ConwayLife.com

HerscheltheHerschel wrote: ↑

February 12th, 2024, 8:06 am

I need apgsearch for windows precompiled to search xfactorio/C1, xfactorio/D8_1, B3S23/D8_1, and B3S23/Pseudo-C1.

confocaloid wrote: ↑

February 9th, 2024, 2:02 am

I'd say it would be better to investigate the problem to understand why you cannot compile apgsearch for yourself, instead of having to distribute lots of binaries for different rulesym combinations.

confocaloid wrote: ↑

February 9th, 2024, 5:59 am

Did you look through Tutorials/Contributing to Catagolue / try the steps listed there?

HerscheltheHerschel wrote: ↑

February 12th, 2024, 8:06 am

(This is unrelated to the python script request above)
I need apgsearch for windows precompiled to search xfactorio/C1, xfactorio/D8_1, B3S23/D8_1, and B3S23/Pseudo-C1.

I built Windows executables of apgluxe for B3/S23 for all standard symmetries some years ago, but they should still work well. You can find them here.

For the other requests:
a) what is Pseudo-C1?
b) I no longer have the environment I used to build them, so I can't help your other requests
c) I agree with confocaloid - If you're interested in running CA search programs then you would be a lot better off investing a bit of time in setting up your own build environment. I find WSL a very convenient way to do this on Windows. It does take a while to get used to the Linux command line but it's well worth it. I posted a minimal set of instructions for someone else (RE ikpx2 which requires Lifelib) which you can use to get up and searching.

If pseudo_C1 was referring to this, then it requires the python script apgsearch(requires python 2 and golly 3.3 or before). You should be able to find it on the forums. Then I’m pretty sure you can modify a settings that contains the substring “pseudo” in it; there’s a few places where you will need to modify the script so that it allows the symmetry specified, and that’s it.
Edit: maybe this can be done in newer versions with another approach, I am not sure.

A script that analyzes an image that a newcomer posts from the playgameoflife website and converts it to RLE.

How about a script that can "identify" one-dimensional replicators, much like oscar.lua? We have a big enough sample size in the form of the 1D replicator collection zip, and it'd come in handy for some recent automated search jobs that have provided far too many results to be raked through manually.

Go through the Catagolue gun census. For 4-digit periods that are a 3-smooth number times a number under 1000, automatically add semi/tremi/quadri-snarks to the 3-digit periods to create the 4-digit period if it would result in a reduction. If there is currently no gun for the specified 4-digit number, don't do anything; this is for fixing sub-optimal guns that don't normally get checked, not for adding new entries to the database.

hotdogPi wrote: ↑

May 8th, 2024, 8:41 am

For 4-digit periods that are a 3-smooth number times a number under 1000, automatically add semi/tremi/quadri-snarks to the 3-digit periods to create the 4-digit period if it would result in a reduction...

"Automatically" is going to be kind of a tall order, isn't it? Or rather, we could automatically build working guns, but they mostly won't be optimal -- custom welding tricks will sometimes help, or sometimes the base gun will have a Herschel factory that can be period-multiplied at a lower cost than using *i-Snarks -- or sometimes a different glider output from the one that the base gun uses will turn out to work better, etc., etc.

When Chris Cain was keeping track of the gun collection, there was a category at the bottom called "tentative guns" -- something along the lines of "calculations say that building this using such-and-such gun family might improve on what we have, at least if the welds and glider crossings and so on happen to work out just right". When one of those guns got built, it would get removed from the "tentative" list, and would get added to the "confirmed" list if it did in fact break a record.

Maybe this hypothetical script should just attempt a survey along these lines, rather than actually trying to build the "tentative guns" in question? Could just provide the raw materials -- the current optimized base gun, and relevant options for period multipliers. We've probably got enough gun-building experts these days that we could collectively make short work of a checklist of hopeful candidates, once we know where to look for sub-optimal stuff.

Also is there a reason not to go after 5-smooth numbers while we're at it?