A forum for topics that don't fit elsewhere. Introduce yourselves to other members of the forums, discuss how your name evolves when written out in the Game of Life, or just tell us how you found it. Forum rules still apply.
fluffykitty wrote: November 6th, 2020, 6:15 am
Yes. I was assuming that that was you meant.
By parity I mean temporal parity. Some cells will be checking to see whether they can move, while others are actually moving.
fluffykitty wrote: November 6th, 2020, 6:15 am
It's probably a good idea to do tests with fewer elements before deciding how many elements the final CA will have.
At the start of this thread I was talking about a combustion CA with only hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen before advancing to see if there are any flaws.
Schiaparelliorbust wrote: November 6th, 2020, 6:22 am
By parity I mean temporal parity. Some cells will be checking to see whether they can move, while others are actually moving.
Patterns violating temporal parity can never evolve from pattens that don't.
Schiaparelliorbust wrote: November 6th, 2020, 6:22 am
At the start of this thread I was talking about a combustion CA with only hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen before advancing to see if there are any flaws.
I think we should start with a CA with one element and no bonds, and work from there.
fluffykitty wrote: November 7th, 2020, 6:45 am
I don't see why you would want that. We should be able to get all interesting behaviors from just one phase at a time.
It's not a matter of "interesting reactions", it's a matter of what should happen if they interact. As I said in an earlier post, thy might become out of phase as they bond and break off, so we might want to sync those bonding and breaking too.
Hunting wrote: November 7th, 2020, 9:00 am
As if synching itself was easy...
What do you think we should do then? Earlier I had proposed a wall state which would contain the atoms and there would be a syncing state instead of the regular vacuum inside.
Hunting wrote: November 7th, 2020, 9:00 am
As if synching itself was easy...
What do you think we should do then? Earlier I had proposed a wall state which would contain the atoms and there would be a syncing state instead of the regular vacuum inside.
Considering it again, I now agree with the avoid-out-of-phase idea, p2 shouldn't be too hard. It might also make sense to kill bare cells with sense. (no pun intended)
Hunting wrote: November 7th, 2020, 9:16 am
Considering it again, I now agree with the avoid-out-of-phase idea, p2 shouldn't be too hard. It might also make sense to kill bare cells with sense. (no pun intended)
I don't get the either what you are trying to say about the CA or the unintended pun.
BokaBB wrote: November 27th, 2020, 11:08 am
Let's start working on this again.
Have a good day!
BokaBB
Pleas read what was said above and give ideas.
The Powder Game?I used to play it in the earlier times,but I have now abandoned it in favour of The Powder Toy.
The biggest problem at the beginning will be how to make atoms move in some direction. I support the use of the atom tails.
What about not making elements by themselves,but protons,neutrons and electrons? That might solve many problems,but potentially also make new ones.
Have a good day!
BokaBB
777
I CAN APGSEARCH NOW!
Sure, I was a bad person, but I have changed myself.
I'd love to befriend anybody who's interested.
Have a good day!