ConwayLife.com

Posted: **February 2nd, 2024, 4:55 am**

This rule contains p4 and p5 oscillators that aren't phoenices, but have the property that every cell that is alive at T = 0 is dead at T = 1. Is there a rule containing p3, p4, p5 with this property? How many different consecutive period (3, 4, ...) oscillators with this property can exist in a single rule?

Code: Select all

x = 18, y = 8, rule = B2i3cenr4aceiw5-jnr6-i7/S2ce3ceqry4aejknry5ae6aci7e8
13bobo$14bo$2bo8bobobobo$obobo7bo2bobo$2bo8bobo2bo$obobo6bobobobo$2bo
11bo$13bobo!

Code: Select all

x = 18, y = 8, rule = B2i3cenr4aceiw5-jnr6-i7/S2ce3ceqry4aejknry5ae6aci7e8History
13.C.C$14.C$2.C8.C.C.C.C$C.C.C7.C2.C.C$2.C8.C.C2.C$C.C.C6.C.C.C.C$2.C
11.C$13.C.C!

(added later:) Found a rule with p3, p4, p5, p6, p7 with this property. The rule also happens to have a p36 with same property, and supports the glider. I don't know whether p8+ are possible

Code: Select all

x = 62, y = 31, rule = B2i3-cq4ejwyz5kqy6ik/S2-k3-cqy4crty5iny6n7e
60bo$61bo$14bobo42b3o$obo9bobo2b2o$2bo9bo2bo10b2ob2o9bobo$2o2b2o8bobob
o32b2o$3bo8bobobo9bobobo7bobobo11bo$3bobo9bo2bo9bo22bo2bo$12b2o2bobo8b
obo8bobo10bobo$14bobo9$24bo2$22bo3bo2$20bo3bo3bo$24bo$18bo3b2ob2o3bo$
24bo$20bo3bo3bo2$22bo3bo2$24bo!

Code: Select all

x = 55, y = 29, rule = B2i3-cq4ejwyz5kqy6ik/S2-k3-cqy4crty5iny6n7eHistory
14.C.C$C.C9.C.C2.2C$2.C9.C2.C10.2C.2C9.C.C$2C2.2C8.C.C.C32.2C$3.C8.C.
C.C9.C.C.C7.C.C.C11.C$3.C.C9.C2.C9.C22.C2.C$12.2C2.C.C8.C.C8.C.C10.C.
C$14.C.C9$24.C2$22.C3.C2$20.C3.C3.C$24.C$18.C3.2C.2C3.C$24.C$20.C3.C
3.C2$22.C3.C2$24.C!

Posted: **February 2nd, 2024, 11:33 am**

TYCF wrote: January 2nd, 2024, 11:35 am Is there a collection of omniperiodic CA?

Does anybody know?

Posted: **February 9th, 2024, 4:40 am**

TYCF wrote: February 2nd, 2024, 11:33 am
TYCF wrote: January 2nd, 2024, 11:35 am Is there a collection of omniperiodic CA?
Does anybody know?

The Lifewiki!

Posted: **February 9th, 2024, 4:40 am**

Can W22 in a finite grid be used to prove omniperiodicity?

Posted: **February 12th, 2024, 12:54 pm**

how do the loop rules work?
Specifically :Langton's, Evo, Sexy, and Goucher

Posted: **February 12th, 2024, 10:39 pm**

atavoidirc wrote: February 12th, 2024, 12:54 pm how do the loop rules work?
Specifically :Langton's, Evo, Sexy, and Goucher

I take this loop for example:

Code: Select all

x = 16, y = 16, rule = Evoloop
.14B$B.AG.AG.AG.AG.AB$BG12BAB$BAB10.BAB$B.B10.BAB$BGB10.BAB$BAB10.BAB
$B.B10.BAB$BGB10.BAB$BAB10.BAB$B.B10.BAB$BGB10.BAB$BAB10.BGB$B.12B.B$
BGA.GA.GA.DA.DAB$.13BE!

