ConwayLife.com

A while ago, I added SKOP LCM galleries to pages like 44P49, and HotdogPi removed the ones above period 500 as "not really notable". I'd still prefer to add them back, as I think they are notable, 500 is an arbitrary cutoff, and it doesn't increase the size of the galleries too much. Does anyone else have an opinion on this?

500 is an arbitrary cutoff, but some cutoff / criteria are needed, otherwise what prevents an overenthusiastic J. Random Wikieditor from adding dozens or hundreds of high-period LCMs per page?

galoomba wrote: October 5th, 2024, 2:35 pm A while ago, I added SKOP LCM galleries to pages like 44P49, and HotdogPi removed the ones above period 500 as "not really notable". I'd still prefer to add them back, as I think they are notable, 500 is an arbitrary cutoff, and it doesn't increase the size of the galleries too much. Does anyone else have an opinion on this?

The following is strictly-speaking not about "LCM oscillators above p500". However, it is another issue related to "SKOP LCM galleries". So, I decided to take the liberty to crosspost it here (from the "Suggested LifeWiki edits" thread, where preceding discussion of this can be found):

confocaloid wrote: September 30th, 2024, 12:04 pm [...]
Specifically regarding the most recent edits, the new wording

diff=156009&oldid=152450 wrote:The [[LCM oscillator]]s below are the smallest known ones of their period by population while satisfying the condition that at least one cell oscillates at the full period.

doesn't look to me like an improvement over the older wording

The [[LCM oscillator]]s below are listed due to being the smallest known ones by population, while also satisfying the condition that at least one cell oscillates at the full period.

The older version feels clearer and easier to read to me. Both the comma and the word "also" help to understand the meaning.
Additionally, in the new wording ... "their period" is confusing, because there are multiple oscillators of several different periods.

Comparing between these two wordings, I would definitely prefer the older wording.
[...]

The issue is not how much space it takes up but how much work has to be done to update the list.

If the list wasn't already as high as it was, I would cap it at 200.

confocaloid wrote: October 5th, 2024, 2:46 pm 500 is an arbitrary cutoff, but some cutoff / criteria are needed, otherwise what prevents an overenthusiastic J. Random Wikieditor from adding dozens or hundreds of high-period LCMs per page?

The fact that there aren't dozens or hundreds of high-period SKOP LCMs per oscillator. (Except for very small oscillators, which don't currently have LCM galleries at all; I'm not sure what to do with those, it would be nice to at least mention the LCMs somewhere, even though listing them all would probably not be practical.)

hotdogPi wrote: October 5th, 2024, 3:16 pm The issue is not how much space it takes up but how much work has to be done to update the list.

That's a fair point. Although I'm not sure why higher-period oscillators would be harder to update than lower-period ones? Or is it just that it makes for more things to update? But wouldn't that be an argument against adding anything that might need updating in the future to the wiki?

hotdogPi wrote: October 5th, 2024, 3:16 pm If the list wasn't already as high as it was, I would cap it at 200.

You might, but this is a wiki, not your personal project. You don't get to delete someone's contribution just because "you wouldn't do it that way".

galoomba wrote: October 5th, 2024, 2:35 pm I'd still prefer to add them back, as I think they are notable, 500 is an arbitrary cutoff, and it doesn't increase the size of the galleries too much.

galoomba wrote: October 5th, 2024, 4:02 pm You don't get to delete someone's contribution just because "you wouldn't do it that way".

This is not your personal project, either. You don't get to add something just because you "think they are notable".

I read hotdogPi's reply merely as an attempt to explain why "Adding Them All" might not be such a good idea.

Some cutoff criteria is needed, but 500 seems too arbitary. I suggest adding as many as will fill up the table in a perfect square.

I think creating this discussion thread was a good idea (although I suggest to widen the scope of the thread to "SKOP LCM galleries"). Those galleries appear in many pages across the wiki, and it makes sense to discuss how those should be presented, and (hopefully) have a discussion that can be hyperlinked from edit summaries in future.

One thought here is that some LCM oscillators are more interesting than others. There are different ways of getting two oscillators to interact in such a way that at least one cell oscillates at the full period. Paying more attention to the specific mechanisms could suggest some better way of presenting them.

Haycat2009 wrote: October 7th, 2024, 12:14 am [...] I suggest adding as many as will fill up the table in a perfect square.

I'm not sure whether I understand your suggestion. Are you suggesting to display the gallery as a square-shaped arrangement of viewers? (That is not going to work reliably, since sizes of embedded viewers can vary through a single gallery, and since readers of the wiki have differing screen widths, workflows involving browser not open to the full screen, etc.)

galoomba wrote: October 5th, 2024, 4:02 pm [...] But wouldn't that be an argument against adding anything that might need updating in the future to the wiki? [...]

No. For example statements of the form "As of YYYY-MM-DD, there are N known X" (or similar) don't have to be updated immediately when some new X becomes known, because the statement remains as correct as it was before.

I think adding an "As of" date to every LCM section could be an improvement. Whenever the gallery is updated, the date would also need to be updated. Suggested wording:

#LCM oscillators wrote:The LCM oscillators below are listed due to being the smallest known ones by the minimum population as of 1969-12-31, while also satisfying the condition that at least one cell oscillates at the full period. The oscillators are shown with visible envelopes, to highlight interactions between subpatterns.
...

confocaloid wrote: October 7th, 2024, 3:12 pm

galoomba wrote: October 5th, 2024, 4:02 pm [...] But wouldn't that be an argument against adding anything that might need updating in the future to the wiki? [...]

No. For example statements of the form "As of YYYY-MM-DD, there are N known X" (or similar) don't have to be updated immediately when some new X becomes known, because the statement remains as correct as it was before.

I think adding an "As of" date to every LCM section could be an improvement. Whenever the gallery is updated, the date would also need to be updated. Suggested wording:

#LCM oscillators wrote:The LCM oscillators below are listed due to being the smallest known ones by the minimum population as of 1969-12-31, while also satisfying the condition that at least one cell oscillates at the full period. The oscillators are shown with visible envelopes, to highlight interactions between subpatterns.
...

Good idea. Although this problem isn't limited to LCM galleries, a lot of pages have sentences of the form "this is currently the smallest X by Y metric", maybe those could use dates too.

I don't think I agree with the exact wording though. There are several awkward points. Using the word "due" feels weird here - it reads a bit like "there is a (possibly larger) list of patterns, with unspecified criteria, and these patterns qualify because of this criterion specifically", and not like "this is simply a list of patterns that satisfy this criterion". Not technically incorrect, but a bit clunky. I think saying something like "The following LCM oscillators are the smallest [...]" would be clearer while also being shorter.

But the worst part is the comma and "also", which unlike the previous part actually significantly changes the meaning. It makes it quite clearly sound like "these are the smallest known oscillators in general, and they also happen to be non-trivial", rather than "these are the smallest known non-trivial oscillators". Including the date in the first clause makes this distinction even greater (in the wrong direction). I think we should actually just omit the second clause altogether and replace it with the phrase "non-trivial" with a link to the definition.

"The following LCM oscillators are the smallest non-trivial oscillators of their period by minimum population" sounds like the perfect wording to me.

galoomba wrote: October 8th, 2024, 3:31 pm "The following LCM oscillators are the smallest non-trivial oscillators of their period by minimum population" sounds like the perfect wording to me.

How about allowing in the "known" caveat and a date, though? ""As of MM/DD/YYYY, the following LCM oscillators are the smallest known non-trivial oscillators of their period by minimum population" ?

Seems like part of the wordier wording involved making sure not to make any claims that would probably, eventually, turn out not to be true.

I think the word "known" is absolutely required. There is an obvious difference between "the smallest X" and "the smallest known X".

I think the "As of" date would be helpful to readers. Not sure about the exact date format, but I would definitely prefer to include "smallest known as of such-and-such date".

The part "of their period" feels awkward; there's a gallery of oscillators with different periods, not just all one period.

confocaloid wrote: October 8th, 2024, 4:18 pm I think the word "known" is absolutely required. There is an obvious difference between "the smallest X" and "the smallest known X".

Yes, of course. This was just an oversight on my part.

confocaloid wrote: October 8th, 2024, 4:18 pm I think the "As of" date would be helpful to readers. Not sure about the exact date format, but I would definitely prefer to include "smallest known as of such-and-such date".

Agreed.

confocaloid wrote: October 8th, 2024, 4:18 pm The part "of their period" feels awkward; there's a gallery of oscillators with different periods, not just all one period.

"Of their respective periods" perhaps? Or something like that?