LifeWiki Did-You-Knows

[Haycat2009]

DYK #179 overlaps with DYK #132 (both are about 12-bit oscillators). I think #179 should be merged into #132.

Yes, but they are both in different contexts and unrelated otherwise, so it is ok to keep them both. Also, how are we going to merge them without a really large logic gap?

DYK 177 should not exist. This is the LifeWiki, and Dominoplex and B2ein3cijn4cnrwy5cnq6e/S1c2-ai3acny4anqy5c6ek8 are nowhere even close to Life.

I agree with the "add some alien rules". There are many notable rules. As long as we space these out, we can add a little variety to the dyk section - variety is the spice of Life.

[confocaloid]

DYK #179 overlaps with DYK #132 (both are about 12-bit oscillators). I think #179 should be merged into #132.

Also, how are we going to merge them without a really large logic gap?

Maybe like this:

... that 12 is the minimum population of the smallest asymmetric oscillators (period-2 [[fox]], period-3 [[caterer]] and two [[isomer]]s of period-2 [[Beacon_variants#Beacon_on_some_induction_coil|beacon on table]]), as well as the minimum population of smallest known oscillators of periods 3 (caterer), 4 ([[mold]] and [[mazing]]), 8 ([[figure eight]]) and 15 ([[pentadecathlon]])?

DYK 177 should not exist. This is the LifeWiki, and Dominoplex and B2ein3cijn4cnrwy5cnq6e/S1c2-ai3acny4anqy5c6ek8 are nowhere even close to Life.

I agree with the "add some alien rules". There are many notable rules. As long as we space these out, we can add a little variety to the dyk section - variety is the spice of Life.

I did not find the phrase "add some alien rules" in earlier posts in this thread. So it is somewhat unclear to me what you "agree with".

Indeed there are many notable rules. And for every notable rule, you could write down a dozen of DYK items on average. Those items probably would be interesting in the context of that particular rule(space), to readers who already know and understand enough to become curious about that particular rule(space).

However, the vast majority of such "Did you know?" items about alien rules are not going to be meaningful in the context of the main page of LifeWiki.
There are relatively few things one can reasonably explain to a newcomer / a reader with little CA-related knowledge. You cannot assume knowledge of notations, understanding of jargon, and so on.

In this sense, "DYK 177 should not exist" may well be a reasonable suggestion and a good idea.

[Haycat2009]

DYK 177 should not exist. This is the LifeWiki, and Dominoplex and B2ein3cijn4cnrwy5cnq6e/S1c2-ai3acny4anqy5c6ek8 are nowhere even close to Life.

I agree with the "add some alien rules". There are many notable rules. As long as we space these out, we can add a little variety to the dyk section - variety is the spice of Life.

In this sense, "DYK 177 should not exist" may well be a reasonable suggestion and a good idea.

Yes, but orthogonoids are first found in Life, and dyk 177 is related to life as it reveals an engineered spaceship thought to only be createable in Life-like rules. The fact that dominoplex and Life are so different makes it even more surprising.

By the way, can we edit the dyk page such that new dyks appear if the cache is purged? I want to see new dyks more often.

[confocaloid]

Several recently invented DYKs need review/copyediting.
#182 Multiple spelling/wording issues.
#183 Readability problems, absence of links where a reader could verify the claims / get more information.
LifeWiki:Did you know/180 and LifeWiki:Did you know/185 are basically quotes taken out of context. I'm unsure whether those make sense as DYK items.

[dvgrn]

Several recently invented DYKs need review/copyediting...

I've made some changes to these that I hope are improvements. Further improvements are welcome, of course.

For technical reasons (length) I ended up taking out the named link to G-to-LWSS (2023). Really it seems like that was a rare enough find that it might deserve its own DYK item, anyway! Isn't it the first new stable xWSS-output conduit that has showed up in eight years, since Kazyan's H-to-MWSS?

[Haycat2009]

Can we replace the convoluted did-you-know selection system with a {{LifeWiki:Did you know/{{#expr{{random|180}} + 1 }}}} tag? Would be nice to have new dyks every time I purged the cache.

Also, how do I do string manipulation on pages?

[confocaloid]

What you suggest to do appears to me to be somewhat more convoluted than what you describe as "convoluted".

Simpler "dumb" solutions are usually better (unless you take responsibility for fixing various unexpected obscure errors that appear sometimes but not other times).

Should we use the dpl function for the dyk page? It is easier to maintain that way.

By the way, can we edit the dyk page such that new dyks appear if the cache is purged? I want to see new dyks more often.

Can we replace the convoluted did-you-know selection system with a {{LifeWiki:Did you know/{{#expr{{random|180}} + 1 }}}} tag? Would be nice to have new dyks every time I purged the cache.

[dvgrn]

Continuing a discussion here that started on another thread:

I think that we should use that thread as discussion for existing dyks, as per the current system. Anyway, most dyks do not need community verification, and it might encourage others to "hijack" existing dyks.

