ConwayLife.com

simsim314 wrote:Gustavo please familiarize yourself with the following thread links - and after you will learn most of the stuff there, we will be glad to hear your (educated) voice:

http://conwaylife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=20

I don't know what is it. Now I officially am in need for (cracked) Python!

Gustavo6046 wrote:I don't know what is it.

It's called a "link". You place your mouse on top of it - and click! No python required.

simsim314 wrote:IS IT SO HARD TO PLACE A GLIDER IN 10 PLACES AND CHECK OUT THE RESULT?

Gustavo6046 wrote:Yes it is, I never get what I expect, and trivially I don't have much time

Any serious research takes time and effort. Even with Golly, it's easy to place a glider and still-life, run the pattern until its conclusion, rewind, cut+paste the glider one space over, and repeat ten times.

Also remember that all collisions of two gliders, most collisions of three gliders, and most collisions of one glider into a small still-life have been done decades ago, by many people, so if they are not mentioned in the wiki or elsewhere, they are most likely not interesting, or worthy of posting. They can be very educational to experiment with for self-edification, but do not need to clutter up the wiki or forums.

Mark, it's been told him many times. It doesn't work. This guy just doesn't want to learn or doesn't know how.

@mniemiec

Unfortunately words of reason will not work in this case. I think we all figured out to run the pattern, rewind, move glider by one cell, run again etc. - at very early stages of our life exploration. I think it's something like children's mate in chess - everyone knows it. And if you don't know it - you open book of chess, you don't come to chess masters forum and post children's mate variations there.

We tried in many different ways to explain to Gustavo how to search, where to look, what to read and how to improve. Nothing helps - he just continue to post all this completely random patterns, claiming he don't know the definition of usefulness so he will just post anything.

Sometimes you can catch him posting something so doll and utterly inefficient - and show him what he did wrong. But most of the time he is not doing "bad" stuff, he is just rediscovering GOL from scratch and placing a lot of stuff from the 70's instead of reading and learning.

codeholic wrote:Mark, it's been told him many times. It doesn't work. This guy just doesn't want to learn or doesn't know how.

No. It haven't been told me that way of researching. I must applaud this guy for helping me out in researching manners instead of... what you and your pals are doing now. I think I will trash my new p240 (needs confirmation) LWSS gun's RLE instead of posting it here.
It is just so hard to familiarize with these guys... I don't know what is people meaning by calling them "impolite", "mean" or "intolerating" but I guess I shall say it as well... if it really mean what I think of you guys...

I think I will trash my new p240 (needs confirmation) LWSS gun's RLE instead of posting it here.

Oh, please.

codeholic wrote: Oh, please.

"Please yes" or "please no"?

I did not seen any rake in LifeWiki and other collections, except by glider and cordership ones... don't know why... would not be a good addition... two rakes make a blinker, other two convert it into a LWSS... don't see any problem in that logic...
I think I'm instead gonna post it in Useless Patterns thread... as "unsure"... this way I get more chances... if you understand me...

Please, yes. Trash it. And all your other patterns that you'll discover in the next month.

Gustavo6046 wrote:I think I will trash my new p240 (needs confirmation) LWSS gun's RLE instead of posting it here.

Now you're on the right track! Please continue to trash all you "discoveries" until you will learn enough at least to understand how to distinguish trash from discovery. Just assume by default your discoveries should be trashed and not posted anywhere. When you will learn enough, you'll know what to post.

codeholic wrote:Please, yes. Trash it. And all your other patterns that you'll discover in the next month.

I was going to try and make an weekender [s]gun[/s] even better, rake, I discovered an pretty simple synth that involves LWSS instead. Anyway... I think I will...

simsim314 wrote:Now you're on the right track! Please continue to trash all you "discoveries" until you will learn enough at least to understand how to distinguish trash from discovery. Just assume by default your discoveries should be trashed and not posted anywhere. When you will learn enough, you'll know what to post.

