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

Slow-salvo recipes

For discussion of specific patterns or specific families of patterns, both newly-discovered and well-known.

Re: Slow-salvo recipes

Postby Kazyan » June 26th, 2017, 2:07 pm

simsim314 wrote:How about slow salvoing syringe?

We already have synth of syringe.


I think that if we are coming to lower-level optimizations like that, it would be better to run some in-depth searches for better dependent Herschel conduits instead. Much of the cost in these constructions comes from having to duct-tape an expensive and not-terribly-helpful conduit to the end of a dependent syringe.

Also, I notice the question "should we build this 41-cell still life with slow salvo?" is being taken seriously, which is pretty encouraging about the state of the technology. A couple of years ago, you'd be laughed out of the thread if your design needed a tub-with-tail.
Tanner Jacobi
User avatar
Kazyan
 
Posts: 685
Joined: February 6th, 2014, 11:02 pm

Re: Slow-salvo recipes

Postby dvgrn » June 26th, 2017, 2:29 pm

Kazyan wrote:I think that if we are coming to lower-level optimizations like that, it would be better to run some in-depth searches for better dependent Herschel conduits instead. Much of the cost in these constructions comes from having to duct-tape an expensive and not-terribly-helpful conduit to the end of a dependent syringe.

Heh, and if we're going to do that, it might be better to run new in-depth searches for a more Spartan G-to-H. Or really a Spartan G-to-2G would be even better, preferably with a color-changing 90-degree output. A construction arm doesn't even really need a Herschel stage at all any more (!).

A fast G-to-2G would make construction correspondingly more efficient. Something that can run at 43 ticks separation like the Snark does, would enormously enlarge the single-channel search space.

Kazyan wrote:Also, I notice the question "should we build this 41-cell still life with slow salvo?" is being taken seriously, which is pretty encouraging about the state of the technology. A couple of years ago, you'd be laughed out of the thread if your design needed a tub-with-tail.

Yes, and it seemed like everything that was any good needed a tub-with-tail somewhere. Very inconvenient. And that was when "any good" included designs with five or ten times as many still lifes as current designs.

Among several key improvements, slmake has been a really huge step forward -- including the searches that Calcyman ran behind the scenes to populate the data tables. And simeks' various single-channel searches have resulted in a construction arm that can fire just about equally well in eight different directions. That's a really new weird-and-wonderful feature that's only just starting to get explored in the new single-channel Demonoid.
dvgrn
Moderator
 
Posts: 3927
Joined: May 17th, 2009, 11:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Slow-salvo recipes

Postby Scorbie » June 26th, 2017, 3:09 pm

dvgrn wrote:
Kazyan wrote:Also, I notice the question "should we build this 41-cell still life with slow salvo?" is being taken seriously, which is pretty encouraging about the state of the technology. A couple of years ago, you'd be laughed out of the thread if your design needed a tub-with-tail.
Yes, and it seemed like everything that was any good needed a tub-with-tail somewhere. Very inconvenient. And that was when "any good" included designs with five or ten times as many still lifes as current designs.
Huh... I remember me and others saying, when the syringe was first found, that an eater2 *might* be slow-salvo constructed someday...! Slow-salvo tech evolves really quickly, I would say. I think the miraculous eater -> pre- snark catalyst component found by Catagolue also deserves a mention...
Best wishes to you, Scorbie
User avatar
Scorbie
 
Posts: 1322
Joined: December 7th, 2013, 1:05 am

Re: Slow-salvo recipes

Postby dvgrn » June 26th, 2017, 3:41 pm

Scorbie wrote:Huh... I remember me and others saying, when the syringe was first found, that an eater2 *might* be slow-salvo constructed someday...! Slow-salvo tech evolves really quickly, I would say.

I remember thinking that an eater2 technically could be done, but I imagined that the construction envelope would always be so huge that other pieces of circuitry would have to be painfully worked in around the eater2 after it was built, turning a simple back-to-front construction process into a total nightmare.

