Talk:Reflectorless rotating oscillator

Reflectorless rotating oscillators in other rules

Would the following p32 in b37/s23 count, despite the fact that it can't be made p16 by adding any additional copies of itself?

x = 5, y = 5, rule = B37/S23 b3o$b3o$4bo$2b2o$obo! Lewis 19:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't, for the precise reason that it can't be made into a p16 (or lower) oscillator. You're on the right lines, though. --Calcyman 15:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Definition fine-tuning

The "two-copy" constraint is obviously there to to exclude 180° on-the-spot rotating things like mazing, smiley, and trans-shuttle, or 90° on-the-spot rotating things like blinker and monogram. It seems like this condition could be lax'd, however. Imagine an oscillator which fills some 270° of the space around its center of symmetry, and progresses in 90° turns: wouldn't this be just about as impressiv as a "shorter" rotating oscillator? I suggest requiring at least 90° of empty space around the center of symmetry (which ensures a lack of communication between the "tail" and the "head" of the oscillator).

(For that matter: I can't think of any asymmetric 90° on-the-spot rotating oscillators in Life outside of hasslers/billiard tables, altho some small examples exist in many lifelike rules, say the glider's non-iconic phase in B3/S24.)

--Tropylium 17:43, 31 May 2011 (CDT)

Multiplicity vs. loopability

The "Other rules" section currently contains a definition of "multiplicity", but only a sample use of "loopability". Current usage (like in thePattern of the Year entry for Goldtiger997's RRO) seems to suggest that "multiplicity" means the same thing as "maximum loopability". Does that seem right, or would it be better to just say that the two terms are more or less synonyms? Dvgrn (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)