ConwayLife.com

I've added a couple of blurbs to the article that succinctly identify why the name was changed. One in the opening bit and one in the growth section.

DroneBetter wrote: December 11th, 2023, 6:56 am

confocaloid wrote: December 11th, 2023, 5:48 ama troll who is spamming the wiki with misspellings.

I think Haycat did that due to the page with the correct capitalisation being occupied by a redirect scheduled for speedy deletion.

That is the main reason. I am not dylexic, (Well, I am a teacher) BUT that deletion template cannot be overriden, so I did the next best thing I could. Sorry if it looked awkward, but that was the next best thing to do. (Also, that is something that can be exploited by vandals.)
P.S Can you stop making up untrue rumours about me? That is defamation and it is illegal. Also, it would take a really gullible person to believe those.

"Phrase"-shifted "sparklers" has nothing to do with capitalization, redirects, or deletion templates.

Haycat2009 wrote: December 27th, 2023, 10:54 pmThat is the main reason. I am not dylexic, (Well, I am a teacher)

It is well-known that dyslexic teachers exist.

Haycat2009 wrote: December 27th, 2023, 10:54 pmBUT that deletion template cannot be overriden, so I did the next best thing I could.

FWIW "the next best thing" you could try in that case, was to avoid doing any further moves/changes on the page which was obviously under dispute.

Haycat2009 wrote: December 27th, 2023, 10:54 pmuntrue rumours

• Consistently misspelling the same words: Phrase_shifted_sparklers?
• Lack of informative edit summaries (or any edit summaries at all): https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?oldi ... your_edits
• Marking all edits as "minor", including incorrectly marking lots of significant content changes as "minor": https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?oldi ... s_as_minor

Neither of this is "rumours"; it can be seen in the log of your edits. Special:Contributions/Haycat2009

confocaloid wrote: December 28th, 2023, 2:39 am

Haycat2009 wrote: December 27th, 2023, 10:54 pmuntrue rumours

• Consistently misspelling the same words: Phrase_shifted_sparklers?
• Lack of informative edit summaries (or any edit summaries at all): https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?oldi ... your_edits
• Marking all edits as "minor", including incorrectly marking lots of significant content changes as "minor": https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?oldi ... s_as_minor

Neither of this is "rumours"; it can be seen in the log of your edits. Special:Contributions/Haycat2009

Yeah, but calling me a troll is defamation. So is the random accusation that I am dyslexic. Can you please cut that out?

This is supposed to be intelligent discussion, not a "pull-off-the-best-insult" competition. After all, it would be a shame to be degenerated to just flinging rumours instead of discussing our issues. So please cut this out and delete the "I am a troll" post. If this continues, I will have to withdraw the promise.

confocaloid wrote: December 28th, 2023, 2:39 am

Haycat2009 wrote: December 27th, 2023, 10:54 pmBUT that deletion template cannot be overriden, so I did the next best thing I could.

FWIW "the next best thing" you could try in that case, was to avoid doing any further moves/changes on the page which was obviously under dispute.

That was Admin's orders. No defying them!

You are making the wrong choice.

DroneBetter wrote: November 22nd, 2023, 3:55 pm If anyone has any opinions, they may express them here, with the intention of coming to a consensus in a civil (albeit perhaps arbitrarily protracted :-) manner, that doesn't involve any back-and-forth deleterious sparring edits.

Inventing and trying to push a new name not in common use is a bad way of handling problems with correctness of existing names / terminology. This creates more problems than it could solve.

The common name logarithmic replicator rule reads and sounds as a good name. (Sufficiently good so that I'm willing to ignore correctness in this case.)

I looked again through the edit history and related pages. Neither of other names in the edit history is particularly inspiring or creative, to me at least. (Or even pronounceable, for that matter.) They're all obtained via mechanical replacement of a word.
The new name is bad. It's a good example of a bad name.

DroneBetter wrote: November 22nd, 2023, 3:55 pm I am of course incapable of impartiality, but will give as full a chronology as I can.

