Forums for Conway's Game of Life
https://conwaylife.com/forums/
Tie between caterer, cis-beacon on table, fox, trans-beacon on table, all with population 12.ColorfulGalaxy wrote: October 20th, 2020, 5:22 pm Did you know that the smallest oscillator that is completely asymmetric (not even glide) is... (not sure yet)
I don't see a conflict there. The 0E0P was made public on 12 November 2018, enabling an infinite series of (ridiculously huge and un-runnable) strictly volatile oscillators that are powers of its period... whereas the first infinite series of Golly-verifiable strictly volatile oscillators didn't show up until 21 November.GUYTU6J wrote: March 21st, 2022, 12:30 am One month has passed so a new post for two issues:
LifeWiki:Did_you_know/56&oldid=61721 and LifeWiki:Did_you_know/96&oldid=50601 conflict subtly and may be outdated.
Yup, #154 was just a less-specific version of #100. I've replaced it with some 2022 news (Game of Life Fun's gliderless GGG puffer).GUYTU6J wrote: March 21st, 2022, 12:30 am LifeWiki:Did_you_know/154&oldid=103010 is more or less a duplicate of LifeWiki:Did_you_know/100&oldid=62073, and the same topic (stable glider reflector) has LifeWiki:Did_you_know/18&oldid=35847 and LifeWiki:Did_you_know/155&oldid=103011 as well which seems a bit too many.
Also, the DYK column on the wiki main page is significantly longer than other sections - maybe we can display less items, or make it wider?
Are you sure that that's still a problem anywhere? I'm not seeing it. Ian07 made the relevant update four days ago.Haycat2009 wrote: November 28th, 2023, 1:55 am There is a error, where "10 of 170" dyks are shown, but only 161 of them are actually shown. Can an admin correct this?
For what it's worth, I went through just now and made a minor change to the "wing" DYK item. Something more radical could be done, since "wing" has been used to refer to the lateral edges of a lot of different spaceships, not just Corderships specifically. It's kind of complicated and the full story doesn't boil down to a reasonable-sized DYK. A couple of the other new DYKs might go out of date at some point, but that's not uncommon among DYK's (cf. DYK 88, 89, 90).confocaloid wrote: November 24th, 2023, 3:09 am Could someone other than myself review recent additions to LifeWiki:Did_you_know_archive?
Only 161 dyks in https://conwaylife.com/wiki/LifeWiki:Did_you_knowdvgrn wrote: November 28th, 2023, 8:15 amAre you sure that that's still a problem anywhere? I'm not seeing it. Ian07 made the relevant update four days ago.Haycat2009 wrote: November 28th, 2023, 1:55 am There is a error, where "10 of 170" dyks are shown, but only 161 of them are actually shown. Can an admin correct this?
Fixed -- thanks!confocaloid wrote: November 28th, 2023, 11:49 pm https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=113030
Likely copy&paste error. All added links on the left lead to LifeWiki:Did you know/161
The first completed orthogonoid in a two-state isotropic alien rule might be the Dominoplex orthogonoid (January 2019).LifeWiki:Did you know/177 wrote:... that [https://conwaylife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=3943 B2ein3cijn4cnrwy5cnq6e/S1c2-ai3acny4anqy5c6ek8] is the first known two-state [[INT]] cellular automaton (that is not [[Life]]) with an explicitly constructed [[Orthogonoid]]?
EDIT by dvgrn: Done.... that [https://conwaylife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=67929#p67929 Dominoplex] and [https://conwaylife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=3943 B2ein3cijn4cnrwy5cnq6e/S1c2-ai3acny4anqy5c6ek8] are first two-state alien [[Isotropic non-totalistic rule|isotropic non-totalistic rules]] with an explicitly constructed [[orthogonoid]]?
Claims about the exact number of ticks to produce the output object from the input object are false precision, when the input and/or the output is a spaceship. (When the input spaceship is consumed? when the output spaceship is produced?)LifeWiki:Did you know/176 wrote:...that the first [[G-to-LWSS]] took 1973 ticks to produce the [[LWSS]] from the initial reaction, and that has been improved to 73 ticks by the [[G-to-LWSS (2023)|fastest G-to-LWSS]]; which is more than 27 times faster?
