ConwayLife.com - A community for Conway's Game of Life and related cellular automata
Home  •  LifeWiki  •  Forums  •  Download Golly

Oscillator Universality

A forum where anything goes. Introduce yourselves to other members of the forums, discuss how your name evolves when written out in the Game of Life, or just tell us how you found it. This is the forum for "non-academic" content.

Oscillator Universality

Postby 83bismuth38 » April 13th, 2017, 9:27 am

Dump the most universal oscillators here! a universal oscillator (man that is hard to type) is an oscillator that can be found in all rules. of course, this doesn't exist, since there are (8+the number of modifers)!^2 rules, if my math is correct. anyways, dump em' here, guys!
x = 8, y = 10, rule = B3/S23
3b2o$3b2o$2b3o$4bobo$2obobobo$3bo2bo$2bobo2bo$2bo4bo$2bo4bo$2bo!

No football of any dui mauris said that.
User avatar
83bismuth38
 
Posts: 379
Joined: March 2nd, 2017, 4:23 pm
Location: Still sitting around in Sagittarius A...

Re: Oscillator Universality

Postby blah » April 13th, 2017, 11:42 am

I don't think your maths is correct. I don't know where you got the factorial from, and I think you put the exponent on the wrong end; there are 2^18 = 262,144 lifelike rules, and 2^58 (58 being 8+the number of modifiers if I counted them right) isotropic rules.

Anyway, this oscillator is pretty universal:
x = 0, y = 0, rule = B3/S23
!

I call it "Empty Space". It's a p1 oscillator in 50% of rules (anything without B0), a p2 oscillator in 25% of rules (with B0 but without S8), and the immediate predecessor of a still life in the other 25% of rules (with B0 and S8).

You never said it couldn't be trivial. :^)
succ
User avatar
blah
 
Posts: 175
Joined: April 9th, 2016, 7:22 pm

Re: Oscillator Universality

Postby Gamedziner » April 14th, 2017, 6:42 am

blah wrote:I don't think your maths is correct. I don't know where you got the factorial from, and I think you put the exponent on the wrong end; there are 2^18 = 262,144 lifelike rules, and 2^58 (58 being 8+the number of modifiers if I counted them right) isotropic rules.

Anyway, this oscillator is pretty universal:
x = 0, y = 0, rule = B3/S23
!

I call it "Empty Space". It's a p1 oscillator in 50% of rules (anything without B0), a p2 oscillator in 25% of rules (with B0 but without S8), and the immediate predecessor of a still life in the other 25% of rules (with B0 and S8).

You never said it couldn't be trivial. :^)

Except a so called "p1 oscillator" is actually a still life and nothing more.
Gamedziner
 
Posts: 386
Joined: May 30th, 2016, 8:47 pm
Location: Milky Way Galaxy: Planet Earth

Re: Oscillator Universality

Postby blah » April 14th, 2017, 8:15 am

Gamedziner wrote:Except a so called "p1 oscillator" is actually a still life and nothing more.

It's still a p2 oscillator in 25% of rules. But in all seriousness, I think 'Checkers' is pretty universal:
x = 2, y = 2, rule = B2/S
bo$o!

In totalistic terms, it requires B2 is present, B1 is not present, and S1 is not present. That's three conditions, which means this exists in one eighth of lifelike rules ((1/2^3)2^18 = 32768). In isotropic terms, it requires lack of B1e, B1c, S1c, and presence of B2e, which would count as four terms, putting it in one 16th of isotropic rules.

Unless you count the inverted version:
x = 16, y = 16, rule = B7/S01234578
16o$16o$16o$16o$16o$16o$16o$7ob8o$8ob7o$16o$16o$16o$16o$16o$16o$16o!
succ
User avatar
blah
 
Posts: 175
Joined: April 9th, 2016, 7:22 pm

Re: Oscillator Universality

Postby 83bismuth38 » April 14th, 2017, 8:24 am

A for awesome wrote:
BlinkerSpawn wrote:The most universal oscillator would be the p2 doublet, which only requires B2e and prohibits B01/S1c.

A single dot is a p1 oscillator requiring S0 and prohibiting B01. A block is a p1 oscillator requiring S3a and prohibiting B01c2a. Both work in 1/16 of all rules, whereas the duoplet works in only 1/32 of all rules.

I recognize that p1 oscillators might not count, though.

EDIT: For p3 oscillators the best I can find is requiring B2i3a4e/S2c and prohibiting B012ce4c/S03i4e:
x = 3, y = 3, rule = B2i3a4e/S2c
bo$obo$bo!

