ConwayLife.com

Posted: **February 19th, 2024, 7:58 pm**

They are different gliders. A glider does not have to move diagonally, or have five cells, or period 4, or bounding box 3-by-3. Neither of this is a requirement.

Posted: **February 19th, 2024, 9:14 pm**

confocaloid wrote: February 19th, 2024, 7:58 pm They are different gliders. A glider does not have to move diagonally, or have five cells, or period 4, or bounding box 3-by-3. Neither of this is a requirement.

Untrue. There is one and only one glider. For context, I can say that “Grounded Life has a Loafer”, which is equally silly as the glider case, given that no spaceships seem to work in both rules.

Posted: **February 20th, 2024, 6:25 am**

Haycat2009 wrote: February 19th, 2024, 9:14 pm For context, I can say that “Grounded Life has a Loafer”, which is equally silly as the glider case, given that no spaceships seem to work in both rules.

You _could_ say that, but nobody would understand you, so it would probably be much better if you didn't.

The long-standing use of "glider" by many people for small natural spaceships in OCA rules is a very different case. People have used the term "glider" in that way for at least a couple of decades now. Those uses have been understood by their intended audience without any difficulty.

confocaloid provided a lot of really good documentary evidence of people using the term "glider" in that way, and expecting to be understood.

In response, you've come up with a vague and irrelevant analogy, and no documentary evidence of your point of view at all. You seem to be saying things that might apply to the common usage of "glider" specifically in the Conway's Life rule, but you don't seem to be even noticing or acknowledging how "glider" works in an OCA context.

Posted: **February 20th, 2024, 7:28 am**

Let's try to get this thread back on topic. This thread is not about the established wider application of "glider" to alien gliders on OCA rules. If somebody wants to talk more about that, they should please start another thread.

This thread is about the not-so-well-established wider application of "glider loop" to include (most or all) glider shuttles.

Mostly to @confocaloid: here's a question related to this statement of mine at the top of the thread --

dvgrn wrote: February 15th, 2024, 10:50 am I'd personally prefer to see people use, e.g., "Jubjub shuttle" rather than "Jubjub loop" for oscillators consisting of two of the same reflector -- EDIT: especially if the glider is returning on the exact same lane -- because "shuttle" is more precise in that case, and it makes it more likely that people will know what a shuttle is due to having another good example to look at. But that doesn't mean that "Jubjub loop" is technically incorrect, or that anybody should be corrected for using it.

-- and one of your discussion points a little farther down:

confocaloid wrote: February 18th, 2024, 6:55 pm I guess these posts provide some additional evidence, that various people preferred the word 'shuttle', when they talked about glider shuttles in actual non-meta discussions about CA patterns. Which probably means the word was a natural choice.

What you said there all seems to me to be absolutely totally true. It's nice to use a more specific term like "shuttle" whenever that term describes a pattern better. I completely agree that "shuttle" is a natural choice.

However, I also think that "glider loop" is another natural choice -- just maybe not the most specific choice, and so not the "best" choice in many situations.

My difficulty is that I can't come up with a workable definition of "glider loop" that actually excludes, e.g., pentadecathlon shuttles.

Here's the question
Can you see why your very good evidence that "shuttle" is a natural choice to describe things like pentadecathlon shuttles... is still failing to convince me that "shuttle" is the only natural choice?

I'd simply like to be able to describe a pentadecathlon shuttle either as "a shuttle" or as "a glider loop", in appropriate contexts, on the LifeWiki -- without having to get into long arguments about it. But I probably won't be able to do that if there's this complicated idea floating around that "it has to be possible to adjust a glider loop to support more than one glider, otherwise it's not actually a glider loop". That seems to me like an extraneous requirement bolted on to the nice simple descriptive idea of "glider loop".

My turn to try an analogy
Consider a block. It's a solid square of ON cells. When people are saying what shape it is, it is a natural choice to say it's a 2x2 square (e.g., if they're talking about patterns that tend to show up at the corners of various NxN squares, like the unices for the 83x83 case).

It's not such a natural choice to call a block a "rectangle", because "square" is more specific.

However, it doesn't seem likely that anyone would try to insist that a block should always be called one of those terms, and that the other term is not correct. If someone puts a block into the "rectangle" category, that's okay, because it is in fact a 2x2 rectangle. If we do an analysis of what happens at the corners of all MxN rectangles, we aren't going to exclude blocks just because they're squares.

I think "glider shuttle" is a lot like "square" in this regard. In my view, a glider shuttle is a specific limited subcategory of "glider loop".

As I said in the quote above, I'd personally prefer to see the more specific term "shuttle" used in naming and describing these glider shuttles, whenever that makes sense. I don't think we disagree about that point much at all.

However, it seems to me that you're arguing that, e.g., a pentadecathlon shuttle is not a glider loop at all, just because it's better described as a shuttle. To me that seems just about as convincing as the idea that a block is not a rectangle at all, just because it's better described as a square.

Posted: **February 20th, 2024, 4:13 pm**

dvgrn wrote: February 20th, 2024, 7:28 am This thread is about the not-so-well-established wider application of "glider loop" to include (most or all) glider shuttles.

I don't see usefulness of redefining 'glider loop' to allow oscillators that are not glider loops. Terms are useful only when they are precise and intuitive, and when one can tell what is an example versus what isn't.

Two Jubjub reflectors with a glider shuttling between them do not make anything I would either want to consider as a loop or want to describe as a loop. I think the reasons are obvious. The oscillator doesn't look like a loop, the oscillator doesn't feel like a loop, and the glider goes along the same path in both directions preventing two or more gliders passing in opposite directions without colliding.

I think essentially the same argument applies to oscillators like the p60 glider shuttle with two pentadecathlons and one glider. The "forward" path overlaps the "backward" path, making it impossible to loop the shuttle with two or more gliders.

Redefining 'glider loop' to allow those shuttles to be classified as "loops" is artificial and counter-intuitive as far as I can tell. There is a reason why there are different terms for concepts that are related but different from each other.

dvgrn wrote: February 20th, 2024, 7:28 amHowever, it seems to me that you're arguing that, e.g., a pentadecathlon shuttle is not a glider loop at all, just because it's better described as a shuttle. To me that seems just about as convincing as the idea that a block is not a rectangle at all, just because it's better described as a square.

I think the analogy with rectangles and squares is irrelevant. The question is "which description is correct" rather than "which description is better". A square is a rectangle. The p60 glider shuttle is not a loop.

Posted: **February 20th, 2024, 5:10 pm**

confocaloid wrote: February 20th, 2024, 4:13 pm I think the analogy with rectangles and squares is irrelevant. The question is "which description is correct" rather than "which description is better". A square is a rectangle. The p60 glider shuttle is not a loop.

I can see, and have illustrated, a loop that is really really obvious to me in the pentadecathlon shuttle. The center of the glider circulates around the red dot/red line. It travels one direction on one path, returns on a different path, and thus closes the loop. So, for me, both descriptions are clearly correct -- "loop" as well as "shuttle".

Now, I totally agree that Jubjub shuttles are degenerate width-0 loops at best (illustration here). It seems to me that those aren't the interesting cases; it's easiest to decide how to handle them after trying to reach a consensus on is for the allowability of (what I think of as) completely obvious glider loops like the pentadecathlon shuttle.

If there turns out to be some general agreement that pentadecathlon shuttles are glider loops (as well as shuttles, of course), then the second RLE in this post must also be a glider loop, with a slightly wider spacing between "back" and "forth" lanes -- and it seems to me that Jubjub shuttles can be easily handled with the same terminology: they're just the degenerate width-0 case.

If there turns out to be some general agreement that pentadecathlon shuttles are not glider loops, then obviously Jubjub shuttles are not glider loops.

... Extending the previous analogy a bit:

A width-0 square is not something that you'd ordinarily call a square, but technically maybe it's best to be able to include it in a list of all width-N squares, instead of just saying "that's not a square!" If you try to exclude N=0 but allow all other N, then someone will inevitably bring up a silly argument about it. N=0 cases are often kind of weird -- seems to me I've seen the "degenerate case" wording I've been using for a lot of N=0 type situations.

Posted: **February 20th, 2024, 8:31 pm**

confocaloid wrote: February 20th, 2024, 4:13 pm I don't see usefulness of redefining 'glider loop' to allow oscillators that are not glider loops. Terms are useful only when they are precise and intuitive, and when one can tell what is an example versus what isn't.

One argument which could be made for glider shuttles being a subset of glider loops depends on if you view the glider as looping though time. In this sense, any pattern which has a glider which travels and returns to it's original position would be a glider loop, including glider shuttles.

Similarly, if the glider takes some convoluted maze-like path to return to it's original position, it would fall within the temporal usage of "loop". One wouldn't need to resort to using "glider figure-eight" or "glider knot".

