob2o$7bobo6bobo$7b2obo3bobo2b o$10bo3b2o2b2o$10b2o!
Code: Select all
x = 57, y = 48, rule = DoubleB3S23
4$20.4A$19.A3.A$19.A4.A$20.A.A.2A$24.A.A$23.2A2.A$19.2A2.A$23.A2.2A$19.
A.BCA$20.A.C2.B$19.2BCA.ABCB$18.B3.C2B2.AB$18.2B.B.A.2BC$22.BCACA6.2A
$17.B.2B.B.B8.A3.2A$17.2B.2B13.A2.A$24.3C7.2A.A$10.2B2.2B7.C3.C6.A2.4A
8.A$10.B2.B.B6.C5.C5.BCA3.A6.3A$11.B.B8.C5.C5.AB.3A6.A$10.2B.B8.C5.C5.
AC.CB.A2.2A2.A$7.B.B2.B5.2A3.C3.C4.2B.CBAB.A5.2A$7.2B.2B5.A.A4.3C6.B.
A.A4.A.A3.2A$10.B6.A15.B2.2A.4A.A.2A2.A$10.B5.AC2B12.2B.2B.A4.2A.A2.A
$5.B.2B.2B2.A.BA.AB2A8.B2.B.B.A.2A5.2A$5.2B.B5.AC2.2A.C8.B.2B3.2A.A$8.
B6.B5.C.A6.B.B7.A$8.2B5.B5.CA.A3.B.B2.B6.2A$16.B3.B3.A3.2B2.2B$17.3B4.
2A$22.2B.2B$19.B.B.2B.B$18.B.2B$16.3B3.B.2B$15.B3.3B3.B$16.3B3.3B$18.
B2.B$21.2B!
I don't think this was ever addressed. It is actually quite elegant.muzik wrote: June 24th, 2017, 12:31 pm Variant of caterer on fig8 which is superior to the one on LifeWiki in terms of bounding box across all generations:
Code: Select all
x = 8, y = 15, rule = B3/S23 b2o$3bo$o$o3bo$o3b4o$2bo4$2b2o$2b2obo$6bo$3bo$4bob2o$6b2o!
viewtopic.php?p=188078#p188078Chris857 wrote: August 24th, 2024, 11:34 pm [...] but the spam filter was tripped up by the "8buy" in the code.
confocaloid wrote: June 21st, 2024, 4:56 am [...]
When adding the wikitext, try to insert a pair of "nowiki" tags inside the problematic substring, and see if that helps:Code: Select all
b<nowiki></nowiki>uy
vilc wrote: August 20th, 2024, 9:35 am The section "Still life syntheses" on the page Glider synthesis was recently updated, but most statistics about pseudo still lifes are erroneous. Apparently, Catagolue's definition of a "pseudo" object was used, which includes quasi still lifes and constellations.
For example, all pseudo still lifes with 17 bits or less areconstructible with strictly less than one glider per bit, but this is not what the table and the notes say.
Another edit updated the statistics, but unfortunately it's unclear whether or not errors were corrected (the edit summary doesn't seem to mention in any way existence of this discussion):vilc wrote: August 20th, 2024, 10:37 amThe figures about quasi still lifes look normal (although I didn't check those). I was specifically talking about pseudo still lifes in this edit by DroneBetter : https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... did=153714hotdogPi wrote: August 20th, 2024, 10:18 am When I updated the numbers for quasi, I went to the end of each section and manually made sure they were touching (most of them weren't) and not pseudo. I didn't use any automatic definitions.
For a long time I suspected that statistics about pseudo still lifes were wrong, but I wasn't sure because they change quickly.
Period1GliderGun wrote: May 2nd, 2024, 12:32 pm p42 pentadecathlon/interchange hassler:Code: Select all
x = 32, y = 33, rule = B3/S23 b4o17b3o$o3bo9b2o5bo2bo2b2o$o4bo8b2o4b2ob2o2b2o$bobob2o13bobo$5bobo$4b 2o2bo$2o2bo$4bo2b2o11bobo$o2b2o9b2o4b2ob2o2b2o$bobo10b2o5bo2bo2b2o$2b 2obobo14b3o$3bo4bo$4bo3bo$4b4o2$13bo4bo$11b2ob4ob2o$13bo4bo2$24b4o$23b o3bo$23bo4bo$7b3o14bobob2o$3b2o2bo2bo5b2o10bobo$3b2o2b2ob2o4b2o9b2o2b o$9bobo11b2o2bo$27bo2b2o$23bo2b2o$24bobo$9bobo13b2obobo$3b2o2b2ob2o4b 2o8bo4bo$3b2o2bo2bo5b2o9bo3bo$7b3o17b4o!
From what I've known when I was here, the LifeWiki should be mostly focused on CGoL itself and should not contain too much content about other rules, so I put most of the LeapLife pages under my userpage. I don't know how things have changed after I left (now there's a new subforum for LifeWiki, I assume it changed a lot), so I don't have much objection on this.confocaloid wrote: May 15th, 2024, 12:49 amOnly if the initial contributor(s) explicitly agree to the idea. Some userpages may not be up-to-date. Some userpages may go against formatting/style guidelines. Some userpages were not intended to be moved into mainspace to begin with.DroneBetter wrote: May 14th, 2024, 1:29 pm [...] Should these status pages be moved from their respective userspaces to subpages of their subject rules? [...]
No matter what is the current state of the page, it should be the decision of the initial contributor(s) whether or not the page can be moved.
