ConwayLife.com

Posted: **January 11th, 2020, 1:24 am**

Another advice is to write longer in a post rather than breaking the content up in multiple posts.

Posted: **January 11th, 2020, 1:27 am**

Hubi1857 wrote: January 10th, 2020, 6:39 pm We live in the digital ages nowadays where the numbers 0 and 1 are sufficient to solve any computable problem whatsoever.

Not any computable problem whatsoever, of course, but those only which are solvable on any computer which has been built making use of the von Neumann architecture.

See -> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neu ... chitecture

Posted: **January 11th, 2020, 8:46 am**

Hubi1857 wrote: January 10th, 2020, 10:09 pm You force me to struggle all the time against your ignorance.

Okay then, you chose to dig the hole as deep as you possibly can and make yourself disliked here. I can go with that.
But you know that was an insult to me. Don't think I'll leave this without making sure that you apologize and cut out all this "ignorance" talk.

Prove that I am ignorant, i.e. my intelligence is wholly inferior to yours. Since you have failed to specify a definition after I repeatedly took it that way, I am assuming that that is your definition.

And instead of changing the subject or being evasive, how about you actually answer me? After all, all you'd be doing is irritating us more.

Posted: **January 11th, 2020, 9:24 am**

Moosey wrote: January 11th, 2020, 8:46 am
Hubi1857 wrote: January 10th, 2020, 10:09 pm You force me to struggle all the time against your ignorance.
Okay then, you chose to dig the hole and make yourself disliked here. I can go with that.

You are merely a prisoner of the brains between your ears. I can easily go with that. Regardless if you dislike it or not.

Posted: **January 11th, 2020, 9:45 am**

Let's waste no more time arguing and concentrate on topic, Hubi1857

Posted: **January 11th, 2020, 10:02 am**

GUYTU6J wrote: January 11th, 2020, 9:45 am Let's waste no more time arguing and concentrate on topic, Hubi1857

It seems like there was no topic to start with anyway... just an extremely weird pseudoscientific ramble. Repeating the words "theoretical physics" several times in the same post and calling everyone ignorant, without any clear point being put forward in the original post anyway is...
(1) delusional and, quite frankly, worrying
(2) remarkably amusing

Move on, nothing to see here.

Posted: **January 11th, 2020, 10:10 am**

Back to Max Planck, cellular automata and the phases of the moving p4 oscillator that is Conways glider.

Code: Select all

..o...o.....o..o.o
o.o....oo.o.o...oo
.oo...oo...oo...o.

Posted: **January 11th, 2020, 10:18 am**

Hi Rhombic!
Your reply was indeed

Rhombic wrote: January 11th, 2020, 10:02 am (1) delusional and, quite frankly, worrying
(2) remarkably amusing

And annoying and irrelevant, too.

Move on, nothing to see here.

Posted: **January 11th, 2020, 10:38 am**

GUYTU6J wrote: January 11th, 2020, 9:45 am Let's waste no more time arguing and concentrate on topic, Hubi1857

Well, I try. But I'm hardly able to make any progress because I am forced all the time to struggle against the ignorance of more and more of the Conway addicts of this forum.

Sorry for your inconvenience,
Hubi

Posted: **January 11th, 2020, 10:53 am**

Hubi1857 wrote: January 11th, 2020, 10:38 am Well, I try. But I'm hardly able to make any progress because I am forced all the time to struggle against the ignorance of more and more of the Conway addicts of this forum.

Sorry for your inconvenience,
Hubi

Just ignore the ignorance and speak for yourself. We're listening. You'll feel better if you focus on your theories and make no reply to those noises.

Posted: **January 11th, 2020, 11:27 am**

Hubi1857 wrote: January 11th, 2020, 10:10 am Back to Max Planck, cellular automata and the phases of the moving p4 oscillator that is Conways glider.
Code: Select all
..o...o.....o..o.o
o.o....oo.o.o...oo
.oo...oo...oo...o.

The very least you could do is correct that to make it show the actual phases of the glider:

Code: Select all

..o...o....o...o.o
o.o....oo...o...oo
.oo...oo..ooo...o.

Posted: **January 11th, 2020, 12:18 pm**

Moosey wrote: January 11th, 2020, 11:27 am
The very least you could do is correct that to make it show the actual phases of the glider:

I cannot see what's wrong with my very first working pattern for Conways "Game of Life", consisting of a phalanx of four pentominos, one for each phase of the glider, which peacefully travel together in sync.

Just open the viewer, and watch them go!

Posted: **January 11th, 2020, 12:38 pm**

do you not understand that you have failed to post the correct evolution (i.e. phases) of the glider?

Posted: **January 11th, 2020, 1:04 pm**

Moosey wrote: January 11th, 2020, 12:38 pm do you not understand that you have failed to post the correct evolution (i.e. phases) of the glider?

对牛弹琴 (and with that I will leave this thread).

Posted: **January 11th, 2020, 1:05 pm**

Moosey wrote: January 11th, 2020, 12:38 pm do you not understand that you have failed to post the correct evolution of the glider?

I definitely understand that you do not know what you're talking about when you use the word "evolution".

The easiest way to figure out what common sense says about evolution is probably to start with https://fridaysforfuture.org/ !

Posted: **January 11th, 2020, 1:16 pm**

Hubi1758, go on and tell us what are you going to do with the four phases of glider. Don't waste time in things that make no progress for your cellular automata according to Max Planck!

Posted: **January 11th, 2020, 1:50 pm**

Hubi1857 wrote: January 11th, 2020, 1:05 pm
Moosey wrote: January 11th, 2020, 12:38 pm do you not understand that you have failed to post the correct evolution of the glider? (This was edited, I had written (i.e. phases))
I definitely understand that you do not know what you're talking about when you use the word "evolution".

by evolution I mean phases of the glider.

regarding the other half of your post, I care much about the climate, but that's wholly irrelevant

Posted: **January 11th, 2020, 6:17 pm**

Nobody cares what you care much about, I just beg you, Moosey:

PLEASE LEAVE MY THREAD!

Should be easier than you think, pcallahan already succeeded in this tedious task, you see:

pcallahan wrote: January 11th, 2020, 1:04 pm
Moosey wrote: January 11th, 2020, 12:38 pm do you not understand that you have failed to post the correct evolution (i.e. phases) of the glider?
对牛弹琴 (and with that I will leave this thread).

His last words before he left, a very well known ancient saying in japanese, mean:

"Playing the Lute to a Cow."

(Which, btw, happens to be the cause of death of too many composers like me, nowadays.)

Posted: **January 11th, 2020, 6:56 pm**

Hubi1857 wrote: January 11th, 2020, 6:17 pm PLEASE LEAVE MY THREAD!

Okay
If my showing you the actual phases of the glider really pisses you off, I will leave you be.
I bid you adieu

I will probably watch and judge, but I won't comment, at least not for some time.

Posted: **January 12th, 2020, 12:27 am**

Lmao. Count to the first fixed point of the successor function before you make these kinds of arrogant posts.

Posted: **January 12th, 2020, 2:53 am**

Hi testitemqlstudop!
Welcome to my very first thread.

testitemqlstudop wrote: January 12th, 2020, 12:27 am Lmao. Count to the first fixed point of the successor function before you make these kinds of arrogant posts.

Thank you, same to you! Your post was likewise arrogant. And annoying and irrelevant, too.

At least not even half as annoying and irrelevant as the posts of Moosey whom I've already nominated for the very first "W.C.Fields medal" for the most annoying and irrelevant post of the year.

See -> viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2881&p=87158&sid=9 ... 906#p87136

Posted: **January 12th, 2020, 3:19 am**

Hubi1857 wrote: January 12th, 2020, 2:53 am Hi testitemqlstudop!
Welcome to my very first thread.

testitemqlstudop wrote: January 12th, 2020, 12:27 am Lmao. Count to the first fixed point of the successor function before you make these kinds of arrogant posts.
Thank you, same to you! Your post was likewise arrogant. And annoying and irrelevant, too.

At least not even half as annoying and irrelevant as the posts of Moosey whom I've already nominated for the very first "W.C.Fields medal" for the most annoying and irrelevant post of the year.

See -> viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2881&p=87158&sid=9 ... 906#p87136

You're shaping up to be more annoying of a user than Entity Valkyrie. And that's not a good sign. Plus, threads are generally made to be posted in by everyone; Moosey is not at fault for discussing the thread's subject within its appropriate thread.

Posted: **January 12th, 2020, 3:50 am**

Hubi, don't you see my private message?

Posted: **January 12th, 2020, 4:10 am**

Hdjensofjfnen wrote: January 12th, 2020, 3:19 am
You're shaping up to be more annoying of a user than Entity Valkyrie. And that's not a good sign. Plus, threads are generally made to be posted in by everyone; Moosey is not at fault for discussing the thread's subject within its appropriate thread.

I don't know what happened to Entity Valkyrie but I have no problem with Entity Valkyrie 2. Plus, threads are usually created, designed or opened, name it as you like, by a single, ordinary user, as arrogant, annoying and irrelevant, as you please.
It is your fault to discuss my thread's subject within the completely unappropriate context of the Sandbox.

Posted: **January 12th, 2020, 4:22 am**

GUYTU6J wrote: January 12th, 2020, 3:50 am Hubi, don't you see my private message?

Yes. Got notified via email while still busy with my reply to Hdjensofjfnen.

Thank you very much for the very first PM I received from the forum!

ConwayLife.com

cellular automata according to Max Planck

Re: cellular automata according to Max Planck

Re: cellular automata according to Max Planck

Re: cellular automata according to Max Planck

Re: cellular automata according to Max Planck

Re: cellular automata according to Max Planck

Re: cellular automata according to Max Planck

Re: cellular automata according to Max Planck

Re: cellular automata according to Max Planck

Re: cellular automata according to Max Planck

Re: cellular automata according to Max Planck

Re: cellular automata according to Max Planck

Re: cellular automata according to Max Planck

Re: cellular automata according to Max Planck

Re: cellular automata according to Max Planck

Re: cellular automata according to Max Planck

Re: cellular automata according to Max Planck

Re: cellular automata according to Max Planck

Re: cellular automata according to Max Planck

Re: cellular automata according to Max Planck

Re: cellular automata according to Max Planck

Re: cellular automata according to Max Planck

Re: cellular automata according to Max Planck

Re: cellular automata according to Max Planck

Re: cellular automata according to Max Planck

Re: cellular automata according to Max Planck