My imagination was a little bit misinformed by this constellation from Golly's Patterns/Life/Syntheses/blockish-and-blockic-seeds.rle, which was my attempt at a slow-salvo-compatible eater2 seed ten years ago:

x = 196, y = 197, rule = B3/S23
155b2o$155b2o4$153b2o$153b2o2$153b2o$153b2o6$42b2o$42b2o$148b2o$148b2o
$49b2o$49b2o10b2o$61b2o4b2o32b2o43b2ob2o$67b2o10b2o20b2o43b2ob2o$79b2o
$49b2o$49b2o45b2o52b2o$67b2o27b2o52b2o$41b2o3b2o19b2o75b2o$24b2o15b2o
3b2o96b2o$12b2o10b2o$12b2o3$24b2o$24b2o2$52b2o103b2o16b2ob2o$52b2o10b
2o87b2o2b2o16b2ob2o$64b2o87b2o28b2o$183b2o2$43b2o3b2o2b2o$10b2o3b2o26b
2o3b2o2b2o91b2o$10b2o3b2o128b2o$104b2o$104b2o2$180b2o$116b2o62b2o$31b
2o3b2o66b2o10b2o51b2o$31b2o3b2o66b2o63b2o2$77b2o$44b2o31b2o101b2o$11b
2o31b2o134b2o$11b2o49b2o$62b2o22b2o$86b2o2$67b2o$67b2o$32b2o$32b2o$14b
2o3b2o$14b2o3b2o$83b2o$83b2o2$45b2o$45b2o8b2ob2o$55b2ob2o35b2o$95b2o2$
54b2o$54b2o126b2o$15b2o69b2o94b2o$15b2o69b2o18b2o$106b2o2$187b2o$87b2o
98b2o$87b2o$119b2o$119b2o65b2ob2o$44b2o140b2ob2o$44b2o64b2o$110b2o$
126b2o57b2o$125bo2bo56b2o$31b2o43b2o48b2o$31b2o4b2o37b2o$37b2o3$116bo$
115bobo$82b2o31bobo$82b2o32bo4b2o11bo$121b2o10bobo$133bobo$134bo2$81b
2o$81b2o$46b2o$46b2o75b2o48b2o3b2o$122bo2bo47b2o3b2o$123b2o6b2o$130bo
2bo$131b2o2$52b2o6b2o$52b2o6b2o$66b2o16b2o47b2o$66b2o16b2o10b2o35b2o7b
o$70b2o24b2o16b2o25bobo$66b2o2b2o41bo2bo24bobo$5b2o44b2o9b2o2b2o46b2o
26bo34b2o$5b2o3b2o39b2o9b2o20b2o38b2o51b2o$10b2o72b2o38b2o3$104bo61b2o
$103bobo60b2o$82b2o19bobo49b2o$82b2o2b2o16bo17bo11b2o19b2o$2o84b2o33bo
bo9bo2bo$2o88b2o29bobo10b2o$90b2o21b2o7bo$113b2o42b2o$157b2o3$111b2o$
110bo2bo$111b2o$124b2o3b2o12b2o$124b2o3b2o12b2o8$38b2o$38b2o2$128b2o9b
2o3b2o$50b2o76b2o9b2o3b2o$38b2o10b2o$38b2o$60b2o$60b2o$54b2o$18b2o34b
2o$18b2o2b2o26b2o66b2o3b2o$22b2o2b2o22b2o2b2o62b2o3b2o$26b2o26b2o2b2o$
58b2o$19b2o106b2o$19b2o106b2o3$64b2o73b2o$64b2o61b2o10b2o$70b2o55b2o$
70b2o$119b2o$119b2o$66b2ob2o$66b2ob2o3$68b2o$68b2o3$193b3o$193bo$194bo
7$56b2o$56b2o3$55b2o$55b2o2$59b2o$54b2o3b2o$54b2o!
#C [[ STEP 9 ]]

That's a glider plus 11 beehives and 135 blocks, and a very large amount of territory. The cost has come down quite a bit since then...!

It would be amusing to compile this constellation -- the resulting recipe might end up being longer than the recipe for the entire single-channel Demonoid. Anyone need a little practice with slmake?