I'm not sure if I agree with "79". Here is the pattern (G-to-LWSS (2023)):squareroot12621 wrote: December 17th, 2023, 7:18 pm I do agree that there isn't a consistent way to get 1,973 and 73, but I don't think the item should be scrapped altogether—it was probably intended to be 79.
Code: Select all
x = 65, y = 63, rule = B3/S23
obo$b2o$bo31$47b2o$47b2o2$56b2o$56bobob2o$58bobo$57b2obo$57bo2b2o$58b
2o2bo$59bobo$59bob2o$30b2o26b2obo2bo$30b2o29bob2o$61bo$26bo20bobo10b2o
$26b3o19b2o$29bo18bo$28b2o31b2o$48b2o6b2obo2bo$47bobo5bobob3o$34b2o12b
o6bobo$34bobo16b3ob5o$35bo16bo3bo4bo$52b2o2bobo$43bo13b2o$42bobo2b2o$
31b2o10bo3bobo$32bo16bo$29b3o17b2o$29bo!
I meant "Starting from the initial catalysis" and "Ending when it first appears"confocaloid wrote: December 17th, 2023, 11:10 pmI'm not sure if I agree with "79". Here is the pattern (G-to-LWSS (2023)):squareroot12621 wrote: December 17th, 2023, 7:18 pm I do agree that there isn't a consistent way to get 1,973 and 73, but I don't think the item should be scrapped altogether—it was probably intended to be 79.T = 0 is the latest generation which could be obtained from any earlier generation (with the glider rewound back) eitherCode: Select all
x = 65, y = 63, rule = B3/S23 obo$b2o$bo31$47b2o$47b2o2$56b2o$56bobob2o$58bobo$57b2obo$57bo2b2o$58b 2o2bo$59bobo$59bob2o$30b2o26b2obo2bo$30b2o29bob2o$61bo$26bo20bobo10b2o $26b3o19b2o$29bo18bo$28b2o31b2o$48b2o6b2obo2bo$47bobo5bobob3o$34b2o12b o6bobo$34bobo16b3ob5o$35bo16bo3bo4bo$52b2o2bobo$43bo13b2o$42bobo2b2o$ 31b2o10bo3bobo$32bo16bo$29b3o17b2o$29bo!
(a) by evolving the whole pattern, or
(b) by evolving separately the glider and the stationary device and then combining the results via cellwise "OR" or "XOR",
with identical results.
At T = 79, the output LWSS does indeed appear. However, if you remove the LWSS from that generation, then the temporary beehive does not get restored to the boat. The spark produced by the LWSS at T = 82 is necessary. So maybe it would make sense to say "83 ticks" rather than "79 ticks".
T = 83 is the earliest generation such that for this or any later generation, you can choose either
(a) to evolve the entire pattern for n ticks, or
(b) to evolve separately the output LWSS for n ticks and the rest for n ticks and then combine the results via cellwise "OR" or "XOR",
with identical results.
To define "the number of ticks" for such cases, one would need precise explanations to choose the initial generation and the final generation. I don't think the resulting numbers are going to be particularly intuitive to someone reading a "did you know?" item.
Note also that the documentation of Template:Conduit on LifeWiki directly states that parameters "m" (output orientation), "step", "dx", "dy" should only be specified if neither the input object nor the output object is a spaceship. These values are undefined when a spaceship is consumed and/or produced.
Then both "73 ticks" and "78 ticks" are wrong. There is no LWSS at T = 78 in the above pattern - only a predecessor that lacks the spark. (And later the LWSS interacts again, so it cannot be removed yet.)Haycat2009 wrote: December 18th, 2023, 1:28 am I meant "Starting from the initial catalysis" and "Ending when it first appears"
Why, exactly? Right now it is an unexplained assertion.Haycat2009 wrote: December 18th, 2023, 1:28 amStep for spaceship conduits is actually an important concept, like it or not.
Yeah, but it allows for comparison - for example, the first G-LWSS is obviously slower than the smallest G-LWSS, but by your defination, I can swap both and not worry about LWSSes arriving too late, ruining a mechanism. The 1st generation is the first step of the initial catalysis. The last generation is when the spaceship/an equivalent form first appears.confocaloid wrote: December 18th, 2023, 1:40 amWhy, exactly? Right now it is an unexplained assertion.Haycat2009 wrote: December 18th, 2023, 1:28 amStep for spaceship conduits is actually an important concept, like it or not.
