ConwayLife.com

The bug is fixed in version 0.4. Happy searching!

Finished #144 and #248 with only the result below.

CopperSearch version 0.4 ran with parameters 'd 144/256' and found the following patterns:

(0,0)c/10: Total: 1 patterns

#248 had nothing

I'll take #249-256

No results for #37 and #41.

CopperSearch v0.2 wrote:CopperSearch version 0.2 ran with parameters 'd 37/256' and found the following patterns:

Total: 0 patterns

CopperSearch version 0.2 ran with parameters 'd 41/256' and found the following patterns:

Total: 0 patterns

I'll try v0.4 on the same parts.

EDIT: I finished my v0.4 search and still nothing is found.

My search of #99 with version 0.2 is complete, with the only result another P5/P2 combination (octagon 2 and beacon, this time):
I will start #100 with version 0.4, then continue with #90 through #97.

#7 through #10 complete, no results. I'll do #11 through #20.

Firstly, thank you all.

Secondly, given the abundance of octagon 2 + some p2 combinations, you are not required to report them any more.

Damn it!!!

OK, my computer BSOD'd, so starting the search again using 0.4, which apparently is faster, as Alexey claims. I hope.

Claiming 64-67 now. Thanks for v0.4!

I call #160 and #216!

(I changed my mind about only doing one. This is fun!)

Also, 1/8 of the way into #101. No results.

Update:

1/4 of the way into #101. Still no results.

57 here.

I'll preemptively claim 112-119 and 224-231 for once 64-67 are done. v0.4 is much faster!

Edit: to make sure I understand before I do this, if I set up 2 instances with d 14/32 and d 28/32, that covers the above search space, correct? If so, I will also claim 192-199 and 200-207.

Edit2: 64-67 finished, just a single octagon+blinkers to report, nothing more exciting.
I would like confirmation before I set up each of "search d {14,24,25,28}/32"

Update:
#101 finished, one result found. Oddly, it evolves into a beacon and octagon, just like dsmiller's #99 find!
#160 and #216 both came back empty-handed.

Are you sure you posted the correct RLE? It has no symmetry. Also please don't abuse "viewer" tag, "code" is enough.

Nothing found for #57.

#79 finished, no results.

EDIT: And so does #171.

#174 and #175 are added to my list.

EDIT: Added #176.

Taking #192!

A lot of people like doing low-tech searches, don't they?

My computer can currently handle about 6380 sps, so doing this takes about an hour. Thus, I'll be doing a lot of these.

#176 complete. It seems that the C version of Coppersearch is the fastest. Thanks simeks!

Bullet51 wrote:#176 complete. It seems that the C version of Coppersearch is the fastest. Thanks simeks!

I posted a preview of a reimplementation here, but please remember that results from running that version are not conclusive unless Alexey_Nigin says so!

I have started 112-119, 192-199, 200-207, and 224-231 via (x/8)/32 where x is start value. Please please let me know if this is going to give different results than I expected. I want to be able to leave my computer alone for a longish time.

#177-#184 complete.

I like how #173-#247 is barren except for one that Hdjensofjfnen is searching

biggiemac wrote:I have started 112-119, 192-199, 200-207, and 224-231 via (x/8)/32 where x is start value. Please please let me know if this is going to give different results than I expected. I want to be able to leave my computer alone for a longish time.

Because parts go from 1 to Max, not from 0 to (Max - 1), I don't think that could be correct.
The first one you're suggesting would be "14/32", but there are 13 32-parts before that, corresponding to 104 256-parts, so 14/32 would correspond to 105-112/256 if I understand it correctly.

Now I am searching #17-32, #145-160 and #241-256.

simeks wrote:

biggiemac wrote:I have started 112-119, 192-199, 200-207, and 224-231 via (x/8)/32 where x is start value. Please please let me know if this is going to give different results than I expected. I want to be able to leave my computer alone for a longish time.

Because parts go from 1 to Max, not from 0 to (Max - 1), I don't think that could be correct.
The first one you're suggesting would be "14/32", but there are 13 32-parts before that, corresponding to 104 256-parts, so 14/32 would correspond to 105-112/256 if I understand it correctly.

Oh right, these are labelled indexing from 1. Thanks for catching that. Well, fortunately if I shift everything down by 7 it's still unclaimed territory. So I guess what I am running is 105-112, 185-200, and 217-224. Unless there are further shenanigans afoot.