(1/8192)

For p4s it requires B2k3a/S0 and prohibits B012a/S2a3j:
x = 3, y = 2, rule = B2k3a/S0
o$2bo!

(1/512)

all credit to him for these. they were on an unrelated subject.
x = 8, y = 10, rule = B3/S23
3b2o$3b2o$2b3o$4bobo$2obobobo$3bo2bo$2bobo2bo$2bo4bo$2bo4bo$2bo!

No football of any dui mauris said that.
User avatar
83bismuth38
 
Posts: 379
Joined: March 2nd, 2017, 4:23 pm
Location: Still sitting around in Sagittarius A...

Re: Oscillator Universality

Postby 83bismuth38 » April 14th, 2017, 1:18 pm

Ooh a new twist: what is the most universal RULE? (it has the most oscillators, ships, guns, still lifes, replicators, agars, etc.)
x = 8, y = 10, rule = B3/S23
3b2o$3b2o$2b3o$4bobo$2obobobo$3bo2bo$2bobo2bo$2bo4bo$2bo4bo$2bo!

No football of any dui mauris said that.
User avatar
83bismuth38
 
Posts: 379
Joined: March 2nd, 2017, 4:23 pm
Location: Still sitting around in Sagittarius A...

Re: Oscillator Universality

Postby Gamedziner » April 15th, 2017, 7:37 am

83bismuth38 wrote:Ooh a new twist: what is the most universal RULE? (it has the most oscillators, ships, guns, still lifes, replicators, agars, etc.)

In terms of replicators, the Replicator rule definitely takes the cake.
x = 1, y = 1, rule = B1357/S1357
1000o!
Gamedziner
 
Posts: 386
Joined: May 30th, 2016, 8:47 pm
Location: Milky Way Galaxy: Planet Earth

Re: Oscillator Universality

Postby 83bismuth38 » April 15th, 2017, 8:06 am

yeah, it has inf replicators, but 0 still lifes, agars, guns, fuses, oscillators, ships, methuselahs, or really anything else, so... it's not very universal. :?
x = 8, y = 10, rule = B3/S23
3b2o$3b2o$2b3o$4bobo$2obobobo$3bo2bo$2bobo2bo$2bo4bo$2bo4bo$2bo!

No football of any dui mauris said that.
User avatar
83bismuth38
 
Posts: 379
Joined: March 2nd, 2017, 4:23 pm
Location: Still sitting around in Sagittarius A...

Re: Oscillator Universality

Postby Saka » April 15th, 2017, 8:25 am

The most unuversal rule would be b3/s23 because it has been studied the most :wink:
Everyone, please stop posting B/S about CA
x = 17, y = 10, rule = B3/S23
b2ob2obo5b2o$11b4obo$2bob3o2bo2b3o$bo3b2o4b2o$o2bo2bob2o3b4o$bob2obo5b
o2b2o$2b2o4bobo2b3o$bo3b5ob2obobo$2bo5bob2o$4bob2o2bobobo!

(Check gen 2)
User avatar
Saka
 
Posts: 2241
Joined: June 19th, 2015, 8:50 pm
Location: In the kingdom of Sultan Hamengkubuwono X

Re: Oscillator Universality

Postby 83bismuth38 » April 15th, 2017, 9:25 am

Saka wrote:The most unuversal rule would be b3/s23 because it has been studied the most :wink:

:lol: but really, it is incredibly universal, but most likely not the most.
x = 8, y = 10, rule = B3/S23
3b2o$3b2o$2b3o$4bobo$2obobobo$3bo2bo$2bobo2bo$2bo4bo$2bo4bo$2bo!

No football of any dui mauris said that.
User avatar
83bismuth38
 
Posts: 379
Joined: March 2nd, 2017, 4:23 pm
Location: Still sitting around in Sagittarius A...

Re: Oscillator Universality

Postby Sphenocorona » April 20th, 2017, 1:22 pm

One issue with rule universality is that of defining when a rule has 'more' of some type of object than another when both have infinitely many objects of that type. Importantly, they can't be distinguished by cardinality anymore as the list of all possible [insert object here] has a cardinality of ℵ₀; That is, any infinite set of objects that exist in a rule has exactly the same "amount" of objects as any other, because they can always be mapped one-to-one with the natural numbers (0), 1, 2, 3, 4, ... The reason this is important is because B3/S23 already has multiple infinite series of spaceship velocities alone, though not all of them are necessarily minimal period or such... yet clearly there's a huge number of those we haven't managed to produce at even low multiples of minimal period.