In my opinion, the majority of proposed DYK items really could benefit from some review by the community. It seems to me that it might work well to go back to the old standard procedure of posting small groups of Did-You-Know items here, to give people an opportunity to comment on them and suggest adjustments before they "go live".

[Haycat2009]

...that all phonices must have a fixed population? (6.90)

(Adding it in 20 decimal hours if less than 2 users complain, Zumaland uses decimal time)

[confocaloid]

...that all phonices must have a fixed population? (6.90)

I object to this as it stands.

The first problem is that there are no links. Relevant links are needed, to help the LifeWiki reader to understand the meaning of the DYK, and to find where to get more information / verify the claim.

Second issue is that it would make more sense to have one somewhat more detailed DYK for phoenices.

• What is currently DYK #6 would become "... that it is impossible for any finite oscillator to be a phoenix unless it has period 2".
• The current DYK #70 says "... that not all statorless oscillators are phoenixes, but statorless period 2 oscillators must be phoenixes?"

Instead of adding a new DYK, update/replace the existing DYK #6 (LifeWiki:Did you know/6). Something like this:

...that every finite [[phoenix]] has period 2, and all phoenices have constant population?

[Haycat2009]

The first problem is that there are no links. Relevant links are needed, to help the LifeWiki reader to understand the meaning of the DYK, and to find where to get more information / verify the claim.

Second issue is that it would make more sense to have one somewhat more detailed DYK for phoenices.

Combined dyks are more unreadable. Were you not the one who objected to them? Anyways, I can link to Goucher’s post.

[confocaloid]

Combined dyks are more unreadable.

At some point, a combined DYK item can become unreadable and overly long.
I don't think that applies to this case, though. I think merging "all phoenices have constant population" into an updated LifeWiki:Did you know/6 is better than putting it into a separate very short did-you-know item.

Anyways, I can link to Goucher’s post.

In this case, a link to the wiki page phoenix should be sufficient (and is certainly needed), given that that entry is likely to include links to sources and history.

[Haycat2009]

Combined dyks are more unreadable.

At some point, a combined DYK item can become unreadable and overly long.
I don't think that applies to this case, though. I think merging "all phoenices have constant population" into an updated LifeWiki:Did you know/6 is better than putting it into a separate very short did-you-know item.

Short and understandable dyks are better than long and convoluted ones

Anyways, I can link to Goucher’s post.

In this case, a link to the wiki page phoenix should be sufficient (and is certainly needed), given that that entry is likely to include links to sources and history.

Agreed.

[dvgrn]

I like the revision to DYK#6. Seems like DYK #70 could just stay as it is -- it does a nice job of highlighting the existence of non-phoenix volatility-1 oscillators. I wouldn't object to the creation of a new short DYK specific to the fixed-population result about phoenices.

I've added a clause to the summary of APG's proof result in the phoenix wiki article, mentioning the fixed-pop result -- so if the new DYK links to phoenix as the other two do, it should be easy for someone to figure out where the Did-You-Know info is coming from. The DYK could also mention the key detail that both finite and infinite phoenices must have fixed population -- and once that detail is included, the item starts seeming maybe a little too long and awkward to shoehorn into one of the other phoenix DYKs.

Side note -- the plural of "phoenix" is either "phoenices" or "phoenixes", as the phoenix article says, not "phonices".

[Haycat2009]

… that the 3 smallest p4 spaceships are smaller than the smallest p4 oscillators?

(As usual, 20 hours, will not add if 2 or more object. Also, please assume that I will leave relevant links. For this instance, I will use glider and xwss links, as well as mould and mazing) This is just a backbones description of what I will add, I will improve it when I add it.

[confocaloid]

… that the 4 smallest p4 spaceships are smaller than the smallest p4 oscillators?

(As usual, 20 hours, will not add if 2 or more object.)

How are you going to support the claim? What are those spaceships and those oscillators? Which links will you add, so that a LifeWiki reader can verify the assertion?
Without links, the claim is both unsupported and awkward. With links added, it is likely to become more awkward.

This is just a backbones description of what I will add, I will improve it when I add it.

Speaking for myself, I'd much prefer to see the actual did you know item in more or less completed form (including relevant links and sufficient explanation for a reader), before it is added to the wiki. There are already several existing DYK items that need copyediting / correcting errors.

[Haycat2009]

… that the 4 smallest p4 spaceships are smaller than the smallest p4 oscillators?

(As usual, 20 hours, will not add if 2 or more object.)

How are you going to support the claim? What are those spaceships and those oscillators? Which links will you add, so that a LifeWiki reader can verify the assertion?
Without links, the claim is both unsupported and awkward. With links added, it is likely to become more awkward.

This is just a backbones description of what I will add, I will improve it when I add it.

Speaking for myself, I'd much prefer to see the actual did you know item in more or less completed form (including relevant links and sufficient explanation for a reader), before it is added to the wiki. There are already several existing DYK items that need copyediting / correcting errors.

Sure, although I like to use the preview function to see how it looks. Frankly I would love a “the two users learnt how to collaborate and never feuded again” happily-ever after.

[confocaloid]

… that the 4 smallest p4 spaceships are smaller than the smallest p4 oscillators?

The claim is false. The HWSS is not smaller than mold or mazing.

Even if "fixed" in some way or another, the claim does not make much sense as a "Did you know?" item, because it is an arbitrary comparison.
(Sure, the glider has minimum population 5, the LWSS has minimum population 9, the MWSS has minimum population 11, the mold and mazing each have minimum population 12. So what? Why this is believed to be interesting enough to be put in a DYK?)

I think there is no need to invent such arbitrary DYKs and lose quality for quantity.

Sure, although I like to use the preview function to see how it looks.

If you want to suggest a DYK, it is better to post it here along with any relevant links, instead of creating it directly on the wiki. If it is a good idea, someone will add it. If there are any objections at all, then it is obviously a bad idea for you to insist on adding it. Maybe someone else will rewrite and add it in a corrected/copyedited form, if that makes sense.

[Haycat2009]

Well, spaceships tend to have a higher population than oscillators of the same period. If you do not believe me, there is 64P2H1V0 and blinker, 25P3H1V0.1 and caterer, caravan and pseudo-barberpole, and Loafer and burloafafrimeter

[dvgrn]

… that the 3 smallest p4 spaceships are smaller than the smallest p4 oscillators?

(As usual, 20 hours, will not add if 2 or more object. Also, please assume that I will leave relevant links. For this instance, I will use glider and xwss links, as well as mould and mazing) This is just a backbones description of what I will add, I will improve it when I add it.

I'll add a second objection to

"… that the 3 smallest p4 spaceships are smaller than the smallest p4 oscillators?"

If I understand the rules correctly, that means that this item now won't be added in this form.

As confocaloid describes, there seems to be no way to tell what this item will look like when it is actually added. That wouldn't necessarily be a big problem in some cases, but here I can't actually think of a way to turn this into a nice clean simple Did-You-Know item. By the time all the links get added, or specific populations or bounding boxes got mentioned along with the names of all the objects being compared, it seems like it might end up a little too big and messy to work well as a Did-You-Know.

Maybe I'd change my opinion if I could see the actual proposed DYK, though. It's perfectly possible to create a final-form DYK item here on this forum thread, with links that go to all the same places that they'll go in the LifeWiki version.

Then, if people want to make suggestions for changes, they can modify the actual text and come up with a new candidate version, instead of having to figure out how to make objections to a vague proposal -- or having to wait and try to fix the actual version once it appears on the LifeWiki, if their objections don't end up getting addressed during the promised improvement process.

[Haycat2009]

Ummm…

…that the 3 smallest {{period|4}} spaceships ([[glider]], [[LWSS]] and [[MWSS]]) are smaller than the smallest p4 oscillators ([[mold]] and [[mazing]])?

Any edits to suggest?

[confocaloid]

…that the 3 smallest {{period|4}} spaceships ([[glider]], [[LWSS]] and [[MWSS]]) are smaller than the smallest p4 oscillators ([[mold]] and [[mazing]])?

That does not tell the whole story. How about HWSS? Why it was not mentioned along with the other three standard spaceships? Why the set of three (rather than four) smallest spaceships is supposed to be noteworthy to mention it in a DYK? Why the fact that those three are smaller than the smallest p4 oscillators is supposed to be noteworthy to mention that in a DYK? So many questions and so few answers.

Any edits to suggest?

Suggesting to avoid making any further edits along these lines, for now at least.

[Haycat2009]

That does not tell the whole story. How about HWSS? Why it was not mentioned along with the other three standard spaceships? ... So many questions and so few answers.

Well, spaceships tend to have a higher population than oscillators of the same period. If you do not believe me, there is 64P2H1V0 and blinker, 25P3H1V0.1 and caterer, caravan and pseudo-barberpole, and Loafer and burloafafrimeter

Well, I already answered that. Also, you just contradicted yourself.

[confocaloid]

Your proposed DYK does not answer the question "why any of this is supposed to be interesting?"

Instead, it just states

…that the 3 smallest {{period|4}} spaceships ([[glider]], [[LWSS]] and [[MWSS]]) are smaller than the smallest p4 oscillators ([[mold]] and [[mazing]])?

So what? The proposed DYK artificially singles out (excludes) HWSS, on the basis that it isn't smaller than the smallest period-4 oscillators. There is no intuitively clear reason to do that that I can see.

If a reader who sees this happened to already know about the four standard spaceships, then they'll probably notice that HWSS is not mentioned. So perhaps it isn't "smaller than the smallest p4 oscillators (mold and mazing)". Technically correct, but unsatisfying - why this is noteworthy? The proposed DYK does not answer that.

If a reader who sees this did not yet know about four standard spaceships, then they may get impression that "the 3 smallest period-4 spaceships" refers to some interesting set and there are no other similar spaceships of similar size. But that's false - HWSS is also a comparably small period-4 spaceship.

[azulavoir]

Maybe it could be "that mold and mazing, the smallest period 4 oscillators, are smaller than the heavyweight spaceship but larger than the other elementary spaceships, which are all also period 4?"