ConwayLife.com

of course it gives me an error

drc wrote:of course it gives me an error...

Based on the error message you quoted, it looks like you missed the part of the instructions about dropping all the files into Golly's Scripts/Python folder.

I didn't like that part very much -- I already have way too much stuff cluttering up the Scripts/Python folder, and I'd like to be able to keep Caterlooper files organized in a subdirectory at least.

However, following those instructions seemed to get me past that particular error without any trouble. Will have to wait until tomorrow to figure out what went wrong on my laptop during the final construction stages.

Got a working(?) c/24 caterloopillar, at under 85k cells. (Golly 2.8 p2 on mac.)

drc wrote:of course it gives me an error

I'ts a good surprise - finally someone using my GitHub posted code.

Unfortunately it became a mess -

GitHub Code folder - is just a mess of work in progress stuff.
GitHub CaterlooperScript Foler - I'm trying to keep updated with the final "release".

And the files attached in this forum - they should be working as well.

I've fixed the issue in GitHub Code folder - you can use it now as well.

thunk wrote:Got a working(?) c/24 caterloopillar, at under 85k cells.

Great! any issues? Please let me know...

Now it gives me unfinished ships, like this unfinished c/101:

https://mega.nz/#!a1JXyRCB (It's 1.28 MB, so it doesn't fit in the attachment slot.)
EDIT: Also an error:
Even though I have it.

drc wrote:Now it gives me unfinished ships

This is really strange. Do you get some error message? What is written on golly status bar?

drc wrote:https://mega.nz/#!a1JXyRCB

This file asks for encryption, when non given it says:
You can't import or download an encrypted file as the decryption key is missing.

simsim314 wrote: You can't import or download an encrypted file as the decryption key is missing.

Well I ran the c/8 and it is smaller, so I can upload it here

Also I forgot the error and now edited it

@drc - you need to place the data together with the script in the same folder - it would be simpler if you would download the attached script first.

Yes you just started - you can't do anything without slow salvo recipe list.

So 24/223 would be a good speed to get a small caterloopillar example?

HartmutHolzwart wrote:So 24/223 would be a good speed to get a small caterloopillar example?

Well specifically 96/982 for some technical reasons can't work. In practice the minimal step is 98 and minimal period is 912. This makes 98/912 the fastest recipe applying speed, but not the smallest caterloopillar.

It turns out the more sparsely *WSSs are placed, the smaller the design is. If you think of it - all the operations are done by "full path" of single head, so for lower speeds the same head is created more slowly but with less *WSSs, using same recipes.

To be more empirical, 98/912 - has 434K active cells, while 100/8700 - has only 63K. (I will commit all my Caterloopillars in single batch later on with all the relevant metadata).

But this only measured by active cells. The bounding box of slower speeds is obviously growing, I think the smallest bounding box is for c/17 or c/19 and is around 450X150K.

EDIT I've batch commit all the relevant caterloopillars - check this message.

@codeholic and other wiki moderators:

How do you suggest to update the spaceship page?

I mean the script is not working for very high periods due to golly limitations, so do we want to keep track of all the available speeds (and here's the full list of Caterloopers created by me), or we can say that the script is covering every speed < c/4 when period is of type: 2k + 1, 8k or 8k + 4?

The speed list is growing rapidly, after the Caterlooper script release. I think the high period speeds should be considered spam, or we will just have N^2 speeds for very high N.

Another batch commit:

5c/21:2540/10668, pop = 915290
c/25:100/2500, pop = 84876
c/27:100/2700, pop = 84154
c/28:98/2744, pop = 83516
c/29:100/2900, pop = 81582
c/31:100/3100, pop = 77445
c/32:98/3136, pop = 77591
c/33:100/3300, pop = 77143
c/35:100/3500, pop = 74769
c/67:100/6700, pop = 63135
c/87:100/8700, pop = 62343
49c/456:98/912, pop = 433416

Smallest now is c/87 with 62,343 cells. Getting pretty close to the Demonoid.
Fastest and largest 5c/21, with 915,290 cells.

This design has very large range of sizes.

Can someone list all of these speeds on the Caterloopillar page?



also, simsim314 what happens if you try to run the script with 17c/45?

muzik wrote:Can someone list all of these speeds on the Caterloopillar page?

I don't think we should add hundreds and thousands of speeds, it looks like spam. I hope some of the moderators will respond to this post.

muzik wrote:also, simsim314 what happens if you try to run the script with 17c/45?

It will exit with message that the speed is too high. If you try to ignore the message and place the reading heads - they will just overlap each other and will not work, just creating a mess instead.

Even valid speeds - like 5c/21 takes time just to find the valid step and period.

simsim314 wrote:How do you suggest to update the spaceship page?

For now, we should put a moratorium on adding new caterloopillar-based speeds. I'm honestly not sure what we should do with the tables.

I think this calls for an overhaul. My approach would be a list of sporadic velocities (by small spaceships and fixed-speed tracks), and then a couple lines for each VSS, detailing possible velocities.

Sokwe wrote:For now, we should put a moratorium on adding new caterloopillar-based speeds.

Are you serious? This sounds pretty crazy to me. One limit I found in the script is c/95 - and this is because the tail part construction gets out from "C" long long boundaries. And although not python and not golly are limited by it, the API between them does. I think there are many such small nuances that limit the script, but not the design and can be fixed pretty simply. Eventually the ships would be just too big to fit in memory, yet again with "better golly" or better script implementation this could be increased.

Although we usually prefer specific design over script, it sounds to me kinda pointless to run the script for all constructible speeds, we're talking in amount of ten thousands. This definitely can be considered spam.

Well, I think we should stop being engineers at this point and become mathematicians. If there are any principal limitations for the caterloopillar design besides speed limit of c/4, they should be mentioned. Otherwise I would just assume, we've got a good enough theory how to build a spaceship of any orthogonal speed slower than c/4, verified by a working method and numerous examples, and maybe use a little bit more vague wordings when talking about "achieved speeds". In the end, a 17c/45 rake has also never been explicitly constructed (not that I know of, at least). Nevertheless there is a "yes" in the corresponding cell in LifeWiki:Game of Life Status page.

simsim314 wrote:

Sokwe wrote:For now, we should put a moratorium on adding new caterloopillar-based speeds.

Are you serious? This sounds pretty crazy to me.

To clarify, I don't want to add distinct table entries for every speed that has a caterloopillar. I think the "All speeds slower than c/4, orthogonal" entry in the history table is a good compromise for now. Personally, I think the overall design is convincing enough to make this claim.

Sokwe wrote: I think the "All speeds slower than c/4, orthogonal"

To be more exact - m/8k, m/(8k + 4), m/(2k + 1).

The design is convincing indeed, but there is a distinct difference between having a general design and a real concrete construction. We still don't have a script or any caterloopillar for 8k + 2 and 8k + 6 period cases. It should be possible - and yet we can't say this problem is solved, It's very close to be solved, but not solved.

There is still a point in making concrete constructions - for example one can minimize the bounding box or the cell count. I think we did try to minimize any design, and we do have several designs for same speed: for example 31/240 has bug shield and centipede.

I'm now trying to optimize caterloopillar to reach the demonoid size. Another interesting question is the highest demonstrable speed, as the script takes a lot of time to run, rendering speeds very close to c/4 pretty impossible to build.

EDIT I also think we should expand caterloopillar in the wiki, to specify all the constructed speeds. At least the interesting ones - say up to period 20, and smallest/fastest/slowest etc.

codeholic wrote:In the end, a 17c/45 rake has also never been explicitly constructed (not that I know of, at least). Nevertheless there is a "yes" in the corresponding cell

Well this is very very trivial modification, and applies to any caterloopillar design as well. On the other hand placing slow salvos for periods 8k + 2 and 8k + 6 is somewhat challenging. I don't think there is a limitation, but the script is not supporting those periods - and we have no concrete example for any of them.

The wiki page looks good to me, I would suggest to add such comment in Life status page as well.

We should definitely expand caterloopillar value in LifeWiki, mentioning some interesting examples, the python script, smallest and fastest existing examples etc. Adding the limits of the current script in golly.

Also can someone remove c/8 speed from caterloopillar page? We can change it to c/8 caterloopillar, or first caterloopillar or whatever, but now it looks like caterloopillar is something related to c/8 speed. And c/8 relation to caterloopillar is only historical (it was the first example).

Since it is the smallest known of its speed, and is an already known speed, should we create a seperate wiki page for the 31c/240 caterloopillar? Is it notable enough out of all of the caterloopillars for that?

I did remove all of the caterloopillars from the spaceships table, to lessen clutter. I think that someone should create a table documenting all known caterloopillar speed sunder their userspace.



Could a caterloopilar with <10000 cells exist?