There are certainly other ways out of this to define this, but it means it's not exactly straight forward how one should measure this sort of thing in a satisfactory way.
Sphenocorona
 
Posts: 470
Joined: April 9th, 2013, 11:03 pm

Re: Oscillator Universality

Postby A for awesome » April 20th, 2017, 4:46 pm

Sphenocorona wrote:the list of all possible [insert object here] has a cardinality of ℵ₀

Are you sure? It seems like in some rules, some categories of objects may have cardinalities of ℵ₀, but wouldn't cardinalities more commonly be finite or ℵ₁?
x₁=ηx
V ⃰_η=c²√(Λη)
K=(Λu²)/2
Pₐ=1−1/(∫^∞_t₀(p(t)ˡ⁽ᵗ⁾)dt)

$$x_1=\eta x$$
$$V^*_\eta=c^2\sqrt{\Lambda\eta}$$
$$K=\frac{\Lambda u^2}2$$
$$P_a=1-\frac1{\int^\infty_{t_0}p(t)^{l(t)}dt}$$

http://conwaylife.com/wiki/A_for_all

Aidan F. Pierce
User avatar
A for awesome
 
Posts: 1439
Joined: September 13th, 2014, 5:36 pm
Location: 0x-1

Re: Oscillator Universality

Postby dvgrn » April 20th, 2017, 6:56 pm

A for awesome wrote:
Sphenocorona wrote:the list of all possible [insert object here] has a cardinality of ℵ₀

Are you sure? It seems like in some rules, some categories of objects may have cardinalities of ℵ₀, but wouldn't cardinalities more commonly be finite or ℵ₁?

I think you're pretty much stuck with ℵ₀ when you're enumerating objects in any CA rule. Any infinite set of objects that can be ordered by apgcode is going to be ℵ₀, for example. Seems like you can't put any set of CA objects in one-to-one correspondence with real numbers, unless 100% of the objects have infinite population (ugh).

Some categories are certainly finite, but by and large they don't seem like the interesting ones. Often you need arbitrary limitations -- "stable reflectors that fit inside a 12x12 bounding box", etc. And the larger context of Sphenocorona's post specifically excludes that case:

Sphenocorona wrote:One issue with rule universality is that of defining when a rule has 'more' of some type of object than another when both have infinitely many objects of that type.

So, yeah, it seems like you need some kind of measurement of the density of occurrences of interesting objects -- appearance in random soups, maybe, or findability by some kind of standardized search mechanism -- to be able to compare one rule to another. And rules that come out on top via one measurement method may not rank very high if you switch another metric.
dvgrn
Moderator
 
Posts: 4019
Joined: May 17th, 2009, 11:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Oscillator Universality

Postby A for awesome » April 21st, 2017, 9:36 am

dvgrn wrote:Seems like you can't put any set of CA objects in one-to-one correspondence with real numbers, unless 100% of the objects have infinite population (ugh).

Okay, now I guess I understand — this is a pedantic distinction between infinite sets of objects each with finite information content and infinite sets of objects each with infinite information content. I would personally consider infinite objects to fall into the same categories as finite objects, but I can see why someone else wouldn't.
x₁=ηx
V ⃰_η=c²√(Λη)
K=(Λu²)/2
Pₐ=1−1/(∫^∞_t₀(p(t)ˡ⁽ᵗ⁾)dt)

$$x_1=\eta x$$
$$V^*_\eta=c^2\sqrt{\Lambda\eta}$$
$$K=\frac{\Lambda u^2}2$$
$$P_a=1-\frac1{\int^\infty_{t_0}p(t)^{l(t)}dt}$$

http://conwaylife.com/wiki/A_for_all

Aidan F. Pierce
User avatar
A for awesome
 
Posts: 1439
Joined: September 13th, 2014, 5:36 pm
Location: 0x-1

Re: Oscillator Universality

Postby 83bismuth38 » April 24th, 2017, 10:08 am

what i meant is objects show up more commonly. not that there are physically 'more' of that object.
x = 8, y = 10, rule = B3/S23
3b2o$3b2o$2b3o$4bobo$2obobobo$3bo2bo$2bobo2bo$2bo4bo$2bo4bo$2bo!

No football of any dui mauris said that.
User avatar
83bismuth38
 
Posts: 379
Joined: March 2nd, 2017, 4:23 pm
Location: Still sitting around in Sagittarius A...

Re: Oscillator Universality

Postby blah » April 24th, 2017, 5:13 pm

I missed a requirement for the rules in which the 'Checkers' oscillator exists. It requires that there is no B0. That halves its commonness, putting it in (1/2^4)2^18 = 16384 lifelike rules (unless you account for B0 rules that have it anyway, by coincidence)
succ
User avatar
blah
 
Posts: 175
Joined: April 9th, 2016, 7:22 pm


Return to The Sandbox

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests