Talk:2-engine Cordership: Difference between revisions

From LifeWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m reword my old comment to improve readability, note few things
 
Line 3: Line 3:
:Yes, let's. [[User:Apple Bottom|Apple Bottom]] ([[User talk:Apple Bottom|talk]]) 09:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
:Yes, let's. [[User:Apple Bottom|Apple Bottom]] ([[User talk:Apple Bottom|talk]]) 09:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


== Perhaps update the ConwayLife home page ==
== Perhaps change the ConwayLife home page ==
Upon loading [https://conwaylife.com the home page], there is a chance of this being shown, with the description
: A c/12 diagonal spaceship that is the smallest engineered spaceship (i.e., spaceship that was deliberately constructed instead of found) known to date.
However, it wasn't constructed in the sense of a human putting known reactions together in known ways, but by a computer search of possible ways to put them together.


It has a chance of containing this, and says "A c/12 diagonal spaceship that is the smallest engineered spaceship (i.e., spaceship that was deliberately constructed instead of found) known to date." However, it wasn't constructed in the same sense as ones that have multiple known reactions put together in a deterministic manner, the reactions were discovered with it, and it has also appeared in the sep_stdin census, surely the fact that multiple times, two at a specific displacement and phase shift from each other with debris behind them have formed it implies that it is not constructed in the sense that [[Sir Robin]] is not described as such, or does the fact that such a search was necessary make it constructed? Also, is sep_stdin to be considered notable? We could state that it was the only one it found (many occurrences of, implying that if the number of predecessors (and thus commonness) is about constant for its size, this is the only simple 2-engine cordership) and show some sample soups (some of which are nontrivial (ie. in the sense that the object in question doesn't appear immediately in the decay of what could have been found by a predecessor-searching program) and show how sparks originating in a footprint outside it can form its still lifes), though most oscillators' pages don't show specific occurrences, only mention their existences, so perhaps not (though that's to avoid duplicating information, whereas someone reading the current article wouldn't think to look for this). [[User:DroneBetter|DroneBetter]] ([[User talk:DroneBetter|talk]]) 23:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
It has also appeared in the <tt>{{cata|census/b3s23/sep_stdin|sep_stdin}}</tt> census. Surely the fact that multiple times, two switch engines created at a specific displacement and phase shift from each other (with debris behind them) have formed it implies that 'constructed' is the wrong word, in the sense that [[Sir Robin]] is not described as such. Does the fact that such a search was necessary (as opposed to randomness) make it constructed? Are objects from symmetric censuses constructed?
 
Also, should the <tt>sep_stdin</tt> occurrence (and apparent uniqueness) be considered notable? Should it be stated that this was the only one found (and with 7 occurrences, implying that if the commonness is about constant for objects of the same size, this is the only 2-engine cordership without external mechanisms), and should some sample soups be shown? Some of them are nontrivial, it doesn't emerge immediately in the decay (like with search programs), and show how sparks originating in a footprint outside it can form its still lifes. Most pages for patterns that became (semi-)natural after their discovery don't show specific occurrences, but only mention their existence, is this notable enough to be an exception? praosylen's original predecessor (in which it was assumedly discovered) isn't shown either. [[User:DroneBetter|DroneBetter]] ([[User talk:DroneBetter|talk]]) 23:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:35, 21 July 2023

Should we have a redirect from "Two-engine Cordership" to here, and the same for other Corderships? 77topaz (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, let's. Apple Bottom (talk) 09:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps change the ConwayLife home page

Upon loading the home page, there is a chance of this being shown, with the description

A c/12 diagonal spaceship that is the smallest engineered spaceship (i.e., spaceship that was deliberately constructed instead of found) known to date.

However, it wasn't constructed in the sense of a human putting known reactions together in known ways, but by a computer search of possible ways to put them together.

It has also appeared in the sep_stdin census. Surely the fact that multiple times, two switch engines created at a specific displacement and phase shift from each other (with debris behind them) have formed it implies that 'constructed' is the wrong word, in the sense that Sir Robin is not described as such. Does the fact that such a search was necessary (as opposed to randomness) make it constructed? Are objects from symmetric censuses constructed?

Also, should the sep_stdin occurrence (and apparent uniqueness) be considered notable? Should it be stated that this was the only one found (and with 7 occurrences, implying that if the commonness is about constant for objects of the same size, this is the only 2-engine cordership without external mechanisms), and should some sample soups be shown? Some of them are nontrivial, it doesn't emerge immediately in the decay (like with search programs), and show how sparks originating in a footprint outside it can form its still lifes. Most pages for patterns that became (semi-)natural after their discovery don't show specific occurrences, but only mention their existence, is this notable enough to be an exception? praosylen's original predecessor (in which it was assumedly discovered) isn't shown either. DroneBetter (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)