The loop first creates an "arm" through a state 5 cell,then extends it using state 7 cells. Then, the state 4 cells make a turn, continuing the progress until a new loop is nearly formed. The new loop then cuts out the gene supply from the parent loop.
If an arm penetrate a loop, a state 8 cell may appears, then turn every cell adjacent to it into state 8 before self-destruct.

Posted: **February 14th, 2024, 9:11 pm**

atavoidirc wrote: February 12th, 2024, 12:54 pm how do the loop rules work?
Specifically :Langton's, Evo, Sexy, and Goucher

ok but seriously i really want to know how the other types of loops work, not just evo.

Posted: **February 15th, 2024, 2:42 am**

I want to build a self-rep in my new universal rule based on golly-4.2/Patterns/Self-Rep/JvN/small-JvN-self-replicator.rle, but I don't know how it works.
Can someone tell me how?

Also, how a universal computer/constructor works?

If could, can someone provide the RLE for the WireWorld computer?

Posted: **February 16th, 2024, 3:43 pm**

Is there a nonexplosive rule, where adding, or removing any single transition will make it explosive?

Posted: **February 16th, 2024, 3:54 pm**

NimbleRogue wrote: February 16th, 2024, 3:43 pm Is there a nonexplosive rule, where adding, or removing any single transition will make it explosive?

The rule B3ai5678/S2i does not appear to explode:

Code: Select all

x = 32, y = 32, rule = B3ai5678/S2i
bo5bo3b3o3b2o2bob3o3b3o$b2ob2ob2o2bo3b2o3b2ob3o2bo2bo$3o2bob3o2b2ob3ob
o2b4ob3o$b2o3bo2b3ob4obo2bobob5o$2bobo2bobobobob2o2b2o2b2ob2o2bo$7bob
2ob3obobo2b3o2b2o3bo$2bob2obo6bo2b2ob2o2bo4b3o$4bobob4o3b4o2b3ob2obo$o
b3ob2o3bo3b2o2bob2o2b2ob3o$2bobob2ob3o2bob3ob4obobob2o$b3obob2obobob3o
b5ob2o2bobo$3b2obo4b3o2bo2b2o4b3obobo$2b2o4b3o3b2o2bo8bo$o2bob5obo3bo
5bo2bo4bobo$bo2b3o2bob9ob2o3b2o$o4b3ob3ob11o3bo2b2o$7b7ob2ob2o3b2obo2b
2o$3bob5ob5o2b3ob4ob4o$2bo3bo3b5o2b2ob2obobobob3o$2bo7b2ob6ob4o3b2o$b
4ob2obo3b2obo3bobobob3o2bo$2bo2bo3b2ob2o2b2obo2bo6b2o$4o5b2o4bob3obo8b
o$b2ob3o2bob2o10bob4ob2o$4bob2ob2o3bo3bob3o3bo$o2b2o2b2o2b2o7bo2b3o2bo
2bo$b3o2b3o2bo5bo5bo5bobo$o2b4o2b4ob2obo3bo2b3obo2bo$obo2bobo3b2obo2bo
4bo3bo2b3o$5o3bob5ob3ob3obo3b3o$6o6bobob8obob4o$3bob3o2b3obo3bobo3b2ob
3o!

Removing the death transition (cellstate 1 -> cellstate 0, with the other three transitions still allowed) results in this:

Code: Select all

x = 32, y = 32, rule = B3ai5678/S012345678
bo5bo3b3o3b2o2bob3o3b3o$b2ob2ob2o2bo3b2o3b2ob3o2bo2bo$3o2bob3o2b2ob3ob
o2b4ob3o$b2o3bo2b3ob4obo2bobob5o$2bobo2bobobobob2o2b2o2b2ob2o2bo$7bob
2ob3obobo2b3o2b2o3bo$2bob2obo6bo2b2ob2o2bo4b3o$4bobob4o3b4o2b3ob2obo$o
b3ob2o3bo3b2o2bob2o2b2ob3o$2bobob2ob3o2bob3ob4obobob2o$b3obob2obobob3o
b5ob2o2bobo$3b2obo4b3o2bo2b2o4b3obobo$2b2o4b3o3b2o2bo8bo$o2bob5obo3bo
5bo2bo4bobo$bo2b3o2bob9ob2o3b2o$o4b3ob3ob11o3bo2b2o$7b7ob2ob2o3b2obo2b
2o$3bob5ob5o2b3ob4ob4o$2bo3bo3b5o2b2ob2obobobob3o$2bo7b2ob6ob4o3b2o$b
4ob2obo3b2obo3bobobob3o2bo$2bo2bo3b2ob2o2b2obo2bo6b2o$4o5b2o4bob3obo8b
o$b2ob3o2bob2o10bob4ob2o$4bob2ob2o3bo3bob3o3bo$o2b2o2b2o2b2o7bo2b3o2bo
2bo$b3o2b3o2bo5bo5bo5bobo$o2b4o2b4ob2obo3bo2b3obo2bo$obo2bobo3b2obo2bo
4bo3bo2b3o$5o3bob5ob3ob3obo3b3o$6o6bobob8obob4o$3bob3o2b3obo3bobo3b2ob
3o!

Posted: **February 17th, 2024, 9:11 am**

confocaloid wrote: February 16th, 2024, 3:54 pm Removing the death transition (cellstate 1 -> cellstate 0, with the other three transitions still allowed)

Really? You're so against the idea that someone might disagree with you about the definition of a word, that when they use it in a way people generally understand, you completely misinterpret them to avoid answering their question in the way they're clearly after?

Posted: **February 17th, 2024, 2:57 pm**

azulavoir wrote: February 17th, 2024, 9:11 am
confocaloid wrote: February 16th, 2024, 3:54 pm Removing the death transition (cellstate 1 -> cellstate 0, with the other three transitions still allowed)
Really? You're so against the idea that someone might disagree with you about the definition of a word, that when they use it in a way people generally understand, you completely misinterpret them to avoid answering their question in the way they're clearly after?

I think you are misinterpreting my intent in the answer. I simply wanted to point out what I consider an interesting and natural interpretation of the question. (And instead of providing what you would consider a better answer to the question, you are attacking an existing answer.)

Actually, it is not clear to me at this point whether or not I answered the intended question. That can only become clear if/when the asker clarifies their question enough, to either accept or exclude my answer as valid.

Please note that the question did not limit the rulespace in any way --

Is there a nonexplosive rule, where adding, or removing any single transition will make it explosive?

In particular, you could consider multistate rules. There is nothing in the question that requires the rule to be two-state.
Now, in a three-state rule, there would be up to nine possible transitions (instead of just four): 0->0, 0->1, 0->2, 1->0, 1->1, 1->2, 2->0, 2->1, 2->2.
In a four-state rule, there would be up to 16 possible transitions.
To be able to have a rule with 102 different transitions, you would need at least 11 cellstates including the background (which would allow up to 121 transition).

A reason why this is interesting, is that disabling certain transitions leads to interesting rulespaces.
For example, for three-state rules, forbidding the three transitions "0->2", "1->1", "2->1" leads to the rulespace of old/new cells, which is basically "two-state rules except each alive cell remembers whether or not it was alive in the previous generation". There are only six possible transitions in that rulespace.

Posted: **February 17th, 2024, 3:28 pm**

confocaloid wrote: February 17th, 2024, 2:57 pm Actually, it is not clear to me at this point whether or not I answered the intended question..

: Screenshot_20240217-132638.png (52.53 KiB) Viewed 2668 times

Then I think you need to learn something about understanding what other people mean, rather than ascribing your personal beliefs about words' meanings to people that don't use them like that.

Posted: **February 17th, 2024, 3:46 pm**

azulavoir wrote: February 17th, 2024, 3:28 pm
confocaloid wrote: February 17th, 2024, 2:57 pm Actually, it is not clear to me at this point whether or not I answered the intended question..
Screenshot_20240217-132638.png

Then I think you need to learn something about understanding what other people mean, rather than ascribing your personal beliefs about words' meanings to people that don't use them like that.

Neither the screenshot you posted, nor the remark you posted, answer the question "What was the intended meaning of the question in the post viewtopic.php?p=178273#p178273 ". For all I can tell, the screenshot appears to be taken from some irrelevant conversation.
Obviously that question can be answered only by the asker.

Different people use different words in different senses depending on context. Instead of trying to attack me for my answer (which I believe to be valid, given how the question was stated), you could provide what you would consider a better answer.

Posted: **February 17th, 2024, 6:20 pm**

azulavoir wrote: February 17th, 2024, 9:11 am Really? You're so against the idea that someone might disagree with you about the definition of a word, that when they use it in a way people generally understand, you completely misinterpret them to avoid answering their question in the way they're clearly after?

I Edited my question after the post because I realized that it was confusing and ambiguous It was "Is there a nonexplosive rule, where adding, or removing transitions will make it explosive?"
While confocaloid's answer was not the one I was looking for, I understand where the confusion came from and do not blame them. I do wish that people would spend more time to figure out what questions are trying to ask, but I appreciate that my word choice can be bad, and I can leave out key details I think are obvious. I also did not feel any malicious intent, and feel it is wrong to attack confocaloid.

Posted: **February 17th, 2024, 6:41 pm**

NimbleRogue wrote: February 16th, 2024, 3:43 pmIs there a nonexplosive rule, where adding, or removing any single transition will make it explosive?

NimbleRogue wrote: February 17th, 2024, 6:20 pmWhile confocaloid's answer was not the one I was looking for, I understand where the confusion came from and do not blame them. I do wish that people would spend more time to figure out what questions are trying to ask, but I appreciate that my word choice can be bad, and I can leave out key details I think are obvious.

Well, I noticed that the question was edited to specify "single". However, I think the question statement is still ambiguous.

For one example, the question did not specify the rulespace. And there is basically no single universally agreed "default" that could be assumed. (It could be 2-state or multistate, isotropic or not, outer-totalistic or not, range-1 vs. higher-range, square grid vs. hex grid vs. triangular grid, 2D vs. 3D, and so on, depending on one's curiosity.)
Further, in my answer I did suggest an example of removing what I consider a "single transition" (specifically, forbidding the "death" transition from the cellstate 1 to the cellstate 0). However, now after your comment I understand that that answer was not the one you were looking for.

However, I recently posted something that might be relevant to your question, just before the question was asked. Is the following relevant? Excluding B5n makes an apparently-exploding Life-like rule (B356/S23) into an apparently-non-exploding 2-state isotropic non-totalistic rule (B35-n6/S23):

confocaloid wrote: February 16th, 2024, 3:10 pm Excluding the B5n condition allows diagonal c/4 gliders from Life, and tames the rule just enough:
Code: Select all
#C maybe someone can make a cyclotronoid out of this?
x = 20, y = 15, rule = B35-n6/S23
bo$2bo$3o10$18b2o$17b2o$19bo!
#C [[ ZOOM 2 ]]
This rule is apgsearchable, and it was apgsearched by dmqwerty425 at 2019-02-24.

Posted: **February 17th, 2024, 8:15 pm**

Also to make my original question even clearer, I'm asking for an INT rule is there a rule that's nonexplosive, where all single transitions will make it explosive (102 rules)? If not what is the greatest number of single transitions from a nonexplosive rule that will make it explosive?
(A single transition is B3/S23->B34c/S23, or B3/S23->B3-c/S23)

Posted: **February 17th, 2024, 8:22 pm**

Try starting from B1e2-an3ejkry4cjrw5ceny6c7c/S2ik3-aejr4eknqy5ej6e. Removing B1e keeps it non-explosive, and there is at least one transition that effectively does nothing, but the vast majority should make it explosive.

Posted: **February 17th, 2024, 8:32 pm**

NimbleRogue wrote: February 17th, 2024, 8:15 pm Also to make my original question even clearer, I'm asking for an INT rule is there a rule that's nonexplosive, where all single transitions will make it explosive (102 rules)? If not what is the greatest number of single transitions from a nonexplosive rule that will make it explosive?
(A single transition is B3/S23->B34c/S23, or B3/S23->B3-c/S23)

If I understand right, you are asking for an "isolated rule" in the 2-state range-1 isotropic rulespace, so that the rule is not explosive, but every single toggle in the 102-bit rule definition will make an explosive rule.
I'm not sure if that exists. It is likely that there will always be some 3x3 condition which is very rare in evolving patterns, like S4c or S6i or B8 for rules near to Life. Then toggling the future of the central cell in that case would not make much difference.