By the way, there's a new note in the link about a two-bit fix to slmake source code, that makes compilation quite a bit faster and the output recipes more efficient, at least in some cases.
dvgrn
Moderator
 
Posts: 3927
Joined: May 17th, 2009, 11:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Slow-salvo recipes

Postby gmc_nxtman » June 27th, 2017, 9:27 pm

Although this doesn't really have any application, 37-glider and 34-glider recipes for backward and forward HWSS-on-HWSS #1s, respectively:

x = 8904, y = 4608, rule = B3/S23
b2o4632b2o$b2o4628b2ob2o$4631b2o3bo$bo$2o$obo123$4763b2o$4762b2o$4764b
o$126bo$125b2o$125bobo123$4878b3o$4878bo$4879bo2$247b3o$247bo$248bo
122$5019b2o$5018b2o$5020bo$386bo$385b2o$385bobo123$5145b3o$5145bo$
5146bo$510bo$509b2o$509bobo123$5264b3o$5264bo$5265bo$643bo$642b2o$642b
obo123$5393b2o$5392b2o$5394bo$770bo$769b2o$769bobo123$5521b2o$5520b2o$
5522bo2$879b3o$879bo$880bo122$5634b2o$5633b2o$5635bo2$1008b3o$1008bo$
1009bo122$5766b3o$5766bo$5767bo$1125bo$1124b2o$1124bobo123$5885b2o$
5884b2o$5886bo$1244bo$1243b2o$1243bobo123$6030b3o$6030bo$6031bo2$1392b
3o$1392bo$1393bo122$6167b3o$6167bo$6168bo$1520bo$1519b2o$1519bobo123$
6305b3o$6305bo$6306bo$1655bo$1654b2o$1654bobo123$6435b2o$6434b2o$6436b
o$1780bo$1779b2o$1779bobo123$6548b3o$6548bo$6549bo$1901bo$1900b2o$
1900bobo123$6684b3o$6684bo$6685bo$2040bo$2039b2o$2039bobo123$6806b3o$
6806bo$6807bo$2160bo$2159b2o$2159bobo123$6923b3o$6923bo$6924bo$2277bo$
2276b2o$2276bobo123$7051b3o$7051bo$7052bo$2412bo$2411b2o$2411bobo123$
7172b2o$7171b2o$7173bo$2537bo$2536b2o$2536bobo123$7299b3o$7299bo$7300b
o$2661bo$2660b2o$2660bobo123$7437b2o$7436b2o$7438bo2$2792b3o$2792bo$
2793bo122$7567b2o$7566b2o$7568bo2$2937b3o$2937bo$2938bo122$7693b3o$
7693bo$7694bo2$3051b3o$3051bo$3052bo122$7818b3o$7818bo$7819bo$3170bo$
3169b2o$3169bobo123$7946b3o$7946bo$7947bo$3315bo$3314b2o$3314bobo123$
8072b2o$8071b2o$8073bo2$3449b3o$3449bo$3450bo122$8207b2o$8206b2o$8208b
o2$3574b3o$3574bo$3575bo122$8330b3o$8330bo$8331bo2$3707b3o$3707bo$
3708bo122$8462b3o$8462bo$8463bo$3839bo$3838b2o$3838bobo123$8584b2o$
8583b2o$8585bo2$3948b3o$3948bo$3949bo122$8744b3o$8744bo$8745bo$4074bo$
4073b2o$4073bobo126$4212bo$4211b2o$4211bobo25$8901b3o$8901bo$8902bo99$
4344bo$4343b2o$4343bobo126$4472bo$4471b2o$4471bobo120$4613bo$4612b2o$
4612bobo!
User avatar
gmc_nxtman
 
Posts: 1043
Joined: May 26th, 2015, 7:20 pm

Re: Slow-salvo recipes

Postby simsim314 » July 2nd, 2017, 3:38 am

Kazyan wrote:I think that if we are coming to lower-level optimizations like that, it would be better to run some in-depth searches for better dependent Herschel conduits instead.


I remember making some work to optimize dependent conduits that could make optimal self constructible glider duplicator, and I found few but it was harder and rarer than it looks. I always support more elementary conduit search, but I would also suggest for now to stick with what we have - and make the best of it.

dvgrn wrote:and if we're going to do that, it might be better to run new in-depth searches for a more Spartan G-to-H. Or really a Spartan G-to-2G would be even better, preferably with a color-changing 90-degree output.


For a while now I have an idea how to improve spartan searches. As we all know spartan circuit can sacrifice a SL and return it a while afterwards. This trick can be installed into the search utility itself (not being obsessive in returning the SL which was lost). We also can sacrifice another SL while returning the previous one. Those two combined should give explosion in spartan circuitry (especially if we allow two or three sacrifices).

Another idea is to evaluate the probability of returning a SL, and cut the low probability brunches of the search tree. Maybe we can use some learning systems to evaluate this probability, or have something like entropy measure, which states that circuits with many "valid" continuations are better.