Posted: **February 20th, 2024, 9:32 pm**

silversmith wrote: February 20th, 2024, 8:31 pmOne argument which could be made for glider shuttles being a subset of glider loops depends on if you view the glider as looping though time. [...]

Unfortunately, such an approach would make it way too easy to describe oscillators as "loops".
It would become possible to argue that the snacker is a "p9 pentadecathlon loop" (because the pentadecathlon is "looping through time").
It would become possible to argue that every oscillator is a loop (including e.g. blinker, clock, burloaferimeter, etc.) making the term "loop" totally useless. In every oscillator, the rotor is "looping through time".

dvgrn wrote: February 20th, 2024, 5:10 pm[...]
A width-0 square is not something that you'd ordinarily call a square, but technically maybe it's best to be able to include it in a list of all width-N squares, instead of just saying "that's not a square!" If you try to exclude N=0 but allow all other N, then someone will inevitably bring up a silly argument about it. N=0 cases are often kind of weird -- seems to me I've seen the "degenerate case" wording I've been using for a lot of N=0 type situations.

There are no "width-0 squares". A square is a polygon with four equal sides and four equal angles.
"Side length 0" would mean that there is no side to begin with. Either the geometric object under discussion is a single point (which is not a square), or there is no geometric object under discussion.

The obvious common problem is that allowing "N=0" breaks backward compatibility (by turning true assertions into false assertions) and intuitiveness (by introducing special cases which must then be treated separately), with no real benefits.
The claim "A glider loop can be adjusted to contain as many circulating gliders as desired, by moving reflectors and adding gliders" is true, but it becomes false as soon as you redefine 'glider loop' to include shuttles that are too narrow to be looped.
The claim "The square has a symmetry group of order 8" is true, but it becomes false as soon as you redefine 'square' to allow a single point.

Posted: **February 20th, 2024, 9:35 pm**

I will be frank: 180-degree glider shuttles with 1 glider are loops, as they are still temporal loops. Furthermore, the glider moves an an looping action.

Posted: **February 20th, 2024, 9:40 pm**

confocaloid wrote: February 20th, 2024, 9:32 pm Unfortunately, such an approach would make it way too easy to describe oscillators as "loops".
It would become possible to argue that the snacker is a "p9 pentadecathlon loop" (because the pentadecathlon is "looping through time").
It would become possible to argue that every oscillator is a loop (including e.g. blinker, clock, burloaferimeter, etc.) making the term "loop" totally useless. In every oscillator, the rotor is "looping through time".

I believe that would be solved by requiring that a loop have some descrete part-

silversmith wrote: February 20th, 2024, 8:31 pm ...which travels and returns to it's original position...

Posted: **February 20th, 2024, 10:04 pm**

silversmith wrote: February 20th, 2024, 9:40 pm
confocaloid wrote: February 20th, 2024, 9:32 pmUnfortunately, such an approach would make it way too easy to describe oscillators as "loops". [...]
I believe that would be solved by requiring that a loop have some descrete part-
silversmith wrote: February 20th, 2024, 8:31 pm ...which travels and returns to it's original position...

I think that would lose the useful distinction between hassler oscillators and loop oscillators.

Tanner's p46 is a pi-heptomino hassler. It does have some discrete part, which travels and returns to its original position. But it is not a loop oscillator. And it does not look or feel like a loop to me. (Except in the uninteresting sense, in which every single oscillator is looped in time, regardless of the mechanism.)

(Tanner's p46 is not a shuttle either, for different reasons. But it is certainly a hassler.)

dvgrn wrote: October 9th, 2023, 12:57 pm
MEisSCAMMER wrote: October 9th, 2023, 11:30 am The key here is "between" — what is on the other side of the main pi? A spark. Even if it were a quasi-shuttle the appearance should still be maintained, otherwise there would be no use defining it in terms of the shuttle.
Heh, well, no doubt this could be debated endlessly just like anything else. There's a sense in which the pi is pushed rightward by the yellow catalysts on the left, and then leftward again by the white catalyst on the right, shuttling between those two positions.
Code: Select all
x = 23, y = 26, rule = B3/S23Super
12.2E$12.E$13.E$12.2E$11.2B$9.5B5.2C$8.6B5.C$9.6B5.C$8.7B4.2C$5.B.8B.
2B$3.8B3D5B2C$.10BDB3A2BC.C$11B2DCBA2B.C$.12BABAB3.3C$3.15B4.C$6.13B$
7.12B$8.11B$9.9B$9.6B$11.4B$10.B2E2B$11.2E.B2E$14.BE.E$17.E$17.2E!
Now, I have absolutely no interest in trying to draw a bright line between things that are quasi-shuttles and things that are not quasi-shuttles -- if we go by past usage, it's really not a terribly useful term. I kind of think that Tanner's p46 could quasi-reasonably be called a quasi-shuttle; it's more reasonable than calling a still life a "p1 oscillator", but that doesn't mean that it's really a good thing to call it.

Posted: **February 20th, 2024, 10:20 pm**

confocaloid wrote: February 20th, 2024, 10:04 pm Tanner's p46 is a pi-heptomino hassler. It does have some discrete part, which travels and returns to its original position. But it is not a loop oscillator.

Calling the pi-heptomino in Tanner's p46 "a part which travels" seems like a generous definition of travel given that the pi only ever appears in two locations. Nevertheless, one could still define a loop as "any pattern which has a oscillator with a discrete part which travels and returns to it's original position and can be adjusted in it's period by arbitrarily lengthening it's path". This does depend on some definition of "discrete part", "returns", "adjusted", and "path".

Posted: **February 20th, 2024, 10:34 pm**

For context, is Nihonium a Herschel hassler? The answer is the same for both Nihonium and Tanner’s p46.

Posted: **February 20th, 2024, 10:44 pm**

Haycat2009 wrote: February 20th, 2024, 10:34 pmFor context, is Nihonium a Herschel hassler?

This is a phase of the oscillator Nihonium, containing only catalysts and two Herschels, without anything else:

Code: Select all

x = 58, y = 37, rule = B3/S23
42b2o$42b2o5b2o$49b2o$13b2o$14bo$13bo33b2o$13b2o32b2o$53b2o$2o51b2o$b
o$bobo$2b2o$16b2o15bo$5b2o9b2o15bobo$5bobo25b3o$7bo27bo17bo$3b4o45bob
o$2bo49bobo$2b2ob2o44b2ob2o$3bobo49bo$3bobo45b4o$4bo17bo27bo$22b3o25b
obo$22bobo15b2o9b2o$24bo15b2o$54b2o$54bobo$56bo$3b2o51b2o$3b2o$9b2o32b
2o$9b2o33bo$43bo$43b2o$7b2o$7b2o5b2o$14b2o!

Further, the two Herschels indirectly interact (their first natural gliders collide). Consequently it is a Herschel hassler.

Haycat2009 wrote: February 20th, 2024, 10:34 pmThe answer is the same for both Nihonium and Tanner’s p46.

If you mean literally, then no. Obviously Tanner's p46 is not a Herschel hassler.

Otherwise, I'd say this is a highly misleading claim. It just so happens that Tanner's p46 is a pi-heptomino hassler and Nihonium is a Herschel hassler. So both happen to be hasslers of something. But that "something" is different, and otherwise these are two different oscillators, each interesting in its own way.

Posted: **February 21st, 2024, 2:56 am**

Without reading the whole thread, I shall give my opinion.

I think of glider loops analogously to topological loops. A loop on a topological space X is a continuous function f:[0,1]->X such that f(0)=f(1). There is no requirement that the image of a loop in X be nonintersecting. The image of a loop may be just a line, as indeed it must be if X is the real number line.

In this sense, the "loop" in "glider loop" references (though is not necessarily defined as) the path on which one or more gliders travel. Loops may intersect, and they may have segments where same glider travels along the same path at different times (either in the same direction or opposite directions). In analogy with a topological loop, a glider traveling in a glider loop is essentially the image of a point in the unit interval [0,1] as that point travels from 0 to 1.

Basically, I use the inclusive definition of "glider loop". I don't see divisibility (by adding more gliders) or even extensibility (by moving reflectors) as necessary conditions. To make a glider loop, I think it's enough that there is a glider that is at some point reflected/rotated 180 degrees.

Patterns made up of two 90-degree reflectors, such as the following capped p333 gun, do not feel like glider loops to me.

