Can we substantiate this claim?

[dvgrn]

... perhaps the entire sentence should be removed, as a dubious claim which does not add anything relevant to the knowledge about the article topic.

I'll try that. In the context of the sentence, adding the actual name didn't seem like a problem -- the same information was instantly available from the footnote. But the whole sentence did seem a little dubious to me. Maybe it's kind of a fun piece of trivia about that particular oscillator, but it's also potentially a little bit awkward, as you describe.

See for example MOS:NOSECTIONLINKS on Wikipedia: (I highlighted the directly-relevant part)

A Wikipedia style guide doesn't necessarily seem relevant to a LifeWiki formatting question. Do we have anything about not using links on headings in LifeWiki editing guidelines? I've done a couple of searches but haven't found anything.

The LW:WIKIPEDIA "In general, if there is not a policy or guideline that covers a particular situation at LifeWiki, then the corresponding Wikipedia policy or guideline should be used" seems like a somewhat unclear source of authority, given the widespread existing usage in "Commonness" headings.

It's interesting that Wikipedia really really doesn't like links to parts of headings, though. I'll go ahead and make that adjustment in the Pulsar quadrant article for now, and see if anyone wants to start a LifeWiki Discussion thread about these various existing linked headers. The "Commonness" linked header seems perfectly fine and useful to me.

Once the whole "LCM oscillators" header is linked, it seems like it might be in the same category -- the text below those headers won't necessarily have the words "commonnness" or "LCM oscillators", so it's simpler to link the words where they currently appear. If these are standard references across many articles (notice there's also an "LCM oscillators" heading in the p76 pi-heptomino hassler article, for example) then linking the header provides a nice easy standard quick jump to that reference material.

[confocaloid]

LifeWiki:Style guide says

LifeWiki's style guide is designed to maintain consistency throughout the site. Since editors from all over the world can make modifications and additions to LifeWiki's articles, it is important for the project to have a uniform format and style. This article summarizes our recommended style guidelines that apply to all articles written on the site. Articles that follow these guidelines are more likely to be well-received by the rest of the community, and will require other editors to spend less time cleaning them up.
[...]
Cross links between wiki pages are important navigational tools, allowing the reader to easily follow up on interesting points and find more detailed information. However, it is possible to fill a page with too many links. [...]

Links to other articles should only be created when they are relevant to the content, and will be helpful and informative to the reader. Creating too many links can distract the reader and make the article hard to read; some readers are likely to pause on each link to determine whether the link is of interest. [...]

and directly links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style for more information. The latter explicitly says that links should not appear in section headings.

One of problems with links inside headings is that they are essentially distracting visual clutter.
Aiming for a uniform format and style means that headings should not contain any markup. Otherwise they will contain markup sometimes but not other times, which is a failure to be consistent.

A different problem can be seen in the edit summary here: https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=137243 - section links can break when the linked section contains a link in its heading.

[...]

See for example MOS:NOSECTIONLINKS on Wikipedia: (I highlighted the directly-relevant part)

A Wikipedia style guide doesn't necessarily seem relevant to a LifeWiki formatting question. Do we have anything about not using links on headings in LifeWiki editing guidelines? I've done a couple of searches but haven't found anything.

The LW:WIKIPEDIA "In general, if there is not a policy or guideline that covers a particular situation at LifeWiki, then the corresponding Wikipedia policy or guideline should be used" seems like a somewhat unclear source of authority, given the widespread existing usage in "Commonness" headings. [...]

[hotdogPi]

It has been proven that B23 rules without S0 cannot support spaceships,[citation needed] however examples are known in the ten rules B2367(8)/S2467(8), B235(78)/S14678, and B2357(8)/S3678 (where transitions in brackets are optional). All known are photons.

Both statements cannot be true.

[DroneBetter]

It has been proven that B23 rules without S0 cannot support spaceships,[citation needed] however examples are known in the ten rules B2367(8)/S2467(8), B235(78)/S14678, and B2357(8)/S3678 (where transitions in brackets are optional). All known are photons.

Both statements cannot be true.