We also need to remember that we want recovery time to be much less than 90 - maybe around 50, this could give much deeper trees instead of shallow and wide ones (the width will come from sacrifice instead of useless search brunches).


Edit
dvgrn wrote:how much easier does the construction problem get if we're allowed to use synchronized pairs of gliders, like in the original Gemini?



I was thinking about this question - and my conclusion was that you need to have it twice faster at least because you now have two conduits instead of one, you also need to synchronize streams or have it twice slower - and slow salvo is comparable to all these alternatives.

Another question is whether simeks single arm recipes are the best option?

Anyway I like our current minimalistic design as it's elegant on its own right, single stream that allows snarks it's cool on its own.
User avatar
simsim314
 
Posts: 1516
Joined: February 10th, 2014, 1:27 pm

Re: Slow-salvo recipes

Postby dvgrn » July 2nd, 2017, 12:07 pm

simsim314 wrote:Another question is whether simeks single arm recipes are the best option?

Eventually I think the single-channel elbow-op libraries are going to get a lot bigger and more efficient. Right now everything we're doing starts from one of two elbow locations -- a SPEBOE (Standard Pi-Explodable Block Or Equivalent) -- and gliders come in singletons or pairs only.

It seems quite possible that going back to a block between every recipe is really unnecessary. Instead it should be possible to start from the random junk left immediately after a glider is emitted, and search directly for the cheapest way to get the next desired glider output.

At the very least we could have a lot more different elbows, along the lines of the large collection we ended up with for the 10hd Demonoid project. Seems like some honeyfarm positions might allow for a more compact toolkit with a much narrower and shorter reaction envelope than starting with a pi explosion. I've been thinking about this because of Scorbie's new Hashlife-friendly Demonoid, where we either have to increase the spacing to 128hd instead of 64hd, or we have to be very careful about what 0-degree recipes we use to build the construction-arm Snark.

A new, much shorter Snarkmaker recipe might be an interesting initial challenge for this kind of direct search for a long series of 0-degree glider outputs, with no requirement that there be a clean elbow block between every glider output.

It might be good to check after every glider output that it's possible to get back to an elbow. That way it's impossible for the search tree to run out of branches. But it seems unlikely that the most efficient recipe would actually use branches that lead back to elbows, very often at all.
dvgrn
Moderator
 
Posts: 3927
Joined: May 17th, 2009, 11:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Slow-salvo recipes

Postby dvgrn » July 2nd, 2017, 11:13 pm

simsim314 wrote:
dvgrn wrote:how much easier does the construction problem get if we're allowed to use synchronized pairs of gliders, like in the original Gemini?

I was thinking about this question - and my conclusion was that you need to have it twice faster at least because you now have two conduits instead of one, you also need to synchronize streams or have it twice slower - and slow salvo is comparable to all these alternatives.

I suppose "comparable" is about right. Synchronized pairs of gliders are just about four times as efficient as slow salvos, from the examples that we have so far.

I thought it would be more like eight or ten times as efficient, but here are the statistics I collected:

The old Gemini spaceship uses 8,788 gliders to build 2,732 still lifes (1705 eaters, 920 blocks, 92 beehives, 9 boats, and 7 tubs).

That's a ratio of just a little more than 3:1, gliders to target objects -- pretty good!

(Gemini also has 155,873 recipe-stream gliders encoding those 8,788 gliders, but that's not relevant here. The first-stage encoding system was really inefficient, but the second stage was better than we've managed since in anything besides the HBK gun and Paul Tooke's Pianola breeders.)

The 0hd Demonoid spaceship builds 44 still lifes with a simple slow salvo from the construction arm, consisting of 542 gliders. That's a little more than 12:1, gliders to target objects -- so about four times less efficient than glider-pair slow salvos. I built that salvo by hand to make it as efficient as I could; not sure if slmake is doing better or worse than that on average, but it will be easy to check.

The Demonoid should get some credit for having to build a beehive-with-tail and an eater2, but that's only two of the 44 still lifes -- and it seems to me that slightly rare still lifes like that might get the biggest improvement from having synchronized gliders coming from two directions, if people decided it was worth spending some time puzzling out those recipes.

