Page 1 of 2

### How about a unidimensional spaceship?

Posted: February 14th, 2016, 1:21 pm
It's still an open problem as to whether there exists a spaceship in B3/S23 which fits within a 1-by-N bounding box in one of its phases. Now, I'm convinced that the answer is 'yes', since there is no theoretical obstacle to the existence of such a thing. In particular, run the following pattern:

`x = 45, y = 13, rule = B3/S23bo\$2bo\$3o3\$3b2o\$2bo2bo3b3o2b3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3o\$3b2o3\$3o\$2bo\$bo!`

This begins as a symmetrical arrangement with two gliders incident upon a constellation of beehives and blinkers. In generation 12, the pattern is unidimensional, and then a fuse spontaneously ignites.

Now, it's conceivable that a more sophisticated arrangement of blinkers to the east of the fuse could be used to create a huge (messy) explosion generating horizontal *WSSes. With a couple of these reactions, one could conceive a method of generating slow salvos (similar to the unidirectional quadratic-growth pattern) which build a universal constructor capable of cleaning the mess and restoring the seeds in their original positions (except translated right, so it's a spaceship rather than an oscillator) and aiming perfectly synchronous gliders to simultaneously reignite them.

I guess a hacked apgsearch could be used to generate the blinker arrangements and test them for *WSS production.

### Re: How about a unidimensional spaceship?

Posted: February 14th, 2016, 1:35 pm
2016 needs to be the year we discover this. Maybe the engine:

`x = 8, y = 9, rule = B3/S23o\$b2o\$2o\$5b2o\$4bo2bo\$5b2o\$2o\$b2o\$o!`

EDIT: Cleanup:
`x = 13, y = 17, rule = B3/S232bo\$obo\$b2o3\$7bo\$5bobo\$6b2o2b2o\$9bo2bo\$6b2o2b2o\$5bobo\$7bo3\$b2o\$obo\$2bo!`

### Re: How about a unidimensional spaceship?

Posted: February 14th, 2016, 5:03 pm
drc wrote:2016 needs to be the year we discover this. Maybe the engine:

`x = 8, y = 9, rule = B3/S23o\$b2o\$2o\$5b2o\$4bo2bo\$5b2o\$2o\$b2o\$o!`

...except that can't be the reaction, because no phase of that is 1xN.

### Re: How about a unidimensional spaceship?

Posted: February 14th, 2016, 6:44 pm
drc wrote:2016 needs to be the year we discover this. Maybe the engine:

`x = 8, y = 9, rule = B3/S23o\$b2o\$2o\$5b2o\$4bo2bo\$5b2o\$2o\$b2o\$o!`

...except that can't be the reaction, because no phase of that is 1xN.

The gliders could come in from an external source, and the beehive is from four bytes

### Re: How about a unidimensional spaceship?

Posted: February 14th, 2016, 7:37 pm
drc wrote:
drc wrote:2016 needs to be the year we discover this. Maybe the engine:

`x = 8, y = 9, rule = B3/S23o\$b2o\$2o\$5b2o\$4bo2bo\$5b2o\$2o\$b2o\$o!`

...except that can't be the reaction, because no phase of that is 1xN.

The gliders could come in from an external source, and the beehive is from four bytes

An engine is a continually-occuring reaction that drives a spaceship. If a 1xN ship is being driven by repeated (with some period) hive-pushing, then the hive-pushing (however accomplished) must be done in a way that fits in a 1xN rectangle at some time T.
Running your reaction gives no such time.
Also, calcyman, are there larger 1xN "constellations" that produce gliders and other things cleanly, or are we stuck with building a spaceship out of TLs and blinker fuses?

### Re: How about a unidimensional spaceship?

Posted: February 14th, 2016, 7:47 pm
BlinkerSpawn wrote:An engine is a continually-occuring reaction that drives a spaceship. If a 1xN ship is being driven by repeated (with some period) hive-pushing, then the hive-pushing (however accomplished) must be done in a way that fits in a 1xN rectangle at some time T.
Running your reaction gives no such time.
Also, calcyman, are there larger 1xN "constellations" that produce gliders and other things cleanly, or are we stuck with building a spaceship out of TLs and blinker fuses?

Why do I even try to do anything anymore.

### Re: How about a unidimensional spaceship?

Posted: February 15th, 2016, 3:43 am
Besides the universal constructor itself, one would need a tape to run it on. Having the specifics in mind, that can be probably a series of blinkers, that suggests that the universal constructor itself should be a moving object, like the one that has been built for the strange loop.

In turn, it suggests that the cleanup should be done with *WSS rather than with gliders. Hmmm...

P. S. And then you would need a way to stop and self annihilate the universal constructor, rushing at c/2 and having nothing else than a dull line of blinkers in front of it.

P. P. S. And how would you duplicate the tape? No, this is not leading anywhere.

### Re: How about a unidimensional spaceship?

Posted: February 15th, 2016, 3:58 am
calcyman wrote:I guess a hacked apgsearch could be used to generate the blinker arrangements and test them for *WSS production.

A certainly sub-optimal MWSS result by a hacked apgsearch:
`x = 110, y = 1, rule = B3/S236o2b3ob3ob3ob3ob3o3b3o2b3o2b3o2b3ob3ob3ob3o2b3ob3ob3o2b3o2b3o4b3o3b3ob3ob3o3b3o!`

Another one:
`x = 83, y = 1, rule = B3/S236o2b3ob3ob3ob3ob3o2b3o3b3ob3o2b3ob3o3b3o4b3ob3ob3ob3o4b3o!`

### Re: How about a unidimensional spaceship?

Posted: February 15th, 2016, 7:49 am
Bullet51 wrote:Another one:

Very nice! It would be nicer to have one that's transparent in the sense that there are no debris blocking the MWSS lane.

And I suspect that a single such transparent MWSS-producing reaction would be sufficient for universal construction, since you could collide two simultaneously-produced MWSSes in opposite directions with odd spacing between them (which produces a pulsar of all things!) and collide further synchronised MWSSes with this pulsar to produce a glider (probably).

codeholic wrote:Besides the universal constructor itself, one would need a tape to run it on.

The tape can be taken to be part of the universal constructor.

And how would you duplicate the tape?

The actual information is encoded in the x-coordinates of the MWSS-producing islands along the horizontal axis, and that information needn't be duplicated. Instead, it just needs to be restored and translated, which can be done without much circuitry at all (just something to detect for the presence of an island and attack it with a suitable salvo of gliders).

### Re: How about a unidimensional spaceship?

Posted: February 15th, 2016, 2:47 pm
calcyman wrote:
Bullet51 wrote:Another one:

Very nice! It would be nicer to have one that's transparent in the sense that there are no debris blocking the MWSS lane.

Transparent and Chainable

Another important detail is that the faster-than-c/2 fuse has to restart at the far side of each *WSS-producing island. In the samples so far, the ash created by the death of the fuse seems to be needed for the spaceship-building reaction. Without some way to restart the faster-than-c/2 fuse, there won't be any opposing *WSSes (or even ash objects) for the generated *WSSes to hit.

A search for workable reactions will only have to continue until it finds one transparent eastward *WSS generator, and one transparent westward *WSS generator that can collide with the eastward *WSSess and produce gliders. It might be worth setting up an exhaustive enumeration instead of a randomized search, to keep from re-searching the same configurations thousands of times without knowing it.

Can It Be Done Without A Tape?

calcyman wrote:
codeholic wrote:Besides the universal constructor itself, one would need a tape to run it on.

The tape can be taken to be part of the universal constructor.

Ow! That's a bigger mental leap than I can make from a standing start. So the tape might just be a series of west *WSS-making islands, with construction or reconstruction information somehow encoded in the timing between the *WSSes?

That's doable, I suppose, but I don't really see why a tape is necessary. Seems like it would be simpler to use east-*WSS/west-*WSS collisions to build a WIRC and an EIRC (Westward Island Rebuilder Circuit and an Eastward Island Rebuilder Circuit). They'll inevitably be built in the middle of the spaceship, between the east-*WSS islands and the west-*WSS islands. They have to do completely different things to test the ash and rebuild the islands in each direction, so it seems like they might as well be separate mechanisms.

The WIRC and EIRC would run through open-ended test and rebuild cycles until the entire line of blinkers has been rebuilt at the correct offset. When the WIRC and EIRC both report that they've completed the reconstruction, their self-destruct mechanisms can be triggered, and the tail end of the self-destruction sends a signal out to the far edge of the spaceship, where the fuse has to be restarted.

Any small fixed-length part of the blinker line that can't be reconstructed (because the WIRC and EIRC circuitry gets in the way) could be restored by a freeze-dried slow salvo constructed at the same time as the WIRC and EIRC.

Isn't This Project About As Easy To Complete As Poundstone's Replicator?

I can see that this design is not entirely impossible, but as a self-construction project it looks like it will be easily several orders of magnitude harder than anything that's been done so far.

It's going to take a fairly large pile of constructible circuitry to successfully test the various types of burned out ash, and respond correctly to each possibility by rebuilding whatever was there at the correct offset. There are at least two kinds of burned out-ash for each [W|E]IRC to deal with -- *WSS island and clean blinker fuse -- and probably more.

Unless it turns out that monoparity collisions are sufficient for universal construction, it seems as if some kind of alternate fuse will have to be included, whenever the spacing between colliding *WSSes has to shift from odd to even or vice versa.

Then there will probably have to be another type of ash at each end of the blinker line, to tell the [W|E]IRC that the end of the line has been reached. Those markers will need different cleanup and reconstruction recipes -- which means even more complex logic circuitry.

I suppose an alternative would be to encode, let's say, a counting mechanism that runs the WIRC and EIRC for exactly 2^N cycles, and then stops... then pick the first N for which 2^N is slightly too big, and find NOP recipes to use up any extra cycles (e.g., *WSSes colliding to produce nothing). That would get rid of the end-of-line markers at the cost of a big 2^N counter... the trade might or might not be worth it.

Or, With Some Handwaving, We Could Find An Incredibly Amazing *WSS Salvo

The only way I can see to get rid of the O(n^2) test-and-response slowdown during the rebuild process, would be to build an improbably clever *WSS salvo, that rebuilds an *WSS island if it hits ash from and *WSS island, but otherwise just moves an elbow by four cells and adds another blinker to a clean blinker fuse... Then there wouldn't be any test-and-response slowdown -- could just send one test salvo after another, and arrange it so there are 2^N structures to absorb them all.

No doubt it can be proven that salvos like this exist, as a corollary to the old "... because universal replicators. Q.E.D." But I'm seriously skeptical that anyone could find such a salvo, that's small enough to make this 1xN spaceship problem any easier to solve in practice.

Summary: This Thing Would Not Be Small

I wouldn't expect that an actual 1xN spaceship pattern could be run through a full cycle in Golly, any time soon -- at least, not unless Golly adds a special custom algorithm for simulating 1xN spaceships. The rebuild stage will probably take at least O(n^2) time, where n is the number of *WSS pairs generating the slow salvo to construct the WIRC/EIRC.

Building a WIRC/EIRC/freeze-dried salvo for patching/self-destruct circuit combination is going to need a lot of *WSS pairs.

### Re: How about a unidimensional spaceship?

Posted: February 15th, 2016, 9:15 pm
Another important detail is that the faster-than-c/2 fuse has to restart at the far side of each *WSS-producing island. In the samples so far, the ash created by the death of the fuse seems to be needed for the spaceship-building reaction. Without some way to restart the faster-than-c/2 fuse, there won't be any opposing *WSSes (or even ash objects) for the generated *WSSes to hit.

You seem to be suggesting that we're only having one instance of the "2 gliders colliding with beehive" reaction. My idea was to have lots of copies of this reaction occurring simultaneously along the length of the spine. Of course this means that all of these copies need to be synchronised, but that can be accomplished easily enough with constellations of OTTs (which will necessarily all have been consumed by the time the gliders strike the beehives to enter Generation Zero, the only time when unidimensionality is necessary).

Ow! That's a bigger mental leap than I can make from a standing start. So the tape might just be a series of west *WSS-making islands,

Yes.

with construction or reconstruction information somehow encoded in the timing between the *WSSes?

No, the reconstruction information is encoded in the positions of the debris created from the *WSS-making islands.

But maybe a conventional tape (of well-separated blinkers) is easier, actually, as long as we have a symmetrical reaction which can non-destructively read it (translating the blinkers by some fixed displacement along the axis in the process). That way, we only have a bounded Firing Squad Synchronisation Problem since there are only a bounded number of *WSS-generating islands.

Anyway, I'm convinced that there does exist a (huge) unidimensional spaceship out there. And because it's such a well-defined problem (unlike building a replicator, where wars quickly ensue over the definition of a replicator), it seems so irresistible to pursue!

### Re: How about a unidimensional spaceship?

Posted: February 16th, 2016, 2:00 am
Is it possible to get anything out of:

`x = 83, y = 1, rule = B3/S236o2b3ob3ob3ob3ob3o2b3o3b3ob3o2b3ob3o3b3o4b3ob3ob3ob3o4b3o!`

`x = 211, y = 1, rule = B3/S236o2b3ob3ob3o2b3o7b3o2b3ob3ob3o4b3o4b3o2b3ob3ob3ob3ob3o4b3ob3ob3o16b3ob3ob3o2b3ob3o7b3ob3o4b3o4b3o7b3ob3ob3o7b3o2b3ob3o2b3ob3ob3o!`

or
`x = 160, y = 1, rule = B3/S236o2b3ob3ob3o2b3ob3o7b3ob3ob3o2b3ob3ob3ob3o4b3o2b3o2b3ob3ob3o11b3o11b3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3o!`

?

### Re: How about a unidimensional spaceship?

Posted: February 16th, 2016, 2:10 am
calcyman wrote:You seem to be suggesting that we're only having one instance of the "2 gliders colliding with beehive" reaction. My idea was to have lots of copies of this reaction occurring simultaneously along the length of the spine. Of course this means that all of these copies need to be synchronised, but that can be accomplished easily enough with constellations of OTTs (which will necessarily all have been consumed by the time the gliders strike the beehives to enter Generation Zero, the only time when unidimensionality is necessary).

So are you suggesting a separate 2G+B6->trigger reaction for every *WSS island?

If you're not suggesting that, then I don't see much advantage to having more than one instance. There will still have to be a transparent *WSS island that allows the fuse to continue -- at least one type of island for each direction.

If there is a separate 2G+B6->trigger for every *WSS island, well... that's a truly hideous number of OTTs to build. Look at Chris Cain's glider-to-weekender-to-glider converter, which synchronizes just 82 gliders. There would have to be a lot of signals bouncing back and forth between lots of OTTs, to give the furthestmostest signals time to get into position.

It seems likely to me that the blinker-line length savings that you can get with multiple 2G+B6->trigger would be more than counterbalanced by the cost of building all those OTTs in so many widely separated locations along the blinker line. Or maybe you could get a slightly shorter blinker line, but only at the cost of a much more complex design.

calcyman wrote:But maybe a conventional tape (of well-separated blinkers) is easier, actually, as long as we have a symmetrical reaction which can non-destructively read it (translating the blinkers by some fixed displacement along the axis in the process). That way, we only have a bounded Firing Squad Synchronisation Problem since there are only a bounded number of *WSS-generating islands.

Yes, 1 does seem like a really nice bounded number...

calcyman wrote:Anyway, I'm convinced that there does exist a (huge) unidimensional spaceship out there. And because it's such a well-defined problem (unlike building a replicator, where wars quickly ensue over the definition of a replicator), it seems so irresistible to pursue!

Well, at least the next stage of research is pretty obvious: either find, or don't find, a couple of blinker chains that produce transparent *WSSes in opposite directions... preferably with the option to re-ignite the 2c/3 blinker fuse on the far side of the island.

However, since you bring up the replicator definition wars:

With the appearance of the single-channel universal construction toolkit, it's now really fairly easy to build a quadratic-growth replicator that Golly can actually simulate. Even if you could find all the missing pieces to finish one of these 1xN spaceship monstrosities, I'm highly suspicious that it will turn out to be impossibly large and Golly won't be able to simulate a complete period.

As far as I'm aware, nobody has been able to think of any reason why a space-filling quadratic-growth pattern would fail to qualify as a replicator, as long as the entire pattern can always be subdivided into copies of (some phase of) the original pattern.

The current quadratic-Geminoid design seems to be even better than that: unlike in XOR-rule type replication, for any chosen n, a time Tn can always be found where the number of copies permanently exceeds n. EDIT: That would also be true for some settings of your BCC replicator-metacell design, which it might also be worth having a fresh look at in this brave new post-syringe single-channel-construction world...!

### Re: How about a unidimensional spaceship?

Posted: February 16th, 2016, 3:11 am
A transparent but not chainable reaction:
`x = 58, y = 1, rule = B3/S236o2b3ob3ob3o4b3o3b3ob3o3b3o3b3o3b3ob3o!`

A much more promising one:
`x = 185, y = 1, rule = B3/S236o2b3ob3ob3o2b3ob3ob3o3b3o2b3ob3ob3o10b3o2b3o2b3o3b3ob3o2b3o2b3o2b3o6b3ob3ob3o2b3ob3ob3ob3o2b3o2b3ob3o2b3ob3o2b3o3b3o2b3o2b3ob3ob3o!`

### Re: How about a unidimensional spaceship?

Posted: February 16th, 2016, 10:39 am
Bullet51 wrote:A transparent but not chainable reaction...
A much more promising one...

Yeah, the first option isn't much good. If a *WSS reaction produces NW or NE gliders, there's going to be no reliable way to catch them -- let's not get into shooting them down with other gliders or northward *WSS! So that would give, at best, a very messy very low-period rake, not a spaceship.

The second one is pretty good -- there's a block in the danger zone, but a following MWSS cleans it up if the spacing between MWSS islands is even. That's a pretty big restriction -- but if it turns out to be possible to get to universality with that restriction, the reconstruction phase would end up being a lot simpler!

### Re: How about a unidimensional spaceship?

Posted: February 19th, 2016, 8:09 am
There is an unconditionally transparent and chainable MWSS-generator:
`x = 480, y = 1, rule = B3/S236o2b3ob3ob3o2b3o3b3ob3ob3o3b3o2b3ob3ob3o10b3o2b3o2b3ob3o2b3o2b3o3b3o5b3ob3ob3o2b3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3o3b3o2b3ob3ob3o10b3o2b3o2b3ob3o2b3o2b3o3b3o5b3ob3ob3o2b3ob3ob3ob3o!`

Now efforts should be put on finding a backward-MWSS generator, probably by cleaning this with 2 gliders:
`x = 83, y = 1, rule = B3/S236o2b3ob3ob3ob3ob3o2b3o3b3ob3o2b3ob3o3b3o4b3ob3ob3ob3o4b3o!`

### Re: How about a unidimensional spaceship?

Posted: February 19th, 2016, 8:31 am
Bullet51 wrote:There is an unconditionally transparent and chainable MWSS-generator:
`x = 480, y = 1, rule = B3/S236o2b3ob3ob3o2b3o3b3ob3ob3o3b3o2b3ob3ob3o10b3o2b3o2b3ob3o2b3o2b3o3b3o5b3ob3ob3o2b3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3o3b3o2b3ob3ob3o10b3o2b3o2b3ob3o2b3o2b3o3b3o5b3ob3ob3o2b3ob3ob3ob3o!`

Beautiful!

### Re: How about a unidimensional spaceship?

Posted: February 19th, 2016, 10:02 am
Bullet51 wrote:Now efforts should be put on finding a backward-MWSS generator, probably by cleaning this with 2 gliders...

Completed:
`x = 352, y = 1, rule = B3/S236o2b3ob3ob3o2b3ob3o3b3o4b3ob3ob3ob3o4b3o5b3o8b3o2b3ob3ob3o4b3o2b3o2b3o3b3o2b3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3o6b3o2b3ob3ob3o2b3ob3o3b3o4b3ob3ob3ob3o4b3o5b3o8b3o2b3ob3ob3o4b3o2b3o2b3o3b3o2b3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3o2b3o!`

### Re: How about a unidimensional spaceship?

Posted: February 19th, 2016, 10:26 am
Okay, so you've more than certaintly considered this at one point, but would it be possible to lay blinkers ahead of the ship? I doubt this would be possible with gliders, since the only way a symmetrical collision of those could create blinkers is the interchange, which requires an even amount of space between the gliders and still is not 1 cell thick.

### Re: How about a unidimensional spaceship?

Posted: February 19th, 2016, 1:10 pm
muzik wrote:Okay, so you've more than certaintly considered this at one point, but would it be possible to lay blinkers ahead of the ship? I doubt this would be possible with gliders, since the only way a symmetrical collision of those could create blinkers is the interchange, which requires an even amount of space between the gliders and still is not 1 cell thick.

Correct, it's impossible to synthesise a blinker in empty space with a symmetrical glider collision without there being a pre-existing object (such as a blinker or beehive) on the horizontal axis.

The way that this will be accomplished is by having a blinker or beehive 'elbow' on the axis which can be shifted, duplicated and manipulated by symmetrical glider collisions.

### Re: How about a unidimensional spaceship?

Posted: February 20th, 2016, 10:55 pm
I did some work on this project. The pattern below contains five different recipes:

1. Parity changing MWSS recipe.
2. Parity preserving MWSS recipe.
3. Blinker pair (a.k.a. tall reflector).
4. Loaf pair (a.k.a. short reflector).
5. Blinker recipe (prevents extinction on axis of symmetry).

`x = 1432, y = 71, rule = LifeHistory1428.3A\$1427.5A\$1426.2A.3A\$1427.2A6\$1421.5A\$1421.A4.A\$1421.A\$1422.A3.A\$1424.A\$657.2A9.2A\$657.2A9.2A6\$1426.2A\$1425.2A.2A\$1426.4A\$1427.2A3\$1426.A2.A\$1425.A\$1425.A3.A\$1425.4A5\$6A2.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A3.3A2.3A.3A.3A10.3A2.3A.3A.3A9.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A3.3A2.3A.3A.3A10.3A2.3A3.3A2.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A3.3A2.3A2.3A7.3A2.3A3.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A3.3A7.3A2.3A2.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A3.3A5.3A11.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A3.3A93.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A.3A5\$1425.4A\$1425.A3.A\$1425.A\$1426.A2.A3\$1427.2A\$1426.4A\$1425.2A.2A\$1426.2A6\$657.2A9.2A\$657.2A9.2A\$1424.A\$1422.A3.A\$1421.A\$1421.A4.A\$1421.5A6\$1427.2A\$1426.2A.3A\$1427.5A\$1428.3A!`

Changing the distance between the reflectors will change the distance between the returned LWSSes. This information can be used to encode what type of recipe used to be at that location.

So can we make recipes for PULL, PUSH and FIRE with just these MWSS recipes?

### Re: How about a unidimensional spaceship?

Posted: February 21st, 2016, 5:01 am
What mechanisms exist for building blinkers on the axis? Everything that comes has to come from both sides symmetrically, and so won't cause births on axis unless there are already axis cells on. Are there recipes that show promise for going from a single blinker to one of the simple fuses shown?

### Re: How about a unidimensional spaceship?

Posted: February 21st, 2016, 6:33 am
What speed would these ships travel at?

### Re: How about a unidimensional spaceship?

Posted: February 21st, 2016, 7:30 am
biggiemac wrote:Are there recipes that show promise for going from a single blinker to one of the simple fuses shown?

There's a fairly nice blinker -> traffic light reaction so building the fuse should be possible but not exactly cheap:

`x = 234, y = 421, rule = B3/S23bo\$2bo\$3o3\$14bo\$15bo\$13b3o8\$23bo\$24bo\$22b3o5\$36bo\$37bo\$35b3o8\$45bo\$46bo\$44b3o22\$61bo\$62bo\$60b3o3\$74bo\$75bo\$73b3o8\$83bo\$84bo\$82b3o5\$96bo\$97bo\$95b3o8\$105bo\$106bo\$104b3o22\$121bo\$122bo\$120b3o3\$134bo\$135bo\$133b3o8\$143bo\$144bo\$142b3o5\$156bo\$157bo\$155b3o8\$165bo\$166bo\$164b3o22\$181bo\$182bo\$180b3o3\$194bo\$195bo\$193b3o8\$203bo\$204bo\$202b3o5\$216bo\$217bo\$215b3o8\$225bo\$226bo\$224b3o8\$231b3o8\$224b3o\$226bo\$225bo8\$215b3o\$217bo\$216bo5\$202b3o\$204bo\$203bo8\$193b3o\$195bo\$194bo3\$180b3o\$182bo\$181bo22\$164b3o\$166bo\$165bo8\$155b3o\$157bo\$156bo5\$142b3o\$144bo\$143bo8\$133b3o\$135bo\$134bo3\$120b3o\$122bo\$121bo22\$104b3o\$106bo\$105bo8\$95b3o\$97bo\$96bo5\$82b3o\$84bo\$83bo8\$73b3o\$75bo\$74bo3\$60b3o\$62bo\$61bo22\$44b3o\$46bo\$45bo8\$35b3o\$37bo\$36bo5\$22b3o\$24bo\$23bo8\$13b3o\$15bo\$14bo3\$3o\$2bo\$bo!`

muzik wrote:What speed would these ships travel at?

Very slow. I wouldn't like to speculate on a value for the period at the moment.

EDIT: Here is a 19c/28 blinker fuse that is both faster and less dense than the standard 2c/3 version. It could be fun to find something even better.

`x = 376, y = 1, rule = B3/S236o2b3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3o2b3o3b3ob3ob3o2b3o3b3ob3ob3o2b3o3b3ob3ob3o2b3o3b3ob3ob3o2b3o3b3ob3ob3o2b3o3b3ob3ob3o2b3o3b3ob3ob3o2b3o3b3ob3ob3o2b3o3b3ob3ob3o2b3o3b3ob3ob3o2b3o3b3ob3ob3o2b3o3b3ob3ob3o2b3o3b3ob3ob3o2b3o3b3ob3ob3o2b3o3b3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3ob3o!`

### Re: How about a unidimensional spaceship?

Posted: May 9th, 2016, 7:35 am
This could be used as the reaction for shifting/reading the tape at the front of the spaceship (if we decide to have a tape):

`x = 72, y = 39, rule = B3/S23obo57bobo\$b2o58b2o\$bo59bo13\$9bobo57bobo\$10b2o58b2o\$10bo59bo2\$15b3o2\$10bo59bo\$10b2o58b2o\$9bobo57bobo13\$bo59bo\$b2o58b2o\$obo57bobo!`

chris_c wrote:EDIT: Here is a 19c/28 blinker fuse that is both faster and less dense than the standard 2c/3 version. It could be fun to find something even better.

And the transitions between the 19c/28 and 4c/6 fuse segments are clean, which allows any spatial offset and even temporal offset between these two speeds. This should make synchronising *WSS salvos easier.