I am very sorry about this mistake, it arose from my referencing of my diagram, File:OT map (Gray, speed colouring) (annotated).png, in writing it, which had the S0 presence indicator the wrong way around in the B0-less left half. It should actually be "B23 rules with S0 cannot support spaceships," I was not thinking.

I think LaundryPizza03 proved this, since they appear to have taken it as a given here, though I would like an explicit citation to put on the claim and in Spaceship#In_other_rules.

[confocaloid]

Sounds like the name in question was mentioned by 'jestlute' back in November 2022, when discussing possible names for a recently populari(s|z)ed catalyst. And then it was added by someone else a few days later. Anyone got more details on this one?

Special:Log?page=Lambunctious+Larry

m (Add note. Who coined this funny name?)

Code: Select all

5c5
< * [[Lambunctious Larry]]{{citation needed}}
---
> * [[Lambunctious Larry]], an alternative name for Chucklebait.{{citation needed}}

(Create page to reduce confusion)

Code: Select all

#REDIRECT [[Chucklebait]]

Code: Select all

---
id: 1045127034625597480
author: [866749792214581249, 'hotdogpi']
time: Thu Nov 24 00:01:42 2022 UTC
edited: 1669248108.126
content:
and we have another p11 thumb in <#883375754879041576>
---
id: 1045100722754175047
author: [461357944982863883, 'vivi__mouse']
time: Wed Nov 23 22:17:09 2022 UTC
content:
lambda unctious
---
id: 1045087841069305866
author: [393835001046761473, 'jestlute']
time: Wed Nov 23 21:25:58 2022 UTC
reference: https://discord.com/channels/357922255553953794/370571014654001154/1045069933752619134
content:
Anyways... I still like this name . I will use this name every time something involving this catalyst comes up
---
id: 1045087351988305940
author: [393835001046761473, 'jestlute']
time: Wed Nov 23 21:24:01 2022 UTC
reactions: [['🤔', 1], ['™️', 1]]
content:
That irnplies scorpion itself cannot catalyze:trademarkedsymbol:
---
id: 1045087223135076432
author: [690143153566646282, 'jiqci']
time: Wed Nov 23 21:23:30 2022 UTC
content:
we have like 2.5 barges and 3 wings, no need to worry
---
id: 1045086779272872068
author: [343222107255078914, 'ljkiernan1']
time: Wed Nov 23 21:21:44 2022 UTC
edited: 1669238542.87
content:
it looks sort of scorpion-like. scorpion catalyst? or is that too close to giving the same name to 2 different things
---

Code: Select all

---
id: 1045070119711285289
author: [393835001046761473, 'jestlute']
time: Wed Nov 23 20:15:33 2022 UTC
content:
Known ong ago since catforce antiquity
---
id: 1045070116427157544
author: [353513054912249856, 'duimaurisfootball']
time: Wed Nov 23 20:15:32 2022 UTC
content:
...right
---
id: 1045069969580376106
author: [527532315732344852, 'inomed']
time: Wed Nov 23 20:14:57 2022 UTC
reference: https://discord.com/channels/357922255553953794/370571014654001154/1043091935872696381
content:
nobody expects my ability
---
id: 1045069933752619134
author: [393835001046761473, 'jestlute']
time: Wed Nov 23 20:14:48 2022 UTC
content:
Lambunctious Larry
---
id: 1045069827284410418
author: [527532315732344852, 'inomed']
time: Wed Nov 23 20:14:23 2022 UTC
reference: https://discord.com/channels/357922255553953794/370571014654001154/1045068744952651857
content:
yeah
---
id: 1045068885822550137
author: [456226577798135808, 'Deleted User']
time: Wed Nov 23 20:10:38 2022 UTC
content:
it looks kind of buggy
---
id: 1045068744952651857
author: [866749792214581249, 'hotdogpi']
time: Wed Nov 23 20:10:05 2022 UTC
content:
known as of a few days ago
---
id: 1045067925545029782
author: [353513054912249856, 'duimaurisfootball']
time: Wed Nov 23 20:06:49 2022 UTC
content:
i think this catalyst deserves a name at this point
---
id: 1045067537391558816
author: [353513054912249856, 'duimaurisfootball']
time: Wed Nov 23 20:05:17 2022 UTC
content:
very nice
---
id: 1045067380793036830
author: [210964083116212228, 'turingcomplete30']
time: Wed Nov 23 20:04:39 2022 UTC
content:
P60 HF shuttle: ```x = 20, y = 41, rule = B3/S23
2b2o$3bo2b2o$3bobo2bo$2b2obobobob2o$3bobobob2obo$bo$ob3obob4o$o4b3o4bo
$b3ob3ob3o$3b7o$15b2o$14bo2bo$14b2obo$17b2o$14b2o3bo$6b3o4bo2b3o$5bo3b
o2bob2o$4bo5bo2bo2bo$4bo5bo4b2o$4bo5bo$5bo3bo$6b3o$15b2o$13bo2bo$12bob
2o$13bo2b3o$14b2o3bo$17b2o$14b2obo$14bo2bo$15b2o$3b7o$b3ob3ob3o$o4b3o
4bo$ob3obob4o$bo$3bobobob2obo$2b2obobobob2o$3bobo2bo$3bo2b2o$2b2o!```
---

