Reviewing Special:RecentChanges

[confocaloid]

[...] there are very few p57 oscillators in life not based on snark loops, and this one happens to only be 5 cells larger than SKOP57, so I would consider it notable enough to be at least mentioned, since it clearly doesn't deserve it's own page (It is also the only p57 LCM currently known, and likely would remain the smallest if another was found). Besides, it showcases LCM interactions the other LCM doesn't. [...]

You would need to provide sources for several of those claims.
For example it is not at all obvious whether or not there are really "very few p57 oscillators in life not based on snark loops" as you are claiming.

The statement "it showcases LCM interactions the other LCM doesn't" is unclear - which interactions? What exactly is considered notable about this particular p57 least-common-multiple oscillator?

After I posted here, there was an edit replacing the reference. However, that still fails to answer the questions about notability. (Just because something was posted on the forums, doesn't automatically make it noteworthy enough to be mentioned on the wiki, and the forum post that appears to be the source of that oscillator doesn't seem to tell much about what is considered interesting about that p57 oscillator, either.)

[...] also the reference was fixed before you posted

That your claim cannot be supported at all.

• I posted at 08:57: viewtopic.php?p=210722#p210722
• Your most recent edit at the time was the revision as of 08:45: https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... did=154879 with an irrelevant referenced post.

[hotdogPi]

I would say it's not notable.

I was about to say the p3 catalyst could go on a not-yet-existing "p3 catalysts" page, but it's not a p3 catalyst; it's a stable catalyst welded to a p3.

[WhiteHawk]

I would say it's not notable.

How so? P57 oscillators are notably rare in Life without the use of glider loops, so examples o p57 oscillator not based on loops could be considered notable. additionally, the LCM part of cribbage's page listed before my recent edit that LCM oscillator could be made using "billiard table perturbation of one of the large catalysts" but didn't show or even cite any references to back that claim (The p95 uses a different sort of reaction).

The wiki is primarily about Conway's Life (B3/S23). While some limited information about cellular automata other than CGoL can fit well in the wiki, this isn't the main purpose of the wiki.

Unrelated to LW:notability, I came back across this oscillator when compiling the new SKOP collections for B38/S23 & B3/S238, where it does have the significance of being SKOP57 in both those rules.

[confocaloid]

[...] It should be noted that I came across this oscillator when compiling the new SKOP collections or B38/S23 & B3/S238, [...]

The wiki is primarily about Conway's Life (B3/S23). While some limited information about cellular automata other than CGoL can fit well in the wiki, this isn't the main purpose of the wiki.

The statement "came across this oscillator when compiling the new SKOP collections or B38/S23 & B3/S238" in particular, even if true, fails to provide evidence of notability for the oscillator, as far as the question of whether it deserves to be mentioned on the wiki.

[...] How so? P57 oscillators are notably rare in Life without the use of glider loops. additionally, [...]

[...] You would need to provide sources for several of those claims.
For example it is not at all obvious whether or not there are really "very few p57 oscillators in life not based on snark loops" as you are claiming. [...]

---

Re: the edited version of the post:

[...] Unrelated to LW:notability, [...]

In case that part of your post is "unrelated to notability", unfortunately that would mean it doesn't help much in resolving the issue of dubious notability of the added p57 oscillator in the context of a wiki entry in the main namespace.

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... did=154879
The added p57 oscillator is of dubious notability (least-common-multiple oscillator that isn't the smallest known oscillator of its period by population), [...]
[...] probably the oscillator also should be removed (not sufficiently notable to be mentioned on the wiki). [...]

[dvgrn]

I would say it's not notable.

How so? P57 oscillators are notably rare in Life without the use of glider loops, so examples [of] p57 oscillator not based on loops could be considered notable. additionally, the LCM part of cribbage's page listed before my recent edit that LCM oscillator could be made using "billiard table perturbation of one of the large catalysts" but didn't show or even cite any references to back that claim (The p95 uses a different sort of reaction).

In a Discord PM discussion with me yesterday, hotdogPi mentioned being "anti-LCM" in general.

That makes this a very long-standing open question about notability. Once upon a time, LCM oscillators weren't thought to be interesting enough to include in some record-keeping tabulations of oscillators. Now they're allowed in the SKOP collection, and they're included in separate "LCM Oscillators" sections of many LifeWiki articles.