Nothing is learned without being teached. Here this little phrase from Robert Williams really get some (very) good reason. ^_^ Let's keep back the paces... can I at least post my p240 LWSS rake (don't know any other rake, I would need an LWSS rake to make the smallest ever breeder) in the Useless Discoveries thread, along with other unsurities? (and with some trashies I'm sure I'm never (more?) gonna do)

Gustavo6046 wrote:"Please yes" or "please no"?

"Oh, please!" is an expression of sarcasm.

Gustavo6046 wrote:I did not seen any rake in LifeWiki and other collections, except by glider and cordership ones... don't know why... would not be a good addition...

This is probably because most other things can be made from gliders, and it would be pointless to clutter up the wiki with puffers and rakes of every conceivable period making every conceivable still-life, oscillator, and spaceship. The basic ones are good starting points, and if you want something specific, you can engineer it yourself (or find an example somebody else posted that already makes the same thing).

Gustavo6046 wrote:two rakes make a blinker, other two convert it into a LWSS... don't see any problem in that logic...

Actually, a LWSS can be made from 3 gliders, so it should be doable with just three rakes. Also, it's easier to just have a puffer that makes blinkers than to construct blinkers from two rakes.

Gustavo6046 wrote:I was going to try and make an weekender [s]gun[/s] even better, rake, I discovered an pretty simple synth that involves LWSS instead. Anyway... I think I will...

Okay, let's check how good student you are. What's the least number of gliders required for LWSS synthesis?
EDIT: Oh, Mark spoiled the test

mniemiec wrote:

Gustavo6046 wrote:I did not seen any rake in LifeWiki and other collections, except by glider and cordership ones... don't know why... would not be a good addition...

This is probably because most other things can be made from gliders, and it would be pointless to clutter up the wiki with puffers and rakes of every conceivable period making every conceivable still-life, oscillator, and spaceship. The basic ones are good starting points, and if you want something specific, you can engineer it yourself (or find an example somebody else posted that already makes the same thing).

It takes me a huge chop to enginner they down, I prefer them "pre-cooked" because... it's easier, quickier and lighter.

mniemiec wrote:

Gustavo6046 wrote:two rakes make a blinker, other two convert it into a LWSS... don't see any problem in that logic...

Actually, a LWSS can be made from 3 gliders, so it should be doable with just three rakes. Also, it's easier to just have a puffer that makes blinkers than to construct blinkers from two rakes.

Unfortunately I could not due to problems with space and with glider arrangement; rakes collide, and otherwise the glider streams always get in the wrong path.

Gustavo6046 wrote:Unfortunately I could not due to problems with space and with glider arrangement; rakes collide, and otherwise the glider streams always get in the wrong path.

This is why, sometimes, we do have to resort to sub-optimal synthesis methods (which is a good reason to have multiple ways of making things). Such timing problems could be less of a problem if you used rakes with higher periods, so the gliders (and escaping LWSS) would not be so close together.

mniemiec wrote:

Gustavo6046 wrote:Unfortunately I could not due to problems with space and with glider arrangement; rakes collide, and otherwise the glider streams always get in the wrong path.

This is why, sometimes, we do have to resort to sub-optimal synthesis methods (which is a good reason to have multiple ways of making things). Such timing problems could be less of a problem if you used rakes with higher periods, so the gliders (and escaping LWSS) would not be so close together.

Yeah, I am not saying about period, but the rakes interpolate, some components collide, the glider streams in any occasion will get out of place and I don't know how they move from a rake. Do I have to say more? Anyway it is always a good reason to have multiple ways of making things, and I proved it such that a blinker, suboptimal solution could also be used.
PS: Posted in the useless discoveries thread for the hell sake of it.
Kindly,
Gustavo.

codeholic wrote:Mark, it's been told him many times. It doesn't work. This guy just doesn't want to learn or doesn't know how.

Unless his bio is ficticious, we're dealing with an eleven year old. In Brazil, it's summer, so I would think school's out. I'm sure that at that age, I knew far more than anyone was capable of teaching me. I could have been very dangerous with a computer in 1968. Like some people I deal with nearly every day, if what's told them is not what they want to hear, they just don't hear it. And patience! We don't need no steenking patience (sorry, Bogey).

While those of us that have matured to a reasonable modicum of patience could certainly adopt a mentoring posture, the tolerance of petulant outbursts is (IMHO) to be quashed, and with haste, for the good of all.
I'm fairly sure, though, that taunting will only fuel frustration on both sides of the aisle.

triller

triller wrote:

codeholic wrote:Mark, it's been told him many times. It doesn't work. This guy just doesn't want to learn or doesn't know how.

Unless his bio is ficticious, we're dealing with an eleven year old. In Brazil, it's summer, so I would think school's out. I'm sure that at that age, I knew far more than anyone was capable of teaching me. I could have been very dangerous with a computer in 1968. Like some people I deal with nearly every day, if what's told them is not what they want to hear, they just don't hear it. And patience! We don't need no steenking patience (sorry, Bogey).

While those of us that have matured to a reasonable modicum of patience could certainly adopt a mentoring posture, the tolerance of petulant outbursts is (IMHO) to be quashed, and with haste, for the good of all.
I'm fairly sure, though, that taunting will only fuel frustration on both sides of the aisle.

triller

School here start by February 23th so don't get THAT hopeful...

Gustavo6046 wrote:don't know any other rake

Quick quiz: What did we told you to do, before you post stuff you "don't know" about? Where should you look to get reasonable amount of knowledge about rakes?

This one CAN'T BE SERIOUS:

Gustavo6046 wrote: the glider streams...will get out of place and I don't know how they move from a rake.

OMG! Oh yes the problem is the glider stream from the rake, they simply jump from time to time - those uncontrollable gliders!

And if you "don't know how they move from a rake" you definitely can't say "the glider streams...will get out of place" - because to know what should be the "place" for gliders from the rake, you should know how gliders move from it.

Not to mention that if you can't recognize periodic motion you should not deal with GOL in the first place. It's kinda prerequisite.

Gustavo, please read this: http://conwaylife.com/forums/viewtopic. ... 787#p17787

Honestly, I'm actually loving all this altercation. Though I would not want to pull myself into this mælstrom I like seeing how new users acclimatise to the local climate and this Brazilian here – even younger than me since I'm 16 – was a case study before he even took his first steps.

Jacobi wrote:…and Freywa (I'm not sure which of their signature names is their real name) has already named it the Petersen…

Jeremy Tan is my real name; I started using Parcly Taxel, derived from paclitaxel, after I caught up to My Little Pony (Friendship Is Magic). The etymology behind "Freywa" is more esoteric: when the 2010 (and inaugural) Youth Olympic Games were held in Singapore there was a corresponding MMORPG called Singapore 2010 Odyssey and since I was a primary school student back then I got the chance to make an account, for which I chose the aforementioned nickname as a portmanteau of Freyja (a Norse goddess) and Eywa (the deity of the Na'vi in Avatar (2009)).

Age is not an excuse. glider_rider discovered a new p18 and made some other interesting discoveries, though he's not older than you. And it's definitely not an excuse for being conceited and loath to learn.

I agree the problem with Gustavo is not the age but the attitude.

He proven to be capable of basic GOL construction handling. He could make some small adjustments to existing known patterns and improve them (like glider gun collection) - if he could listen, learn or/and put effort.

He is just not willing to work hard or learn, he wants to place two spaceships together and declare a discovery (or declare a discovery by naming random pattern with new name - and 0 interest i.e. synthesae).

I'm actually surprized right now to see that there are other people of my age. I'm 16 exactly like freywa (my birthday is in 2 weeks). Sure, age doesn't make everything, I have done smart things when I was 11, but I don't remember myself to say "blah blah blah I don't listen" to those who gave me tips.