Now, we know from elsewhere that 0hd is also over twice as efficient as single-channel at encoding below-the-elbow gliders using above-the-elbow gliders, so there's that to take into account. But that doesn't really make a difference for deciding the slow-salvo versus slow-pair question.
dvgrn
Moderator
 
Posts: 3927
Joined: May 17th, 2009, 11:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Slow-salvo recipes

Postby BlinkerSpawn » July 2nd, 2017, 11:24 pm

Just out of curiosity, what would a two-arm constructor using modern technology look like?
LifeWiki: Like Wikipedia but with more spaceships. [citation needed]
User avatar
BlinkerSpawn
 
Posts: 1445
Joined: November 8th, 2014, 8:48 pm
Location: Getting a snacker from R-Bee's

Re: Slow-salvo recipes

Postby dvgrn » July 3rd, 2017, 8:58 am

BlinkerSpawn wrote:Just out of curiosity, what would a two-arm constructor using modern technology look like?

It's not entirely clear yet, but it looks like we'd need two separate streams of single-channel gliders from somewhere. It would be nice to be able to encode them in a single stream, since Snarks can reflect gliders down to 43-tick separation and we're stuck with 90-tick separation for syringes anyway. But that would turn out to be awkward for several reasons, not just the obvious one that we don't have a G-to-2G splitter that works at 43-tick separation.

So -- two streams of gliders going into the constructor, and two streams coming out, with as little signal crossing as possible. Maybe two diamond-shaped loops next to each other, each made with three Snarks and one of Scorbie's G-to-2Gs?

Constructor vs. Self-Constructor
A lot is going to depend on the application. If we're just building something simple, like say a spaceship gun along the lines of the HBK gun for example, then that's all the structure that's needed. For something self-constructing like a quadratic replicator, it seems like a lot of extra circuitry will be needed to synchronize the replication of the two separate loops.

Any extra circuitry tends into eat into the efficiency advantage that two-arm self-constructors have over slow-salvo single channel. It looks like the advantage only adds up to a factor of two or so, in the best case. So it's very tempting to stick with the single-arm designs that we already have some experience with.

A Sneaky Workaround?
If we want to build something that's really difficult with a unidirectional slow salvo and a lot easier with slow pairs, it may now be possible to have the best of both worlds -- a single recipe loop storing slow-pair constructions. It takes a significant investment, though:

1) build a Cordership seed and launch a Cordership;
2) after a long time, use 0-degree gliders to send a signal to stop the Cordership and make a faraway elbow;
3) the Cordership-stopper recipe should also return a glider toward the recipe source;
4) knock out the 0-degree elbow and send a recipe to use the faraway elbow to build a Snark and a new elbow;
5) follow that with a recipe that sends half of a slow-pair recipe back from the faraway elbow;
6) use the return-glider signal from #3 plus a strategic piece of local junk to get a new local elbow;
7) use the local elbow to build a Snark;
8) send the other half of the glider-pair recipe to meet the first half coming back from far away.
9) construct whatever difficult thing it is that can't be done without slow glider pairs.
10) ... profit?

Another option
It almost seems like we might as well develop freeze-dried synchronized salvos instead. With those, we wouldn't be limited to slow pairs.

Given enough room around the construction site, we could directly create any classic synchronized recipe, with gliders and *WSSes coming in from any direction. In some cases it might even be cheaper, all things considered, than all that messing around with Corderships.
dvgrn
Moderator
 
Posts: 3927
Joined: May 17th, 2009, 11:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Slow-salvo recipes

Postby dvgrn » July 16th, 2017, 2:36 pm

dvgrn wrote:
BlinkerSpawn wrote:Just out of curiosity, what would a two-arm constructor using modern technology look like?

It's not entirely clear yet...

Writing up this answer got me thinking. A lot of the 0hd Demonoid's efficiency comes from its ability to use the same glider stream in two different ways. Is there a geometry that might allow a similar trick for an oblique spaceship?

For example, could the foremost of two 180-degree reflectors provide one half of a Gemini-style glider-pair construction, while the second reflector (which used to be the first reflector one cycle ago) is reconfigured to change direction by 90 degrees and produce the other half of each glider pair?