[dvgrn]

Sounds like the name in question was mentioned by 'jestlute' back in November 2022, when discussing possible names for a recently populari(s|z)ed catalyst. And then it was added by someone else a few days later. Anyone got more details on this one?

Yikes, what is "Lambunctious Larry" doing in a disambiguation page?

Or the "LL spark" entry, either, for that matter: it seems like both terms were used exactly once and then never used again. There was at least one quote of the name suggestion -- Jestlute claimed they would use it every time a use for chucklebait came up -- but Discord search doesn't turn up any follow-through on that claim.

Anyway, "Lambunctious Larry" is extra especially dubious on an "LL" disambiguation page, because nobody has ever used "LL" as an abbreviation for "Lambunctious Larry" even once. There's no way anyone could expect "LL" to be understood to mean "chucklebait", right?

Any objections to simply removing both "Lambunctious Larry" and "LL spark" from the disambiguation page?

[confocaloid]

It is unfortunate that archives of past relevant discussions are not easily available.

Any objections to simply removing both "Lambunctious Larry" and "LL spark" from the disambiguation page?

I'd say highly unlikely, considering the date of creation of the page in question (2023-04-01).

[dvgrn]

I'd say highly unlikely, considering the date of creation of the page in question (2023-04-01).

Okay, I'll try taking out those two entries. Someone can always restore them if there's some unexpected groundswell of opposition to the removal. (I find that hard to imagine, but my imagination is kind of limited sometimes.)

[confocaloid]

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... ldid=33409
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=131413
The linked pages claim (in two different ways) that the p3 oscillator (shown below on the left) is a "beacon hassler". That is dubious, as trying to remove the "hassled" "beacon" causes failure of the "support" (shown below on the right):

Code: Select all

x = 50, y = 20, rule = B3/S23
6b2o28b2o$7bo29bo$6bo29bo$6b2o28b2o$9b2o28b2o$6b3obo25b3obo$ob2obobo
22bob2obobo$2obob2o23b2obob2o$5bo2b2o25bo$4bo3b2o4b2o18bo9b2o$4b2o4b2o
3bo18b2o9bo$10b2o2bo29bo$13b2obob2o23b2obob2o$12bobob2obo22bobob2obo$
9bob3o25bob3o$9b2o28b2o$12b2o28b2o$13bo29bo$12bo29bo$12b2o28b2o!

To me, this p3 oscillator doesn't look like a hassler of anything.

[Haycat2009]

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... ldid=33409
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=131413
The linked pages claim (in two different ways) that the p3 oscillator (shown below on the left) is a "beacon hassler". That is dubious, as trying to remove the "hassled" "beacon" causes failure of the "support" (shown below on the right):

Code: Select all

x = 50, y = 20, rule = B3/S23
6b2o28b2o$7bo29bo$6bo29bo$6b2o28b2o$9b2o28b2o$6b3obo25b3obo$ob2obobo
22bob2obobo$2obob2o23b2obob2o$5bo2b2o25bo$4bo3b2o4b2o18bo9b2o$4b2o4b2o
3bo18b2o9bo$10b2o2bo29bo$13b2obob2o23b2obob2o$12bobob2obo22bobob2obo$
9bob3o25bob3o$9b2o28b2o$12b2o28b2o$13bo29bo$12bo29bo$12b2o28b2o!

To me, this p3 oscillator doesn't look like a hassler of anything.

That is what the Lifeline letter said - but I will correct it anyway.

[confocaloid]

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... ldid=33409
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=131413
The linked pages claim (in two different ways) that the p3 oscillator (shown below on the left) is a "beacon hassler". That is dubious, as trying to remove the "hassled" "beacon" causes failure of the "support" (shown below on the right):

Code: Select all

x = 50, y = 20, rule = B3/S23
6b2o28b2o$7bo29bo$6bo29bo$6b2o28b2o$9b2o28b2o$6b3obo25b3obo$ob2obobo
22bob2obobo$2obob2o23b2obob2o$5bo2b2o25bo$4bo3b2o4b2o18bo9b2o$4b2o4b2o
3bo18b2o9bo$10b2o2bo29bo$13b2obob2o23b2obob2o$12bobob2obo22bobob2obo$
9bob3o25bob3o$9b2o28b2o$12b2o28b2o$13bo29bo$12bo29bo$12b2o28b2o!

To me, this p3 oscillator doesn't look like a hassler of anything.

That is what the Lifeline letter said - but I will correct it anyway.

What is the exact place (volume, page) you are referring to?

According to File:Lifeline_vol_3_p04.jpg,

The period three 'double ewe' developed by the writer is presented in this class for the same reason. A modified beacon is used to prevent overloading of the two stable diagonal bit pairs (shown as solid dots).

Here "in this class" refers to class II.B (billiard table configurations) (see previous page).

Note that that Lifeline page does not assert that the oscillator is a "hassler".
Also note that the Lifeline page says "modified beacon", and not just "beacon". There is no actual beacon in that p3 oscillator.

[hotdogPi]

There is no actual beacon in that p3 oscillator.

I would argue that there is. It's a phase-changing reaction that can happen at any odd period. p47 example:

Code: Select all

x = 139, y = 139, rule = B3/S23
48bo7bo25bo7bo$47bobo5bobo23bobo5bobo$48bo7bo25bo7bo4$43bo17bo15bo17bo
$43bo17bo15bo17bo$43bo17bo15bo17bo$39b2o23b2o7b2o23b2o$38bobo7b3o3b3o
7bobo5bobo7b3o3b3o7bobo$38bo8bo3bobo3bo8bo5bo8bo3bobo3bo8bo$37b2o27b2o
3b2o27b2o2$44b2o13b2o17b2o13b2o$44b2o13b2o17b2o13b2o2$37b2o61b2o$38bo
8bo3bobo3bo6b2o7b2o6bo3bobo3bo8bo$38bobo7b3o3b3o7b2o7b2o7b3o3b3o7bobo$
39b2o57b2o$43bo17bo15bo17bo$43bo17bo15bo17bo$43bo17bo15bo17bo4$48bo7bo
25bo7bo$47bobo5bobo23bobo5bobo$48bo7bo25bo7bo$65bo7bo2$65b3o3b3o$65b3o
3b3o$65bo7bo$66bo5bo2$12bo4bo42b2o15b2o42bo4bo$10b3o4b3o41b2o13b2o41b
3o4b3o$9bo10bo40bobo11bobo40bo10bo$9b2o8b2o41b2o11b2o41b2o8b2o2$62b2o
11b2o$6b3o12b3o37bobo11bobo37b3o12b3o$14b2o45b2o13b2o45b2o$14b2o44b2o
15b2o44b2o2$bo9bo6bo9bo37bo5bo37bo9bo6bo9bo$obo7bo8bo7bobo35bo7bo35bob
o7bo8bo7bobo$bo8bo8bo8bo36b3o3b3o36bo8bo8bo8bo$10bo8bo45b3o3b3o45bo8bo
$11bo6bo101bo6bo$65bo7bo$11bo6bo101bo6bo$10bo8bo99bo8bo$bo8bo8bo8bo81b
o8bo8bo8bo$obo7bo8bo7bobo79bobo7bo8bo7bobo$bo9bo6bo9bo81bo9bo6bo9bo2$
14b2o45b2o13b2o45b2o$14b2o21bo7bo16bo13bo16bo7bo21b2o$6b3o12b3o13b3o3b
3o13bo19bo13b3o3b3o13b3o12b3o$38bobobobo14b2o17b2o14bobobobo$39b2ob2o
51b2ob2o$9b2o7b2o99b2o7b2o$9bo8b2o10bob3o13b3obo33bob3o13b3obo10b2o8bo
$10b3o19b2obo11bob2o37b2obo11bob2o19b3o$12bo19b2o15b2o37b2o15b2o19bo4$
12bo19b2o15b2o37b2o15b2o19bo$10b3o19b2obo11bob2o37b2obo11bob2o19b3o$9b
o8b2o10bob3o13b3obo33bob3o13b3obo10b2o8bo$9b2o7b2o99b2o7b2o$39b2ob2o
51b2ob2o$38bobobobo14b2o17b2o14bobobobo$6b3o12b3o13b3o3b3o13bo19bo13b
3o3b3o13b3o12b3o$14b2o21bo7bo16bo13bo16bo7bo21b2o$14b2o45b2o13b2o45b2o
2$bo9bo6bo9bo81bo9bo6bo9bo$obo7bo8bo7bobo79bobo7bo8bo7bobo$bo8bo8bo8bo
81bo8bo8bo8bo$10bo8bo99bo8bo$11bo6bo101bo6bo$65bo7bo$11bo6bo101bo6bo$
10bo8bo45b3o3b3o45bo8bo$bo8bo8bo8bo36b3o3b3o36bo8bo8bo8bo$obo7bo8bo7bo
bo35bo7bo35bobo7bo8bo7bobo$bo9bo6bo9bo37bo5bo37bo9bo6bo9bo2$14b2o44b2o
15b2o44b2o$14b2o45b2o13b2o45b2o$6b3o12b3o37bobo11bobo37b3o12b3o$62b2o
11b2o2$9b2o8b2o41b2o11b2o41b2o8b2o$9bo10bo40bobo11bobo40bo10bo$10b3o4b
3o41b2o13b2o41b3o4b3o$12bo4bo42b2o15b2o42bo4bo2$66bo5bo$65bo7bo$65b3o
3b3o$65b3o3b3o2$65bo7bo$48bo7bo25bo7bo$47bobo5bobo23bobo5bobo$48bo7bo
25bo7bo4$43bo17bo15bo17bo$43bo17bo15bo17bo$43bo17bo15bo17bo$39b2o57b2o
$38bobo7b3o3b3o7b2o7b2o7b3o3b3o7bobo$38bo8bo3bobo3bo6b2o7b2o6bo3bobo3b
o8bo$37b2o61b2o2$44b2o13b2o17b2o13b2o$44b2o13b2o17b2o13b2o2$37b2o27b2o
3b2o27b2o$38bo8bo3bobo3bo8bo5bo8bo3bobo3bo8bo$38bobo7b3o3b3o7bobo5bobo
7b3o3b3o7bobo$39b2o23b2o7b2o23b2o$43bo17bo15bo17bo$43bo17bo15bo17bo$
43bo17bo15bo17bo4$48bo7bo25bo7bo$47bobo5bobo23bobo5bobo$48bo7bo25bo7bo
!

[confocaloid]

The main page currently mentions the new 135-degree LWSS-to-G, but for some reason doesn't link to the new page "135-degree LWSS-to-G".
The latter page links to two Discord messages which I cannot read, and doesn't link to any forum posts or web pages that would be accessible to every LifeWiki reader, making it unnecessarily hard for a LifeWiki reader to check how much of the content can be substantiated and to understand what else is known about the device and its discovery.

Relevant forum posts (there might be more):
viewtopic.php?p=187562#p187562
viewtopic.php?p=187589#p187589
viewtopic.php?p=187600#p187600
viewtopic.php?p=187626#p187626
viewtopic.php?p=187598#p187598
viewtopic.php?p=187599#p187599

[confocaloid]

The page reflectorless rotating oscillator currently says

A related category of loopability-1 oscillator is the reflectorless flipping oscillator, or RFO,[6] where a statorless oscillator evolves into its own mirror image. Such oscillators can't allow a loopability greater than 1 for obvious reasons; two such oscillators following the same path would have to pass directly through each other.

The claim "Such oscillators can't allow a loopability greater than 1 for obvious reasons" seems dubious. At least, I can engineer a reflectorful example that illustrates how a flipping oscillator could be loopable:

Code: Select all

x = 78, y = 111, rule = B3/S23
20b2o34b2o$20bobo32bobo$22bo4b2o20b2o4bo$18b4ob2o2bo2bo16bo2bo2b2ob4o$
18bo2bobobobob2o16b2obobobobo2bo$21bobobobo22bobobobo$22b2obobo22bobob
2o$26bo24bo2$12b2o50b2o$13bo7b2o32b2o7bo$13bobo5b2o32b2o5bobo$14b2o46b
2o4$31bo$32bo$30b3o$24b2o26b2o$3b2o19bo28bo19b2o$4bo20b3o22b3o20bo$2bo
24bo22bo24bo$2b5o14b2o32b2o14b5o$7bo13bo34bo13bo$4b3o12bobo34bobo12b3o
$3bo15b2o36b2o15bo$3b4o64b4o$b2o3bo3b2o11bo30bo11b2o3bo3b2o$o2b3o4b2o
11b3o26b3o11b2o4b3o2bo$2obo22bo24bo22bob2o$3bo21b2o24b2o21bo$3b2o68b2o
3$11b2o52b2o$12bo52bo$9b3o54b3o$9bo25b2o4b2o25bo$28b2o5bobo2bobo5b2o$
28b2o7bo2bo7b2o$37b4o2$24bo12b4o12bo$23bobob2o8bo2bo8b2obobo$23bobobob
o18bobobobo$20b2obobobobo2bo12bo2bobobobob2o$20bo2bo2b2ob4o12b4ob2o2bo
2bo$22b2o4bo20bo4b2o$28bobo16bobo$29b2o16b2o10$20b2o34b2o$20bobo32bobo
$22bo4b2o20b2o4bo$18b4ob2o2bo2bo16bo2bo2b2ob4o$18bo2bobobobob2o16b2obo
bobobo2bo$21bobobobo22bobobobo$22b2obobo22bobob2o$26bo24bo2$12b2o50b2o
$13bo7b2o32b2o7bo$13bobo5b2o32b2o5bobo$14b2o46b2o4$31bo$32bo$30b3o$24b
2o26b2o$3b2o19bo28bo19b2o$4bo20b3o22b3o20bo$2bo24bo22bo12bo11bo$2b5o
14b2o32b2o6b3o5b5o$7bo13bo34bo13bo$4b3o12bobo34bobo7bo4b3o$3bo15b2o36b
2o6b3o3bo2bo$3b4o54bo6bo4b2o$b2o3bo3b2o11bo30bo5bo2b2o2b2ob2o3b2o$o2b
3o4b2o11b3o26b3o13bo3b3o2bo$2obo22bo24bo9bo5bo4bobob2o$3bo21b2o24b2o9b
o11bo$3b2o59b2o7b2o3$11b2o14bo37b2o$12bo13b3o36bo$9b3o14b2o38b3o$9bo
25b2o4b2o25bo$28b2o5bobo2bobo5b2o$28b2o7bo2bo7b2o$37b4o2$24bo12b4o12bo
$23bobob2o8bo2bo8b2obobo$23bobobobo18bobobobo$20b2obobobobo2bo12bo2bob
obobob2o$20bo2bo2b2ob4o12b4ob2o2bo2bo$22b2o4bo20bo4b2o$28bobo16bobo$
29b2o16b2o!

On the top is shown a period-456 mod-228 oscillator.
On the bottom is the same glider track, but with three circulating gliders instead of one, resulting in a period-152 mod-76 oscillator.

I don't see a reason why a reflectorless, statorless example of the same type would be impossible.

[pifricted]

The page reflectorless rotating oscillator currently says

A related category of loopability-1 oscillator is the reflectorless flipping oscillator, or RFO,[6] where a statorless oscillator evolves into its own mirror image. Such oscillators can't allow a loopability greater than 1 for obvious reasons; two such oscillators following the same path would have to pass directly through each other.

The claim "Such oscillators can't allow a loopability greater than 1 for obvious reasons" seems dubious. At least, I can engineer a reflectorful example that illustrates how a flipping oscillator could be loopable:

I don't see a reason why a reflectorless, statorless example of the same type would be impossible.

The examples below this text:

Patterns such as the p160 oscillator in tlife, the p32 ("spinner") in DryLife, and the p88 in B36ce7c/S23-y could be called loopability-1 RROs, and the natural p424 gun in Pedestrian Life is a loopability-1 RRG (reflectorless rotating gun).

Code: Select all

# [[ STOP 16 ]]
x = 12, y = 12, rule = B37/S23History
7.2B$3.2B.4B$.3BD5B$3BDB2D4B$2B2DB2D4B$.4B2D2BA$2.D2B2A4B$.4B2AB2A2B$
.4B2ABA3B$2.5BA3B$2.4B.2B$3.2B!

So I edit it:

A related category of loopability-1 oscillator is the reflectorless flipping oscillator, or RFO, where a statorless oscillator evolves into its own mirror image. Such oscillators can't allow a loopability greater than 1 for obvious reasons; two such oscillators following the same path would have to colide each other.

[confocaloid]

[...]
So I edit it:

A related category of loopability-1 oscillator is the reflectorless flipping oscillator, or RFO, where a statorless oscillator evolves into its own mirror image. Such oscillators can't allow a loopability greater than 1 for obvious reasons; two such oscillators following the same path would have to colide each other.

In my previous post here I explained, why they don't really have to "pass through" or "collide" each other.

I can imagine a statorless flipping oscillator that's basically a compact active object running along a closed path shaped like the digit 8 / the infinity sign, with period/mod = 2, and with period divisible by three. Then it could be possible to combine three noninteracting instances of such an oscillator, sharing the same envelope, resulting in a lower-period oscillator.

I don't see a reason for impossibility of loopable statorless flipping oscillators.

[dvgrn]

I don't see a reason for impossibility of loopable statorless flipping oscillators.

Yup, I think I over-generalized the statement by saying "greater than 1", where the second part of that sentence was really implying "equal to 2". I'll adjust that.

I don't think we've seen any OCA RFOs that travel in a figure-eight pattern, have we?

But we could probably engineer a multistate rule that would have one, fairly easily, or (with quite a bit more effort) a universal-constructor-based loopability-3 (or 5, 7, or pick-your-odd-number) RFO in Conway's Life. I think that three non-zero states would be enough to make a rather boring-looking population-2 p6 RFO, where three of them could be combined to make a population-6 p2 oscillator.

figure-8-RRO.png (2.42 KiB) Viewed 226 times

Any of these might end up looking like a fairly contrived example of the category "reflectorless flipping oscillator" -- though no more contrived than the 0E0P-based RROs that needed multiple disjoint loops, I suppose! Examples of RFOs given so far all seem to flip straight back and forth across a line of symmetry in the obvious way.

RFOs that travel in a figure-eight pattern might really work better as a new category, something like "self-intersecting loop RROs".

[confocaloid]

[...] Examples of RFOs given so far all seem to flip straight back and forth across a line of symmetry in the obvious way. [...]

In other words, many known statorless flipping oscillators are simply oscillators that are both statorless and flipping.

As far as I know, there was never an explanation of how exactly spaceship reflectors are relevant to this topic.
So I'm puzzled as to why "reflectorless" is even appropriate to mention at all.
Maybe that can be considered "technically true". But then the blinker, the block, and the glider are three examples of "reflectorless" objects in Conway's Life (indeed, neither of them contains any reflectors).

Examples of statorless loopable oscillators tend to look much more interesting than examples of unloopable rotating/flipping oscillators.
When the statorless oscillator is loopable, it can make sense to compare such oscillators against closed tracks made out of spaceship reflectors, and say that the former are "reflectorless" while the latter are "reflectorful". So, loopable examples may indeed deserve to be described as "reflectorless".

The pattern quoted below is a statorless flipping oscillator (it's just a description, and not a single term). Reflectors have nothing to do with this pattern, so "reflectorless" seems to be an irrelevant distraction.

Where would "reflectorless flipping oscillators" fit into this mix?:

Code: Select all

x = 2, y = 5, rule = salad
o$o$2o$bo$bo!

I also seem to recall an object which resembled all of the loopable RROs, but was a RFO, and existed in a rule similar to CommonRepl.

[dvgrn]

As far as I know, there was never an explanation of how exactly spaceship reflectors are relevant to this topic.
So I'm puzzled as to why "reflectorless" is even appropriate to mention at all.

Yup, there's no really good reason -- it's just the way the "RRO" term evolved, and then got extended to other terms like RFOs.

It made sense at the time. There were lots of known oscillators where something went around in a loop, guided by reflectors ... so the generalization that immediately came to mind was, "okay, can we do the same thing but without the reflectors?" -- following the same line of thinking as the end of the first paragraph of the RRO article.

So maybe it turns out that statorless oscillators vs. oscillators with stators might be a more useful distinction in more situations (that hadn't been thought of when the term "RRO" was invented). Nonetheless, the main existing terms that have to be explained in the "RRO" article are the historical "reflectorless rotating oscillator", and variants like "RFO" that are based on it.

[hotdogPi]

From the glider synthesis page:

The lower bound can be improved with a relaxing of the condition: no self-forcing patch exists within 8 × 8, so a still life would require at least 32 cells to contain one.

There are still lifes with under 32 cells that don't fit in 8×8 . Why does this put the lower bound at 32? Clicking the reference leads to a Discord message where the message after mentions 32 cells, but by a different person and with no evidence to back it up.

[dvgrn]

There are still lifes with under 32 cells that don't fit in 8×8 . Why does this put the lower bound at 32? Clicking the reference leads to a Discord message where the message after mentions 32 cells, but by a different person and with no evidence to back it up.

That mention of 32 cells --

"so every SL with a bit-count less than 32 is most likely synthesisable."

-- was later clarified with "that was just an informal guess, not a proven theorem".

It's not an unreasonable guess, of course!

Something that is probably within reach of current tools is to check all still lifes that have been exhaustively enumerated (up through 34 bits) and show that none of them are self-forcing. Quite possibly we could even show that none of them contain a self-forcing patch (e.g., by generating valid predecessors of each still life that collectively include both states, ON and OFF, for every cell in the bounding box.)

That will only prove that if a still life with population <=34 is not synthesizable, it's for some reason other than the presence of a self-forcing patch.

The Hypothetical FSM Still Life
My favorite conjecture is that there's a still life that can only be created by crashing 137 gliders into three colliding flying spaghetti monsters -- and that flying spaghetti monsters are unsynthesizable. That would mean that in spite of an unbounded number of distinct ancestors of this "FSM still life", and (obviously) no self-forcing patch anywhere in it, there still wouldn't be a glider synthesis.

[confocaloid]

From the glider synthesis page:

The lower bound can be improved with a relaxing of the condition: no self-forcing patch exists within 8 × 8, so a still life would require at least 32 cells to contain one.

There are still lifes with under 32 cells that don't fit in 8×8 . Why does this put the lower bound at 32? Clicking the reference leads to a Discord message where the message after mentions 32 cells, but by a different person and with no evidence to back it up.

I think dubious claims (such as this claim about 32 cells) should be removed from the wiki, as soon as someone notices that the claim is neither self-evident nor supported by the sources.
That claim was added in a recent edit https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... did=154288

Recent edits by same person in that page are problematic for another reason -- the still life data is updated incorrectly, without accounting for the mismatch between the correct meanings of 'pseudo still life', 'quasi still life' and what Catagolue considers 'pseudo'.
(See discussion starting from viewtopic.php?f=16&t=3040&start=1000#p192529 )