The wiki is still supposed to be mostly focused on CGoL and closely related topics.Hunting wrote: September 25th, 2024, 6:29 am [...] From what I've known when I was here, the LifeWiki should be mostly focused on CGoL itself and should not contain too much content about other rules, so I put most of the LeapLife pages under my userpage. I don't know how things have changed after I left (now there's a new subforum for LifeWiki, I assume it changed a lot), so I don't have much objection on this.
A step towards being more reliable, would be to make the page verifiable, by adding sources (footnotes with links) for any nontrivial claims / nontrivial data that's given in the page.Hunting wrote: September 25th, 2024, 6:29 am[...] The only argument I have is LifeWiki is supposed to be reliable, but the page mainly consists of my own qfind search results and I have no idea what searches have other contributors finished (unless they turn up with a result), and I can make mistakes myself, so it might not be accurate.
There always is. But there were objections to clutter the OCA namespace with your own rules, anyway, at least I thought there were.confocaloid wrote: September 25th, 2024, 7:38 am The wiki is still supposed to be mostly focused on CGoL and closely related topics.
However, there is now a separate namespace (OCA:) for non-CGoL topics.
Sources (like claims in forum posts) are equally reliable as wiki edits, in this case IMO.confocaloid wrote: September 25th, 2024, 7:38 am A step towards being more reliable, would be to make the page verifiable, by adding sources (footnotes with links) for any nontrivial claims / nontrivial data that's given in the page.
As long as there are links to sources, any errors found in the wiki page can be tracked to corresponding errors in the source. That's certainly a better situation, compared to having an error but being unable to find out where it came from.
When someone tries to add to the wiki some claim without linking to any source(s), that basically means either:Hunting wrote: September 26th, 2024, 6:50 pm Sources (like claims in forum posts) are equally reliable as wiki edits, in this case IMO.
There are no p2 or p19 cells in Raucci's p38, so a trivial oscillator involving it is impossible.confocaloid wrote: September 29th, 2024, 9:05 am https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=152137
Unexplained removal of the nontriviality condition ("at least one cell oscillates at the full period")
More generally, very many changes across the wiki that don't look like improvements, and don't have any edit summaries that would explain the reason for those changes.
The shown oscillator is a p190. Is it really "the smallest known oscillator of its period" when the nontriviality restriction is dropped?diff=155975&oldid=152137 wrote:The [[LCM oscillator]]s below are the smallest known oscillators of their period by population.
hotdogPi wrote: September 29th, 2024, 10:01 amThere are no p2 or p19 cells in Raucci's p38, so a trivial oscillator involving it is impossible.confocaloid wrote: September 29th, 2024, 9:05 am https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=152137
Unexplained removal of the nontriviality condition ("at least one cell oscillates at the full period")
More generally, very many changes across the wiki that don't look like improvements, and don't have any edit summaries that would explain the reason for those changes.
Although the claim is obviously incorrect, below is given an explicit counterexample:hotdogPi wrote: September 29th, 2024, 10:01 amThere are no p2 or p19 cells in Raucci's p38, so a trivial oscillator involving it is impossible.confocaloid wrote: September 29th, 2024, 9:05 am https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=152137
Unexplained removal of the nontriviality condition ("at least one cell oscillates at the full period") [...]
Code: Select all
#C A trivial p114 oscillator involving Raucci's p38
x = 44, y = 35, rule = B3/S23
17b3o3b3o2$15bo4bobo4bo$15bo4bobo4bo$15bo4bobo4bo$17b3o3b3o2$17b3o3b3o
$15bo4bobo4bo$15bo4bobo4bo$15bo4bobo4bo2$17b3o3b3o10$o42bo$3o38b3o$3bo
36bo$2b2o36b2o3$13b2o14b2o$14bo14bo$b3o3b2o3b2o16b2o3b2o3b3o$7b2o3bo
18bo3b2o$5bo32bo$5bo32bo$5bo32bo!
Code: Select all
x = 51, y = 16, rule = B3/S23
3b2o$3bobo$5bo$5bobo42bo$2bo2bob3o38b3o$bob2o5bo36bo$bo7b2o36b2o$2o2$
20b2o14b2o$21bo14bo$8b3o3b2o3b2o16b2o3b2o3b3o$14b2o3bo18bo3b2o$12bo32b
o$12bo32bo$12bo32bo!
Code: Select all
#C 58P190
x = 33, y = 25, rule = B3/S23
5b2o12bo$b3o2bo11bo2bo$4b2o12bo2bo2bo$o19bo3bo$o23bo$4b2o$b3o2bo$5bo$
6b3o$9bo14bo$8b2o14b2o$23b2o2$14b2o$13b2o14b2o$14bo14bo$30b3o$32bo3$
14bo$14bo3bo$14bo2bo2bo$17bo2bo$19bo!
This seems like an easy obvious one to roll back, so I've done that -- simplifying the wording slightly to match what's in Beluchenko's p13.confocaloid wrote: September 29th, 2024, 2:02 pm The latter example above (58P190) illustrates how the unexplained content removal in ( https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=152137 ) transformed a possibly-correct claim into a certainly-incorrect claim.
dvgrn wrote: September 29th, 2024, 5:16 pmThis seems like an easy obvious one to roll back, so I've done that -- simplifying the wording slightly to match what's in Beluchenko's p13.confocaloid wrote: September 29th, 2024, 2:02 pm The latter example above (58P190) illustrates how the unexplained content removal in ( https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=152137 ) transformed a possibly-correct claim into a certainly-incorrect claim.
If anyone wants to improve the standardized wording at the top of "LCM oscillators" sections, it looks like it all started out as a boilerplate phrase copy/pasted across a lot of different articles (looks like that's just a small sampling). If the wording needs to change significantly, it'd probably be good if it changed everywhere.