Code: Select all

x = 68, y = 59, rule = B3/S23
9b2obobobo$5b5ob2ob2obo2bo$6b2obo7b4o$10b6o$8bo2bobo3b2o$8b2o3bobob2o$
2b2o2b2o4b2ob2o$3b2o3bo3bo2bo34bo$3b3ob5o2bo2bo32b3o$2ob2o5bobo2bobo
35bo$o2bo2b2o2bobo4bo26bo7b2o$b2o7bo33b3o$2bobobo40bo$2bobo6bo34b2o$b
2obobo4bo$5b2o4bo6$37b2o$37b2o$14bo49b2o$13bobo48bobo$13bobo50bo$14bo
51b2o3$35b2o$34bobo21b2o$34bo23bobo$33b2o25bo$60b2o$45bo$44bo$32bo11b
3o$32b3o$35bo$34b2o7$44b2o$37b2o5bobo$37b2o7bo$46b2o2$33bo$32bobob2o$
32bobobobo$29b2obobobobo2bo$29bo2bo2b2ob4o$31b2o4bo$37bobo$38b2o!

Sorry if all this only covers prior discussion.

Posted: **February 21st, 2024, 12:02 pm**

But is a jubjub shuttle a glider hassler?

Posted: **February 21st, 2024, 2:53 pm**

azulavoir wrote: February 21st, 2024, 12:02 pmBut is a jubjub shuttle a glider hassler?

Technically, it does not seem to be anything close to being controversial. If the supporting structure (two Jubjub reflectors) is removed, then the glider behaves differently. The supporting structure does not rely on presence of the hassled glider; the glider could be removed without breaking anything else.

Technically yes. Enthusiastically no. Maybe you could arrange things to enforce the convention that everything that is a glider hassler is described "glider hassler". But it seems to me that that would make people less enthusiastic, not more.
Jubjub shuttles are glider shuttles. The p60 glider shuttle is a shuttle. Tanner's p46 is a hassler. The p43 Snark loop is a glider loop.

Posted: **February 21st, 2024, 3:30 pm**

confocaloid wrote: February 21st, 2024, 2:53 pm Technically yes. Enthusiastically no. Maybe you could arrange things to enforce the convention that everything that is a glider hassler is described "glider hassler". But it seems to me that that would make people less enthusiastic, not more.

Right, makes sense. Seems like azulavoir's question is just a categorization question, not a naming proposal that anybody would try to create any enthusiasm about. It seems safe to describe a Jubjub shuttle as a glider hassler.

That doesn't mean that the Jubjub shuttle's official name should be changed to "Jubjub glider hassler", or anything like that. It's a description that's technically true but would rarely be used or needed -- like a glider being a member of the general category "spaceship", but it almost always makes more sense to be specific and just say "glider".

Any specific suggestions for changes?
To try to keep this thread at least a little bit focused on its original purpose ... @confocaloid, would you be able to list the changes that you would want to be made in LifeWiki articles, to match your proposed restriction on the meaning of "glider loop"?

Am I summarizing your idea correctly by saying that you think that "glider loop" and "glider shuttle" should be documented consistently in LifeWiki articles as completely mutually exclusive categories? -- i.e., if something is a glider shuttle, it can't be a glider loop, and vice versa?

Posted: **February 21st, 2024, 4:03 pm**

dvgrn wrote: February 21st, 2024, 3:30 pm Am I summarizing your idea correctly by saying that you think that "glider loop" and "glider shuttle" should be documented consistently in LifeWiki articles as completely mutually exclusive categories? -- i.e., if something is a glider shuttle, it can't be a glider loop, and vice versa?

I think two rectifiers arranged in a closed glider track, with one glider running on the track, provide an example of an oscillator that is a glider loop and a glider shuttle at the same time. Adding more than one glider can be viewed as using a single supporting structure (the rectifiers) to support several otherwise noninteracting shuttles.

Code: Select all

#C The p530 two-rectifier glider shuttle (left), and the p106 glider loop
#C constructed by "looping" the shuttle with five gliders (right)
x = 208, y = 86, rule = B3/S23
8bo99bo$7bobo97bobo$8bo99bo2$6b5o95b5o$5bo4bo20b2o72bo4bo20b2o$4bo2bo
23bo72bo2bo23bo$bo2bob2o21bobo69bo2bob2o21bobo$obobo5bo18b2o69bobobo5b
o18b2o$bo2bo4bobo89bo2bo4bobo8bo$4b2o2bo2bo92b2o2bo2bo7bobo$9b2o98b2o
8bo2bo$40b2o76bo2bo18b2o$40bo76b2o3b2o16bo$38bobo74b2o5b2o6bo7bobo$38b
2o75bo6bo8b2o5b2o$116bo3bo9b2o$20b2o94bo3bo$20b2o95b3o4$129b2o$129b2o$
130bo5$136b2o$30bo105bobo$29bobo104bo$29bobo94b3ob3o$30bo97b4o$128b3o$
129bo6$156bobo$157b2o$157bo9$77bo99bo$76bobo97bobo$76bobo97bobo$77bo
99bo$162b3o$162bo$163bo3$76bobo$77b2o$77bo2$185b2o2$86b2o94b2o3bo$86b
2o94bo4bo$182bo$68b2o98b2o13bo2bo$67bobo97bobo$67bo99bo$66b2o98b2o$97b
2o98b2o$96bo2bo2b2o92bo2bo2b2o$96bobo4bo2bo89bobo4bo2bo$77b2o18bo5bobo
bo69b2o18bo5bobobo$76bobo21b2obo2bo69bobo21b2obo2bo$76bo23bo2bo72bo23b
o2bo$75b2o20bo4bo72b2o20bo4bo$97b5o95b5o2$99bo99bo$98bobo97bobo$99bo
99bo!
#C [[ THEME Catagolue ]]

Posted: **February 21st, 2024, 4:44 pm**

confocaloid wrote: February 21st, 2024, 4:03 pm I think two rectifiers arranged in a closed glider track, with one glider running on the track, provide an example of an oscillator that is a glider loop and a glider shuttle at the same time. Adding more than one glider can be viewed as using a single supporting structure (the rectifiers) to support several otherwise noninteracting shuttles.

Hmm, that's interesting. There are certainly other ways of looking at the glider shuttle/glider loop dividing line, but I've always tried to stay away from calling anything a "shuttle" once it has two or more things looping around in it -- in keeping with the definition of shuttle being an oscillator where "an unstable object moves back and forth between stabilizing objects" (emphasis mine). If it's a pair of gliders bouncing back and forth on separate tracks, that's one thing -- still a shuttle -- but if it's a single shared track, then that seems like loop-only territory to me.

That might be what you're saying in the pattern comments, though:

#C The p530 two-rectifier glider shuttle (left), and the p106 glider loop
#C constructed by "looping" the shuttle with five gliders (right)

As an attempted summary: if there's one unstable object, it's okay to call it a shuttle, but with two or more, they're going to have to be going around in a loop (which won't be possible for back-and-forth collision-course types of shuttles). So then is the p106 pattern as a whole only a loop and not a shuttle?

I wasn't clear on the "several otherwise noninteracting shuttles" part, I think. You would maybe allow that the p106 glider loop is "five superimposed p530 shuttles", but not want to say that the whole pattern is "a shuttle"?

Posted: **February 21st, 2024, 5:24 pm**

dvgrn wrote: February 21st, 2024, 4:44 pm[...]
I wasn't clear on the "several otherwise noninteracting shuttles" part, I think. You would maybe allow that the p106 glider loop is "five superimposed p530 shuttles", but not want to say that the whole pattern is "a shuttle"?

I don't have a strong preference on the question of whether or not glider loops with multiple circulating gliders following each other, such as the p43 glider loop or the p49 bouncer loop, should be considered glider shuttles.

I think the two-rectifier p106 glider loop with five circulating gliders following each other can be viewed as "five superimposed p530 glider shuttles", in essentially the same way how the following p62 glider gun with 15 circulating Herschels following each other, once it is capped to make a p62 oscillator, can be viewed as "fifteen superimposed p930 Herschel hasslers":

Sokwe wrote: July 13th, 2022, 10:14 pm mvr posted a new glider-releasing H-to-R on Discord, and Calcyman noted that it could be used to construct a small Herschel conduit, R152:
[...]
Edit 4: This doesn't beat the current p62 gun record, but it's still smaller than the previous p62 Herschel-based gun:

Code: Select all

x = 117, y = 115, rule = B3/S23
24b2o22b2o$25bo14b2o5bo2bo$24bo13b3obo4b2obo2bo$24b2o11bo4bo7bobobo$
15b2o21b3obob2o4bo2bo$15bobo22bobo2bo3b2o$16bo26b2o$25bo$24bob2o$24bob
2o$25bo2b3o$30bo$28bobo21b2obo$28b2o13bo8bob2o$12bo28b2o3bo$bo9b3o28bo
3bo$b3o7b2obo32bo$4bo8b2o31b2o$3b2o3b2o4b3o26b5o$12bo4bo24bobob2o$8b5o
3b3o22b2ob2o$2o7bob3o3bo23b5o$2o4b4o2b5o24b5o$5bo3b2obobo27bo2b2o$9bob
o2bo28b3o$13bo3b2o25bo$10bo6bo16bo$2b2o3bo4bo5b3o13b3o4bo$bobo16bo16bo
b3o$bo34bob3obo$2o35bo18bo$54b3o41b2o$53bo30bo13bo$38b2o13b2o20bo8b3o
9bobo$38b2o17b2o16b3o9bo8b2o$58bo19bo7b2o$3b2o13b2o36bo20b2o$2bobo13b
2o36b2o33bo$2bo9b3o75bobo$b2o9bobo34b2o36b2o2bo$11bo2bo5bo26bo2bo36b2o
2b3o$11b3o5bobo25bo2bo40bo3b2o$11b3o6bo25b2ob2o8bo3b2o22bo7bobo$12bo2b
o5b3o21b2ob2o8b4o2bo3b2o3bo12b2o2bo7bo$12bo10bo16b2o2b2o3b2o15b3o4b2o
11b2o2bo2bobo2bo$15bo24b2o3b3o2bo7b2o5bo8b2o14bo3bo3bo$50bo14bobo2b5o
16bo5bo$47bobo6b2ob2o3bobo3b3o19bo3bo12b2o$39b2o7bo9bob4o29b3o12bobo$
40bo47b2o19bo$10b2o25b3o12b2o23b2o8bobo$37bo14bo20bo3b2o8bo$53b3o16bob
o11b2o$55bo15bobo$11bobo57bo$12bo57b2o$11bo99b2obo$2b2obo9bo89b3o3bob
2o$2bob2o9bo89bo$45b2o55bob2o$45bo56b3o$43bobo15bo41bo$13bo15b2o11bobo
16b3o$12b3o14bo8b2o3bo20bo14bo$11bo2b2o11bobo8b2o23b2o12b3o$7bo2b5o12b
2o47bo$6bob6o62b2o$6b2ob5o10b2o33bo$11b2obob2o5bo2bo30b2ob2o$12bo4bo5b
obo31bo17b2o$13b2o2bo6bo13b3o16bo3bo13b2o16bo$13b4o18bo4bo17b3o32b3o$
15bo18b2o3bo56bo$33b2o60bobo$34bo2bo58bo$35b2o67bo9b2o$71b2o30b2o9bo$
59b2o10b3o23b2o4bobo6bobo$38b2o20bo9bo2bo23b2o13b2o$29b2o7bo19bo10b2ob
2o$19b2o8bo9b3o16b2o9b2ob2o3b2o27b4o$18bobo9b3o8bo20b2o6b2ob2o2b2o26b
3o2bo$18bo13bo30bo9bo31bo3bo$17b2o41b3o7b3o33bo2bo$60bo10bo7bo26b3o6b
2o$78bobo34bo$79bo16bo16bobo$80b3o13b3o14b2o$82bo16bo$98b2o$102bo$101b
obo$101bo2bo$102b2o4$103bo12bo$70b2o30bob2o8bobo$70b2o29b2o3bo8b2o$71b
2o24b2o3bo$61b2obo7bo2bo22b2o2bo3bo$61bob2o6bo3b2o18b2obo3bo$71bo3bo
19bo6bo$71bo3bo12b2o5bobo$72bo2bo12b2o6b2o5b2o$74bo$73bo$72b2o26bo$66b
2o3bo2bobo22bobo$63bo2bo4b2obob3o21b2o$62bobobo7bo4bo11b2o$63bo2bob2o
4bob3o13bo$66bo2bo5b2o14bo$67b2o22b2o!

Posted: **February 21st, 2024, 5:58 pm**

confocaloid wrote: February 21st, 2024, 5:24 pm I don't have a strong preference on the question of whether or not glider loops with multiple circulating gliders following each other, such as the p43 glider loop or the p49 bouncer loop, should be considered glider shuttles.

Okay, sounds good. I guess I do have a fairly strong preference that "shuttle" is best used for its traditional meaning of "one thing going back and forth". Those patterns with circulating gliders wouldn't be shuttles (except maybe technically several "superimposed shuttles") by that definition.

Here's the current status of the LifeWiki pages that we were looking at. A week ago we had

dvgrn wrote: February 15th, 2024, 8:50 am Loop (disambiguation) says: "A glider loop is, generally, some pattern containing gliders that are bounced around or back and forth."

Glider loop (disambiguation) says
"A glider loop oscillator is a closed track composed of several independent reflectors, with one or more gliders on the track.
An adjustable glider loop is a glider loop oscillator composed of stable reflectors."

Adjustable glider loop says "An adjustable glider loop is an oscillator composed of stable reflectors..."

glider loop oscillator says "A glider loop oscillator is a closed track made out of several independent reflectors, with one or several gliders on the track. By changing the number of gliders and positioning the reflectors, it is possible to adjust the oscillator to infinitely many different periods."

That last definition is the only one that seems to imply that multiple gliders have to be an option.

That last definition got a minor adjustment; now it says "By changing the number of gliders and/or repositioning the gliders and reflectors, it is possible to adjust the oscillator to infinitely many different periods."

I've rephrased Glider loop (disambiguation) to take responsibility for the words "back and forth", specifically to help make clear that elementary 180-degree reflectors passing their gliders back and forth can be in the "glider loop" category. The new wording still seems fine to me --

"A glider loop is, generally, some pattern containing gliders that are bounced back and forth or around some closed track."

That might not be the best wording. EDIT: Maybe "back and forth or around on some closed track" would be better?

It's in line with the idea of the p530 two-rectifier glider shuttle being also in the "glider loop" category, and also in line with Sokwe's inclusive definition of "glider loop" allowing for loops of various shapes, possible intersections, etc.

Are there suggestions for any additional changes, or are things okay the way they are for now?

Posted: **February 21st, 2024, 6:18 pm**

dvgrn wrote: February 21st, 2024, 5:58 pm "A glider loop is, generally, some pattern containing gliders that are bounced back and forth or around some closed track."
[...]
Are there suggestions for any additional changes, or are things okay the way they are for now?

I don't see the need to highlight "back and forth" specifically, when explaining what is a glider loop. Glider loops are not generally "back and forth", and those that happen to be "back and forth" are more naturally described as glider shuttles.

The wording is misleading. The part "back and forth" originated from a copy/paste error, and I don't think it helps a newcomer to understand the idea of a glider loop. This does not depend on whether or not one agrees to apply the label "glider loop" to describe glider shuttles that cannot be looped with multiple gliders; those are a special case at best, and do not illustrate the general idea.

Posted: **February 23rd, 2024, 11:29 pm**

azulavoir wrote: February 21st, 2024, 12:02 pm But is a jubjub shuttle a glider hassler?

That is where it gets complicated. If you say yes, all loops and relays are hasslers. That is where it also gets pointless to use this term, rather I would save it for SKOP 134 and things like that.

Posted: **February 23rd, 2024, 11:30 pm**

Haycat2009 wrote: February 23rd, 2024, 11:29 pm
azulavoir wrote: February 21st, 2024, 12:02 pm But is a jubjub shuttle a glider hassler?
That is where it gets complicated. If you say yes, all loops and relays are hasslers. [...]

Not necessarily. For example the p43 Snark loop does not feel like a hassler to me (even though it seems perfectly reasonable to describe a Jubjub reflector based glider shuttle as a glider hassler).

ConwayLife.com

"glider loop" for single-glider-only oscillators, or no?

Re: "glider shuttle" for single-glider-only oscillators, or no?

Re: "glider shuttle" for single-glider-only oscillators, or no?

Re: "glider shuttle" for single-glider-only oscillators, or no?

Re: "glider loop" for single-glider-only oscillators, or no?

Re: "glider shuttle" for single-glider-only oscillators

Re: "glider shuttle" for single-glider-only oscillators

Re: "glider shuttle" for single-glider-only oscillators

Re: "glider shuttle" for single-glider-only oscillators

Re: "glider loop" for single-glider-only oscillators, or no?

Re: "glider shuttle" for single-glider-only oscillators

Re: "glider shuttle" for single-glider-only oscillators

Re: "glider shuttle" for single-glider-only oscillators

Re: "glider loop" for single-glider-only oscillators, or no?

Re: "glider shuttle" for single-glider-only oscillators, or no?

Re: "glider loop" for single-glider-only oscillators, or no?

Re: "glider loop" for single-glider-only oscillators, or no?

Re: Jubjub shuttles

Re: Jubjub shuttles

Re: shuttles, loops, hasslers

Re: shuttles, loops, hasslers

Re: shuttles, loops, hasslers

Re: shuttles, loops, hasslers

Re: shuttles, loops, hasslers

Re: "glider loop" for single-glider-only oscillators, or no?

Re: shuttles, loops, hasslers