I already explained in my post above, why I consider "the number of ticks from input to output" meaningless when the input object and/or the output object is a spaceship. In these cases, there is no single natural choice for the initial/final generations (especially taking into account actual connections with other conduits in a track).
Template:Conduit says that "step" should not be used when spaceships are involved. In other words there's no concept to begin with (unless you precisely define it for these cases).
That's another story. If you just want to be able to say that one device is much faster than another, then you don't need precise numbers like "1973" or "73" or "27" at all. For example I think LifeWiki:Did you know/176 could be rewritten along the lines ofHaycat2009 wrote: December 18th, 2023, 1:53 am Yeah, but it allows for comparison - for example, the first G-LWSS is obviously slower than the smallest G-LWSS, but by your defination, I can swap both and not worry about LWSSes arriving too late, ruining a mechanism.
Note that all the exact numbers are gone (with the exception of the year 2023). Putting those numbers is false precision when there's no single generally understood and accepted way to compute them....that the first stable [[G-to-LWSS]] took almost two thousand ticks to produce the output [[LWSS]] from the input [[glider]], and that has been improved to less than one hundred ticks by [[G-to-LWSS (2023)|a compact converter discovered in 2023]]?
There's still no explanation what counts as "equivalent form", and what counts as "first step of the initial catalysis". And either "78" or "1973" is going to be wrong.Haycat2009 wrote: December 18th, 2023, 1:53 am The 1st generation is the first step of the initial catalysis. The last generation is when the spaceship/an equivalent form first appears.
People are just going to reinsert it anyway if you leave it like that. After all, newcomers want to help, but they might not understand.confocaloid wrote: December 18th, 2023, 2:02 amThat's another story. If you just want to be able to say that one device is much faster than another, then you don't need precise numbers like "1973" or "73" or "27" at all.Haycat2009 wrote: December 18th, 2023, 1:53 am Yeah, but it allows for comparison - for example, the first G-LWSS is obviously slower than the smallest G-LWSS, but by your defination, I can swap both and not worry about LWSSes arriving too late, ruining a mechanism.
For example I think LifeWiki:Did you know/176 could be rewritten along the lines ofNote that all the exact numbers are gone (with the exception of the year 2023). Putting those numbers is false precision when there's no single generally understood and accepted way to compute them....that the first stable [[G-to-LWSS]] took almost two thousand ticks to produce the output [[LWSS]] from the input [[glider]], and that has been improved to less than one hundred of ticks by the [[G-to-LWSS (2023)|a compact converter discovered in 2023]]?
My opinion on non-Life content in the Did-You-Knows has always been somewhat similar to this. A big part of keeping things strictly related to B3/S23 was that the alternative seemed to be opening the door to a potential avalanche of notability questions about OCA Did-You-Knows.hotdogPi wrote: December 18th, 2023, 12:08 pm DYK 177 should not exist. This is the LifeWiki, and Dominoplex and B2ein3cijn4cnrwy5cnq6e/S1c2-ai3acny4anqy5c6ek8 are nowhere even close to Life.
Currently DYK items mentioning alien rules/objects are #61, #69, #146, #166, #174, #175, #177. Out of these, all but #177 mention Life-like cellular automata (square grid, two cellstates, range-1 Moore neighbourhood, outer-totalistic/neighbour-counting conditions for birth and survival), but not any other rulespaces.hotdogPi wrote: December 18th, 2023, 12:08 pm DYK 177 should not exist. This is the LifeWiki, and Dominoplex and B2ein3cijn4cnrwy5cnq6e/S1c2-ai3acny4anqy5c6ek8 are nowhere even close to Life.
I think at least two out of those cases need some other idea, due to absence of a certain neighbour-counting condition in the rule definition. But it would be better indeed if the errors were understood and corrected by their author.post173619 wrote: December 18th, 2023, 6:10 am EDIT by dvgrn: At least at a first glance, it looks to me like these three proofs are all easy to patch up, basically with the same trick in each case: "Then the dead cell to the left of C will be born in the next generation, via B3 (if the cell 'x' is dead) or B4 (if the cell 'x' is alive)." I've asked Haycat2009 to take responsibility for repairing these incomplete proofs before making any further edits -- and to use edit summaries more consistently instead of just leaving them blank.