So the LifeWiki pays some attention to LCM oscillators. For me that makes the p57 non-SKOP notable enough that I'm personally in favor of keeping WhiteHawk's change.

In large part I like the change precisely because of the reasons given above: the article already mentioned a mechanism that someone might very well want to know more about -- but it didn't give enough relevant information or references to make it possible to reconstruct the mechanism.

It seems perfectly possible that someone might figure out a new p57 SKOP by making use of WhiteHawk's information. And in any case, the change seems to me like a clear improvement over the previous state of the article. I don't see why rolling the change back would be a good idea.

[confocaloid]

To reply to the "in any case" part:

Filling articles with information that isn't noteworthy enough to be mentioned in a main-namespace article doesn't count as an improvement in my book, and such changes should generally be reverted. It is very easy to clutter the wiki with trivia and minor observations.

(And I personally don't consider that p57 noteworthy enough to be mentioned.)

[...] And in any case, the change seems to me like a clear improvement over the previous state of the article. I don't see why rolling the change back would be a good idea.

[dvgrn]

Filling articles with information that isn't noteworthy enough to be mentioned in a main-namespace article doesn't count as an improvement in my book, and such changes should generally be reverted. It is very easy to clutter the wiki with trivia and minor observations.

I completely agree with all of that.

A recent case that comes to mind is that it seems like a good idea to push back a little bit when "In Other Rules" entries get too numerous and arbitrary. It's way too easy to find lots of random factoids about what happens in related rules, and there just isn't room in articles to list them all.

However, in the case of this p57, I'm thinking we're pretty much stuck with documenting relevant LCM oscillator details (in the appropriate "LCM oscillators" section). With good documentation and references (like what was added in this case) they can easily be sufficiently notable in relation to someone trying to figure out how to set new SKOP records, even if a given example is not itself a SKOP record.

[confocaloid]

[...] With good documentation and references (like what was added in this case) they can easily be sufficiently notable [...]

I wouldn't describe the current content of the wiki page as "good documentation". The page fails to tell why the oscillator could be considered notable.

In this case, the caption of the added embedded viewer currently says the following:

|caption = P57 with p3 cheater. While it is not SKOP 57, it does showcase how LCM billiard table type perturbations would work with Cribbage's stator <ref name="post163697"/>

and links to the forum post post163697 (quoted below in its entirety for easier reference), which doesn't support or explain the claims made in the caption (and indeed doesn't explain what could be reasons to consider that partiular p57 oscillator noteworthy; if anything, saying that the p57 oscillator is "bigger than the current SKOP p57" sounds more like a reason to consider it not very noteworthy, until/unless someone finds out what might be interesting about that oscillator).

Here are some more specific questions:

• What "p3 cheater" is, exactly? More generally, what "cheater" is?
  I searched the forums, and I didn't find any clear answers to these questions.
  This doesn't look like a clear well-defined well-understood term for some useful concept, nor a commonly used name for some specific object.
  This also doesn't look like a word or phrase that would cross threshold of notability needed for a mention on the wiki (LifeWiki:Notability#Name_notability_guideline).
  The linked forum post also doesn't support/explain the use of the word "cheater" in this case.
• The second part of the caption is hard to follow.
  In what way or in what ways the oscillator "does showcase how LCM billiard table type perturbations would work"? (Again, the linked forum post doesn't answer that.)
  How exactly "Cribbage's stator" is relevant to mention here? (See the definition of stator.)

LCM SKOP p95 at 141 cells using the new p19:

Code: Select all

x = 40, y = 21, rule = B3/S23
28b2o$27bo2bo$16bo10bob2o$14b3o9b2o$13bo11bo2bob3o$13b2o9bob3obo2bo$
24bo5bobo2b2o$10bo15b2obobob2ob3o$b2o7b2o8bo5bo2bobo7bo$bobo16bo6b2o2b
2obob2obo$3bo7bo8bo7bobo5bobo$3b2o6bo16bobo2b2o$b2o2bo5bo8b2o7bo2bo2b
3o$o2b3o15bo8b2ob2o2bo$obo4bo20bobobobo$bob3obo9b2o7b3obob2o$3bo2bo11b
o6bo3bobo$bo2b2o9b3o7b2o2bobo$b2obo10bo14bo$4bo$4b2o!

There may be smaller solutions.

I also found this p57 that is 5 cells bigger than the current SKOP p57:

Code: Select all

x = 39, y = 21, rule = B3/S23
28bo$27bobo$16bo10bob3o$14b3o9b2o4bo$13bo11bo2bob2o$13b2o9bob3obo6b2o$
24bo5bobo5bo$10bo15b4o2bo2bobo$b2o7b2o8bo5bo6bo$bobo16bo6b2o2b4obo$3bo
7bo8bo7bo5bo$3b2o6bo16bob4o2bo$b2o2bo5bo8b2o7bo3bob2o$o2b3o15bo8bo2bo$
obo4bo23bobo$bob3obo9b2o13bo$3bo2bo11bo$bo2b2o9b3o$b2obo10bo$4bo$4b2o!

I would say it's not notable.

I was about to say the p3 catalyst could go on a not-yet-existing "p3 catalysts" page, but it's not a p3 catalyst; it's a stable catalyst welded to a p3.

[hotdogPi]

As for the term "cheater", it was originally used in "cheater2" as a pun on "eater 2", for a trivial p34. The term "cheater3" was then used for a similar p3 component despite having nothing to do with eater 3. This long predates the previous post.

[dvgrn]

[...] With good documentation and references (like what was added in this case) they can easily be sufficiently notable [...]

I wouldn't describe the current content of the wiki page as "good documentation". The page fails to tell why the oscillator could be considered notable.

@confocaloid, this is all an example of a rather minor difference of opinion.

You and I are likely to continue to have these from time to time.

A good way to handle them is for both sides to acknowledge that they exist, and move on at some appropriate time without making too many mountains out of molehills.

In this case, as WhiteHawk has explained, the oscillator is an example of a type of reaction that was previously referenced but not explained clearly. I happen to think that illustrative examples don't necessarily have to be notable patterns -- they just have to demonstrate something that it's worthwhile to demonstrate.

There's no requirement that everybody agree about what is or isn't worthwhile to demonstrate. All I'm saying here is that I've reviewed your claim of non-notability in this case -- and since I don't think that "notability" is quite the right concept to apply here, I will not personally be removing the non-SKOP p57 oscillator from the Cribbage page.

I might possibly think of a way to improve the caption a little more; incremental improvements are a good way to make the LifeWiki better. Wholesale rollbacks, on the other hand, are quite dangerous when they're unjustified. I really wish you could see your way to suggesting rollbacks much less often; there's very often a way to keep part of an idea and continue making improvements.

Of course, if there's a groundswell of complaints from other community members about how silly I'm being in not understanding why that oscillator has to be removed, then I won't have any objection to some other editor removing it.

[confocaloid]

If the purpose of showing that p57 oscillator is to help "someone trying to figure out how to set new SKOP records", then one question is: why this helping should happen in an article about a specific p19 oscillator (Cribbage), rather than in an article about some relevant general concept? (LCM? SKOP?) Or a tutorial for that matter, judging by the "how to" phrasing.

If this is intended just as an illustrative example, I think it could help to clarify what concept it is supposed to illustrate.

If it is an attempt to illustrate the exact same concept as one discussed in LCM_oscillator#Single_objects (where there are already several illustrative examples), then it would either belong in that page/section instead, or it would simply be redundant to already existing examples.

If it is an attempt to illustrate some different concept, then it's worth clarifying what is the intended idea, and again, the entry "Cribbage" is unlikely to be the place for that clarification.

[...] notable in relation to someone trying to figure out how to set new SKOP records, even if a given example is not itself a SKOP record.

[...] I happen to think that illustrative examples don't necessarily have to be notable patterns -- they just have to demonstrate something that it's worthwhile to demonstrate.

There's no requirement that everybody agree about what is or isn't worthwhile to demonstrate. [...]

[WhiteHawk]

Period-27 glider gun

I can't figure out what I am missing to make the second Embedviewer work. I also am unclear about where the newest form of the p27 gun comes from (This page just needs to be updated with the relevant references)

[Haycat2009]

Why are there so many users with inapproriate names on the wiki now?

[dvgrn]

Why are there so many users with [inappropriate] names on the wiki now?

I'm thinking it's two different people, but it isn't entirely clear yet. They've come to the rather odd conclusion that it's worthwhile to add obscure complaints about how conwaylife.com is being run, in the form of maximum-length usernames, mixed in with vaguely threatening "Shame and death to Donakd Greene" entries.

It's hard to guess what they're thinking on the "Donakd" spelling (it's been the same four times in a row). "Donald" was my father's name, but he passed away six years ago so the death wishes seem strangely pointless as well as deeply misguided.

[Haycat2009]

I'm thinking it's two different people, but it isn't entirely clear yet. They've come to the rather odd conclusion that it's worthwhile to add obscure complaints about how conwaylife.com is being run, in the form of maximum-length usernames, mixed in with vaguely threatening "Shame and death to Donakd Greene" entries.

It's hard to guess what they're thinking on the "Donakd" spelling (it's been the same four times in a row). "Donald" was my father's name, but he passed away six years ago so the death wishes seem strangely pointless as well as deeply misguided.

Could they be angry bot-spam creators? After all, they only started after the anti-bot captha was implemented.

[hotdogPi]

I'm thinking it's two different people, but it isn't entirely clear yet. They've come to the rather odd conclusion that it's worthwhile to add obscure complaints about how conwaylife.com is being run, in the form of maximum-length usernames, mixed in with vaguely threatening "Shame and death to Donakd Greene" entries.

It's hard to guess what they're thinking on the "Donakd" spelling (it's been the same four times in a row). "Donald" was my father's name, but he passed away six years ago so the death wishes seem strangely pointless as well as deeply misguided.

Could they be angry bot-spam creators? After all, they only started after the anti-bot captha was implemented.

The anti-bot CAPTCHA was around since before I got here in 2020; I believe it was 2016. Some of them are very clearly not spambot creators, such as referencing the roleplay threads or accurately indicating "duplicate RLE in post [number]".

[Haycat2009]

The anti-bot CAPTCHA was around since before I got here in 2020; I believe it was 2016. Some of them are very clearly not spambot creators, such as referencing the roleplay threads or accurately indicating "duplicate RLE in post [number]".

I meant the CAPTCHA that got added recently to the whole website. I feel like the spambot creators make the account, do the CAPTCHA and handoff to bot.

[hotdogPi]

The anti-bot CAPTCHA was around since before I got here in 2020; I believe it was 2016. Some of them are very clearly not spambot creators, such as referencing the roleplay threads or accurately indicating "duplicate RLE in post [number]".

I meant the CAPTCHA that got added recently to the whole website. I feel like the spambot creators make the account, do the CAPTCHA and handoff to bot.

When actual spambots get on this website, they post AI-generated stuff such as the one shown here.

Do you really think names like "Largest Smallest Known Camelship", "[username] might be transgender", "A frickin' bloomin' REDISCOVERY", anything about jailing dimensions (as a reference to the roleplay threads), or "PSA duplicate RLE in post 213671" are created by spammers?

[Haycat2009]

The anti-bot CAPTCHA was around since before I got here in 2020; I believe it was 2016. Some of them are very clearly not spambot creators, such as referencing the roleplay threads or accurately indicating "duplicate RLE in post [number]".

I meant the CAPTCHA that got added recently to the whole website. I feel like the spambot creators make the account, do the CAPTCHA and handoff to bot.

When actual spambots get on this website, they post AI-generated stuff such as the one shown here.

Do you really think names like "Largest Smallest Known Camelship", "[username] might be transgender", "A frickin' bloomin' REDISCOVERY", anything about jailing dimensions (as a reference to the roleplay threads), or "PSA duplicate RLE in post 213671" are created by spammers?

Not sure - but [username] being [CENSORED] multiple usernames? Thats a bot creating usernames with a specific format.

Black Holes Matter sounds like it is possible tho (ahh, 2 very different interpretations.)

[dvgrn]

Not sure - but [username] being [CENSORED] multiple usernames? Thats a bot creating usernames with a specific format.

Nah, it's really not. It wasn't multiple usernames.

These are being created by a conwaylife.com user with some familiarity with the forums, who doesn't realize how juvenile-looking their spam username ideas are.

You can trust us on this one; we've seen a lot of them go by, and they're not the product of any kind of bot. Might be a couple of different people, though -- there have been a lot of just silly pointless username creations, but there have also been random ugly attacks occasionally -- which are even less welcome than the elementary-school-level spam, of course.