• No later than 2001-01-14: David Eppstein creates a page in his page, "Replicators: B36/S245"
• 2009-08-07: apg adds this to the Gun LifeWiki page, under the name "Logarithmic replicator rule"
• 2018-12-17: Muzik creates a page on the wiki under the same name, redirecting to Eppstein's page
• 2019-06-02: Ian07 turns this into a then-stubby, but full-fledged page of its own.
• 2019-06-26, 2020-04-12 (AforAmpere finds a 3-cell-wide pattern in an INT rule, emulating the replicator), 2020-08-19, 2021-05-22, 2021-10-21, 2022-09-25: Various uses of the name "Logarithmic replicator rule" appear in the forums
• 2023-09-29 (talk page): I find exact forms (in terms of bitwise and special functions) for the functions that give the number of iterations for the left and right edges to reach specific distances from the origin, in AforAmpere's emulator (equivalent to the 4-state Wolfram rule 0x190e002061040c0b86d0010e5980). This provides that the cell-length in the t'th iteration, l(t), has the asymptotic bounds 2*√t < l(t) < 2*√(5*t/3). As such, this prevailing name is incorrect, since the replicator's asymptotic width is Θ(√t).
• 2023-09-30 (Tiki bar), 2023-10-21 (my talk page): Disagreement ensues

Just for the record, that chronology misses a question from AforAmpere (2023-09-10):

AforAmpere wrote: September 10th, 2023, 5:32 pm Why is this called the 'logarithmic replicator'?

Code: Select all

x = 19, y = 3, rule = B36/S245
6o7b6o$o4bo7bo4bo$b4o9b4o!

As far as I can tell, the population hangs at a constant at the minima (approximately), and sqrt(t) at the maxima. Also, the bounding box follows sqrt(t) as well, so that's not it. I don't understand where the logarithmic part actually is. You can pick phases that align with log growth (2^t seems to align with logarithmic pop growth for one of the emulators I found), but that's cheating.

confocaloid wrote: January 15th, 2024, 11:04 amJust for the record, that chronology misses a question from AforAmpere (2023-09-10):

AforAmpere wrote: September 10th, 2023, 5:32 pm Why is this called the 'logarithmic replicator'?

Code: Select all

x = 19, y = 3, rule = B36/S245
6o7b6o$o4bo7bo4bo$b4o9b4o!

As far as I can tell, the population hangs at a constant at the minima (approximately), and sqrt(t) at the maxima. Also, the bounding box follows sqrt(t) as well, so that's not it. I don't understand where the logarithmic part actually is. You can pick phases that align with log growth (2^t seems to align with logarithmic pop growth for one of the emulators I found), but that's cheating.

Apologies, I searched only for the full expression containing 'rule,' that was a good catch on your part, I will add it to the initial post.

Though the dates of our respective realisations are suspiciously close, it is only incidental. I was creating a LaTeX write-up regarding the findings I had made thus far in OCA:rule 120, when I thought it would be a good idea, if I were to include an appendix section regarding minimal rules that achieve the minimum asymptotic growth rate, to include the logarithmic replicator one as an explicit existing example, but upon simulating AforAmpere's 4-state emulator in my rule 225 analysis script, it occurred to me that its width's ratio to log(t) seemed to grow unboundedly; the formulas I added to the page were found by the observation that the 'first generation at which kth cell becomes on' function appeared to grow quite similarly to that of rule 225.

On that note, I am thinking about maybe uploading my write-up about the family of 1D rules as a PDF in the LifeWiki, eventually. Magma from the lounge gave me an observation that I had missed thus far, which is that my recursive form for s(k,t) is equivalently given by "1 if t's bits are a superset of o(k) else 0," a fact that is well-known in the n=1 (Sierpinski triangle) case, in which o(k)=k. This is relatively easily provable, and leads to many of the other forms being provable in terms of it, I think.

I don't think the forms for the B36/S245 replicator are provable in such a clean way without considering its recursively-defined structure, however.

DroneBetter wrote: January 18th, 2024, 2:22 pm[...] On that note, I am thinking about maybe uploading my write-up about the family of 1D rules as a PDF in the LifeWiki, eventually. [...]

I think it would be better to make a forum thread (or maybe a post in an existing thread), and post the information there.

I think LifeWiki works better as a place to document (in a comprehensible form) knowledge that was already previously posted somewhere else, and LifeWiki has a different target audience. The forums are good for talking to other enthusiasts. The wiki is aimed primarily at newcomers and readers, who are likely to know much less about the discussed topics, and might be struggling with basic ideas.