Another topic that maybe belongs on this thread is elbowless slow salvos. These are just hypothetical at the moment, but it seems pretty clear that they would work, for outputs in any of the eight directions, and they should be a good bit cheaper than using elbows. Once a recipe is found, that is -- each recipe would need a custom search to find, and that's pretty darn expensive. Might be worth trying for something like the Snarkmaker recipe, though...?
dvgrn
Moderator
 
Posts: 3927
Joined: May 17th, 2009, 11:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Slow-salvo recipes

Postby dvgrn » July 31st, 2017, 4:38 pm

dvgrn wrote:90-tick recovery circuitry is still scarce...
Other dependent conduits besides the Lx200 take 115 or more ticks to recover. Or the recovery time goes up to 153 ticks if we use a cheap R64 to bend the output Herschel back after an Lx200. The "correction" circuitry piles up really quickly...

Come to think of it, this points out an alternate slow-salvo challenge that might be easier to tackle/cheaper/smaller construction envelope than a standard syringe.

Is there any variant of the old 7x9 sidesnagger eater, that might have workable slow salvo construction recipes for all orientations?

Code: Select all
x = 31, y = 31, rule = LifeHistory
2$15.2A$14.B2A2B3.2A$15.4B2.B2AB$11.B.6B3.2B$9.10B2.2B$9.11B2A2B$8.
12B2A3B.B$8.18B2A$9.15B.B2A$8.15B3.B$6.17B$4.18B$4.2BE15B$3.3BEBE4B.
7B$4.2B3E4B2.6B$3.5BE4B2.7B$2.10B4.6B$.4B10.6B$4B11.6B$3B5.2A.2A.8B$
2B5.A.A.A.A8B$B6.A.A.BA2B.6B$6.2A.A2.2B2.2B3D2B$5.A3.2A.B3.2BD4B$6.A.
A2.A.A2.B3D4B$5.2A.2A2.2A2.8B$16.8B$16.8B$17.7B!
#C [[ THUMBNAIL THUMBSIZE 2 STOP 111 ]]

It would be nice to be able to add the R64 to the list of constructible conduits that can be used in single-channel circuitry.

The standard syringe is probably ten or a hundred times more useful, though. So maybe the 7x9 eater is a "worthwhile" project only if it comes in at a small fraction of the cost of a slow-salvo syringe.
dvgrn
Moderator
 
Posts: 3927
Joined: May 17th, 2009, 11:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Slow-salvo recipes

Postby gmc_nxtman » July 31st, 2017, 5:07 pm

I believe Extrementhusiast's synthesis based on work on the AK-47 catalyst is about the closest we can get at the moment:

x = 114, y = 43, rule = B3/S23
41bo$42b2o$41b2o2$47bo$47bobo$47b2o$44bo$15bo29b2o49b2o$16b2o26b2o49bo
2bo$15b2o79b2o$19bo22bo39bobo$18bo24bo8bo29b2o$18b3o20b3o6b2o24bo6bo$
51b2o23bobo$obo68bo4b2o$b2o20bo46bo9bo30b2o$bo21bobo44b3o6bobo24b2o2bo
2bo$15bo7b2o54b2o3b3o14b2o3bobo2b2o$16b2o20bo6b2o19b3o8b2o5bo16bo7b2o$
15b2o21b2o6bo7b2o12bo9bo6bo13b3o8bo$37bobo3bo2bob2o3b2o12bo7bo2bob2o
25bo2bob2o$4b3o6b2o27bobobo2bo5bo18bobobo2bo24bobobo2bo$6bo5bobo28b2ob
2o27b2ob2o27b2ob2o$5bo8bo3$12bo98bo$11b2o98b3o$4b3o4bobo97bobo$6bo106b
o$5bo3$92b2o$92b2o$98b2o$98b2o3$96b2o$96b2o5b2o$103b2o!


EDIT: Some reactions that might lead to slow-salvo eater-to-integral recipes:

x = 74, y = 18, rule = B3/S23
71bo$2b2o30b2o7b2o21b2o2bob2o$2bo3b3o25bo7bobo21bo3bo$obo29bobo8bo20bo
bo4b3o$2o7b3o20b2o30b2o$8bo3bo57bo$8bo3bo31b3o22bobo$8bo3bo30bo3bo22b
2o$9b3o30bo5bo$41bo3bo3bo$6b2o33bo2bobo2bo$6bobo32bo3bo3bo$7bo34bo5bo$
43bo3bo$44b3o2$47b2o$47b2o!
User avatar
gmc_nxtman
 
Posts: 1043
Joined: May 26th, 2015, 7:20 pm

Previous

Return to Patterns

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests