Talk:Pseudo-barberpole
13G synthesis found:
#N pseudobarberpole_synth #O Martin Grant #C 13-glider synthesis of pseudo-barberpole #C http://www.conwaylife.com/wiki/Pseudo_barberpole x = 106, y = 27, rule = B3/S23 72bo$70b2o$71b2o4$70bo$59bo7bo2bobo$60b2o3bobo2b2o$16bo42b2o5b2o$15bo$ 15b3o$43b2o28b2o29b2o$14bo29bo29bo30bo$5bobo5b2o26b3o15bo11b3o28b2o$6b 2o5bobo25bo18bo10bo$6bo30b2o19b3o6b2o31bobo$9bo27b2o28b2o$8b2o88bobo$ 8bobo41bo4b3o$35b2o15b2o5bo5b2o29bobo$35bo15bobo4bo6bo30bo$5b2o26bobo 27bobo28bo$4b2o27b2o28b2o29b2o$b2o3bo$obo$2bo!
Goldtiger997 (talk) 13:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
- Uploaded. As a side note, any pattern that doesn't already have a synthesis uploaded can get one now, if the synthesis pattern is added as a new page in the RLE: namespace and an embedded viewer is added to display it in the article. Whenever the RLE-scraper Python script runs, it will grab the pattern and make it available for a bulk upload.
- Next time I'm inspired to improve the RLE-scraper script, I'll see if I can do better than that -- get rid of the requirement that the synth pattern be displayed in an infobox or embedded viewer. The script could check for a {pname}_synth pattern for every pname, then do the same as usual (see if it's already uploaded, and make a copy for upload if not.)
- Another good trick will be to check the file on the server to make sure it's the same as the one in the RLE: namespace. If it isn't, I think I'll put the new version in a separate folder for the uploader to review. Don't want to end up automatically updating the LifeWiki pattern collection with bad edits that nobody noticed. Dvgrn (talk) 10:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Should we mention pattern of similar nature
There exists a period-3 barberpole-looking thing (that in one phase has 10 of its 18 cells being barberpole ends, with a 4*6 perturbation containing a toad in the centre) and a fourfold version, perhaps there could be a section about other almost-barberpole patterns with different mechanisms and periods. DroneBetter (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Naturalness or lack thereof
"However, the reaction in this soup evolves from fourfold rotational symmetry to eightfold symmetry, so this occurrence is not considered to be equivalent to a C1 occurrence." Can't it be argued that the first (and so far only) C1 soup for a cloverleaf interchange "doesn't count" because it becomes symmetric too? Prime Raptor21 (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)