(Of course, there might be an "isolated rule" like that, such that every single toggle allows some natural pattern/reaction which otherwise would fail, and that natural pattern/reaction happens to make the rule explosive. Adding S4c to Life allows a seminatural p62 oscillator, adding B8 allows (5,2)c/190 moving objects and a natural glider gun, and adding S6i allows a rarely-occurring oblique puffer; neither of those make the rule explosive, though.)

Posted: **February 17th, 2024, 8:46 pm**

Why did this not exist?

Code: Select all

x = 1, y = 1, rule = Pascal-mod3-hex
A!
@RULE Pascal-mod3-hex
@TABLE
n_states:3
neighborhood:hexagonal
symmetries:none
0, 0,0,0,0,0,0, 0
0, 2,0,0,0,0,0, 2
0, 0,0,0,0,0,2, 2
0, 2,0,0,0,0,2, 1
0, 1,0,0,0,0,0, 1
0, 1,0,0,0,0,2, 0
0, 0,0,0,0,0,1, 1
0, 2,0,0,0,0,1, 0
0, 1,0,0,0,0,1, 2
@COLORS
0 0 0 0
1 255 128 128
1 128 128 255
2 128 255 128

Posted: **February 21st, 2024, 9:49 am**

Is there a weighted HROT rule where the glider, Glider 3736, and the XWSSes all work(in all orientations)?

Posted: **February 21st, 2024, 5:48 pm**

hotcrystal0 wrote: February 21st, 2024, 9:49 am Is there a weighted HROT rule where the glider, Glider 3736, and the XWSSes all work(in all orientations)?

Here:

Code: Select all

x = 55, y = 27, rule = R2,C0,S34-67,102-135,170-203,255-271,B51-67,119-135,187-203,224,229,255-271,292,294,NW01010101010111551101015500550101115511010101010101
41bo9bo$21bo8b3o7bobo7b3o$10b3o7b3o7b3o6bo3bo5b2ob2o$9bo3bo5bo3bo4b3ob
3o4bo3bo4b2o3b2o$8bo2bo2bo3b2obob2o6bo7bobobo$8b3ob3o3b7o6bo9bo9bo$19b
o3bo4b2obob2o5bobo8bo6$12b2o9bo$10bo4bo5bo3bo6bo2bo$16bo9bo9bo$10bo5bo
4bo4bo5bo3bo$3o8b6o5b5o6b4o$o$bo5$11b4o7b3o8b2o$10b6o5b5o6b4o$10b4ob2o
4b3ob2o5b2ob2o$14b2o8b2o8b2o!

All spaceships evolve identically to their original versions from Life-like CA. The weighted neighbourhood is as follows:

Code: Select all

  1  1  1  1  1
  1 17 85 17  1
  1 85  0 85  1
  1 17 85 17  1
  1  1  1  1  1

The optional birth/survival conditions are:

optional birth (350): 6, 9-16, 23-24, 27-34, 40-41, 43-84, 90-91, 93, 95-101, 109-119, 127-138, 140, 142-170, 176-188, 194, 196-205, 208, 211, 213, 215-222, 225-228, 230-257, 260-272, 274-288, 290-291, 293, 295-312, 314-379, 381-395, 398-424
optional survival (362): 0, 3-17, 21-35, 37-38, 40, 42-84, 90-92, 94-102, 107-119, 124, 128-129, 131-171, 175, 177-187, 194-203, 205, 212-224, 227-228, 231-259, 261-262, 264-292, 298-310, 313-325, 327-359, 361-377, 379-393, 395-396, 399-412, 414-424

Posted: **February 21st, 2024, 7:31 pm**

confocaloid wrote: February 21st, 2024, 5:48 pm
hotcrystal0 wrote: February 21st, 2024, 9:49 am Is there a weighted HROT rule where the glider, Glider 3736, and the XWSSes all work(in all orientations)?
Here:
Code: Select all
x = 55, y = 27, rule = R2,C0,S34-67,102-135,170-203,255-271,B51-67,119-135,187-203,224,229,255-271,292,294,NW01010101010111551101015500550101115511010101010101
41bo9bo$21bo8b3o7bobo7b3o$10b3o7b3o7b3o6bo3bo5b2ob2o$9bo3bo5bo3bo4b3ob
3o4bo3bo4b2o3b2o$8bo2bo2bo3b2obob2o6bo7bobobo$8b3ob3o3b7o6bo9bo9bo$19b
o3bo4b2obob2o5bobo8bo6$12b2o9bo$10bo4bo5bo3bo6bo2bo$16bo9bo9bo$10bo5bo
4bo4bo5bo3bo$3o8b6o5b5o6b4o$o$bo5$11b4o7b3o8b2o$10b6o5b5o6b4o$10b4ob2o
4b3ob2o5b2ob2o$14b2o8b2o8b2o!
All the gliders evolve identically to their original versions from Life-like rules. The weighted neighbourhood is isotropic range-2 "layer-totalistic", with the following weights:
Code: Select all
  1  1  1  1  1
  1 17 85 17  1
  1 85  0 85  1
  1 17 85 17  1
  1  1  1  1  1
The optional conditions in the rule are:
optional birth (350): 6, 9-16, 23-24, 27-34, 40-41, 43-84, 90-91, 93, 95-101, 109-119, 127-138, 140, 142-170, 176-188, 194, 196-205, 208, 211, 213, 215-222, 225-228, 230-257, 260-272, 274-288, 290-291, 293, 295-312, 314-379, 381-395, 398-424
optional survival (362): 0, 3-17, 21-35, 37-38, 40, 42-84, 90-92, 94-102, 107-119, 124, 128-129, 131-171, 175, 177-187, 194-203, 205, 212-224, 227-228, 231-259, 261-262, 264-292, 298-310, 313-325, 327-359, 361-377, 379-393, 395-396, 399-412, 414-424

What is the rulestring for Life in that weighted neighborhood?

Posted: **February 21st, 2024, 7:38 pm**

hotcrystal0 wrote: February 21st, 2024, 7:31 pmWhat is the rulestring for Life in that weighted neighborhood?

I think removing the conditions B224, B229, B292, B294 results in another definition for CGoL

Code: Select all

x = 3, y = 3, rule = R2,C0,S34-67,102-135,170-203,255-271,B51-67,119-135,187-203,255-271,NW01010101010111551101015500550101115511010101010101
bo$b2o$2o!
#C [[ ZOOM 4 ]]

Posted: **February 21st, 2024, 10:19 pm**

is there any 1D rule that forms infinite family of exponential-period oscillators when limited to 1xN line or ring?

ConwayLife.com

Thread for basic non-CGOL questions

Re: Thread for basic non-CGOL questions

Re: Thread for basic non-CGOL questions

Re: Thread for basic non-CGOL questions

Re: Thread for basic non-CGOL questions

Re: Thread for basic non-CGOL questions

Re: Thread for basic non-CGOL questions

Re: Thread for basic non-CGOL questions

Re: Thread for basic non-CGOL questions

Re: Thread for basic non-CGOL questions

Re: Thread for basic non-CGOL questions

Re: Thread for basic non-CGOL questions

Re: Thread for basic non-CGOL questions

Re: Thread for basic non-CGOL questions

Re: Thread for basic non-CGOL questions

Re: Thread for basic non-CGOL questions

Re: Thread for basic non-CGOL questions

Re: Thread for basic non-CGOL questions

Re: Thread for basic non-CGOL questions

Re: Thread for basic non-CGOL questions

Re: Thread for basic non-CGOL questions

Re: Thread for basic non-CGOL questions

Re: Thread for basic non-CGOL questions

Re: Thread for basic non-CGOL questions

Re: Thread for basic non-CGOL questions

Re: Thread for basic non-CGOL questions