Suggested LifeWiki edits

[Haycat2009]

We looked for the posts but couldn't find them.

How do we know that the p10 and p36 exist?

[hotdogPi]

We looked for the posts but couldn't find them.

How do we know that the p10 and p36 exist?

Someone said they did in a list of known fleet hassler periods. We found the p36, but not the p10.

[vilc]

The section "Still life syntheses" on the page Glider synthesis was recently updated, but most statistics about pseudo still lifes are erroneous. Apparently, Catagolue's definition of a "pseudo" object was used, which includes quasi still lifes and constellations.
For example, all pseudo still lifes with 17 bits or less areconstructible with strictly less than one glider per bit, but this is not what the table and the notes say.

[hotdogPi]

When I updated the numbers for quasi, I went to the end of each section and manually made sure they were touching (most of them weren't) and not pseudo. I didn't use any automatic definitions.

[vilc]

When I updated the numbers for quasi, I went to the end of each section and manually made sure they were touching (most of them weren't) and not pseudo. I didn't use any automatic definitions.

The figures about quasi still lifes look normal (although I didn't check those). I was specifically talking about pseudo still lifes in this edit by DroneBetter : https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... did=153714
For a long time I suspected that statistics about pseudo still lifes were wrong, but I wasn't sure because they change quickly.

[WhiteHawk]

https://conwaylife.com/wiki/Beluchenko%27s_p13

The LCM page of Beluchenko's p13 is outdated, listing the following oscillator as the smallest p130

Code: Select all

x = 26, y = 30, rule = B3/S23
$6bo$5bobo$5bobo$ob2obob2o$2obobo2bo$5bobo$4bo2bo$4b2o$7bo$4b4o$3bo$4b
4o6b3o$7bo$4b2o10bo$4bo2bo8b2o$5bobo7bo$2obobo2bo9bo$ob2obob2o5bo3bo$
5bobo11b2o$5bobo2b2o2b3o5bo$6bo3b2o5bo4b2obo$17bo3bo3bo$17bobo5bo3$16b
2o$16b2o!

However, it's actually this oscillator (1 cell smaller minipop).

Code: Select all

x = 39, y = 20, rule = B3/S23
5b2o9b2o3b2o9b2o$5bo10b2o3b2o10bo$6b3o21b3o$2o6bo21bo6b2o$bo6bobo4bo7b
o4bobo6bo$bobo5b2o2b2o9b2o2b2o5bobo$2b2o10bobo5bobo10b2o$6b2o7b2o5b2o
7b2o$5bobo23bobo$5b2o25b2o5$14b2o$12b2o2b2o$12bo4bo$13bo2bo$11bobo2bo
bo$11b2o4b2o!

EDIT: changed.

EDIT 2:

Actually, they're similar enough to allow a stably-supported monomer of that p21 honey farm hassler to be built:

Code: Select all

x = 25, y = 23, rule = B3/S23
7b2o$8bo2bo$5b3o3b3o$4bo3b3o3bo$4b2obo3b3o$8b2obo$3bob2obobo$3b2ob2o3$
10bobo7b2o$9bobob2o6bo$9bobo9bob2o$4b2o4bo7b2ob2obo$3bobo13bo$3bo15bo$
2b2o14b2ob2o$o2bobob2o8bo2bobo$2o2b2obo8bob2o$7bobo6bobo$7b2obo3bobo2b
o$10bo3b2o2b2o$10b2o!

Should this be added to the p21 Honey Farm Hasslers, even though it's similar to the one supported by 34p7 (see below)

Code: Select all

x = 57, y = 48, rule = DoubleB3S23
4$20.4A$19.A3.A$19.A4.A$20.A.A.2A$24.A.A$23.2A2.A$19.2A2.A$23.A2.2A$19.
A.BCA$20.A.C2.B$19.2BCA.ABCB$18.B3.C2B2.AB$18.2B.B.A.2BC$22.BCACA6.2A
$17.B.2B.B.B8.A3.2A$17.2B.2B13.A2.A$24.3C7.2A.A$10.2B2.2B7.C3.C6.A2.4A
8.A$10.B2.B.B6.C5.C5.BCA3.A6.3A$11.B.B8.C5.C5.AB.3A6.A$10.2B.B8.C5.C5.
AC.CB.A2.2A2.A$7.B.B2.B5.2A3.C3.C4.2B.CBAB.A5.2A$7.2B.2B5.A.A4.3C6.B.
A.A4.A.A3.2A$10.B6.A15.B2.2A.4A.A.2A2.A$10.B5.AC2B12.2B.2B.A4.2A.A2.A
$5.B.2B.2B2.A.BA.AB2A8.B2.B.B.A.2A5.2A$5.2B.B5.AC2.2A.C8.B.2B3.2A.A$8.
B6.B5.C.A6.B.B7.A$8.2B5.B5.CA.A3.B.B2.B6.2A$16.B3.B3.A3.2B2.2B$17.3B4.
2A$22.2B.2B$19.B.B.2B.B$18.B.2B$16.3B3.B.2B$15.B3.3B3.B$16.3B3.3B$18.
B2.B$21.2B!

EDIT 3:

Variant of caterer on fig8 which is superior to the one on LifeWiki in terms of bounding box across all generations:

Code: Select all

x = 8, y = 15, rule = B3/S23
b2o$3bo$o$o3bo$o3b4o$2bo4$2b2o$2b2obo$6bo$3bo$4bob2o$6b2o!

I don't think this was ever addressed. It is actually quite elegant.

[KtT]

An external link of bookend bridge house article which goes to Catagolue actually goes to a page of xs16_c4o796z321.

[muzik]

Is there a list of RLE pages that aren't used anywhere?

[Chris857]

On https://conwaylife.com/wiki/B-heptomino_hasslers#p70 (and https://conwaylife.com/wiki/I-heptomino_hasslers#p70 by extension) I wanted to add the apgcode of the p70 shuttle (xp70_ylg8s39196y769193s8gzyk5401fo0iay7ai0of1045zyk6989c31yb13c9896zyioooynoooz8p7gc487pabp6o8gya8k8y78k8yag8o6pbap784cg7p8z122dl31w1ukln8buy1ci2jdxccy9ccxdj2icy1ub8nlku1w13ld221zx11y16607871y0g8g1y1ggxgy1gxggy11g8gy01787066y111zxggy1cc0s2sgy0121gy13334p8970798p4333y1g121y0gs2s0ccy1ggzg88mlogwgf5lt2qfy1698pmx66y966xmp896y1fq2tl5fgwgolm88gz2js1642sjaqjc321ya252y7252ya123cjqajs2461sj2zyi333yn333zykci2i6ogybgo6i2iczykk40gu309ay7a903ug04kzyl127oigicy7cigio721), but the spam filter was tripped up by the "8buy" in the code.

[confocaloid]

[...] but the spam filter was tripped up by the "8buy" in the code.

viewtopic.php?p=188078#p188078

[...]
When adding the wikitext, try to insert a pair of "nowiki" tags inside the problematic substring, and see if that helps:

Code: Select all

b<nowiki></nowiki>uy

[LaundryPizza03]

"In the news" July 26 entry on 86P118 still doesn't link to the article about that object.

[confocaloid]

The section "Still life syntheses" on the page Glider synthesis was recently updated, but most statistics about pseudo still lifes are erroneous. Apparently, Catagolue's definition of a "pseudo" object was used, which includes quasi still lifes and constellations.
For example, all pseudo still lifes with 17 bits or less areconstructible with strictly less than one glider per bit, but this is not what the table and the notes say.

When I updated the numbers for quasi, I went to the end of each section and manually made sure they were touching (most of them weren't) and not pseudo. I didn't use any automatic definitions.

The figures about quasi still lifes look normal (although I didn't check those). I was specifically talking about pseudo still lifes in this edit by DroneBetter : https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... did=153714
For a long time I suspected that statistics about pseudo still lifes were wrong, but I wasn't sure because they change quickly.

Another edit updated the statistics, but unfortunately it's unclear whether or not errors were corrected (the edit summary doesn't seem to mention in any way existence of this discussion):
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... did=154288

[rattlesnake]

From https://conwaylife.com/wiki/Oblique_spaceship:

In December 2014, Brett Berger constructed the first fast oblique spaceship in Conway's Game of Life, the waterbear, moving at a velocity of (23,5)c/79. It has a bounding box very slightly smaller than the parallel HBK. With a period of 158, it is the lowest-period oblique spaceship other than Sir Robin.

is no longer true: we have a (34,7)c/156 spaceship

apologies for the bad formatting.

EDIT by dvgrn: adjusted wording to acknowledge this.

[confocaloid]

Currently, the page Hexagonal neighbourhood incorrectly attributes the existing rulestring notation for two-state isotropic cellular automata with honeycomb neighbourhood. See details in the forum post viewtopic.php?p=193449#p193449

See also another post in Basic questions viewtopic.php?p=193451#p193451

[WhiteHawk]

p42 pentadecathlon/interchange hassler:

Code: Select all

x = 32, y = 33, rule = B3/S23
b4o17b3o$o3bo9b2o5bo2bo2b2o$o4bo8b2o4b2ob2o2b2o$bobob2o13bobo$5bobo$4b
2o2bo$2o2bo$4bo2b2o11bobo$o2b2o9b2o4b2ob2o2b2o$bobo10b2o5bo2bo2b2o$2b
2obobo14b3o$3bo4bo$4bo3bo$4b4o2$13bo4bo$11b2ob4ob2o$13bo4bo2$24b4o$23b
o3bo$23bo4bo$7b3o14bobob2o$3b2o2bo2bo5b2o10bobo$3b2o2b2ob2o4b2o9b2o2b
o$9bobo11b2o2bo$27bo2b2o$23bo2b2o$24bobo$9bobo13b2obobo$3b2o2b2ob2o4b
2o8bo4bo$3b2o2bo2bo5b2o9bo3bo$7b3o17b4o!

Does this P42 pentadecathlon/interchange hassler merit mention on the Pentadecathlon page?

[Hunting]

[...] Also: you should've quote me.

[...] Should these status pages be moved from their respective userspaces to subpages of their subject rules? [...]

Only if the initial contributor(s) explicitly agree to the idea. Some userpages may not be up-to-date. Some userpages may go against formatting/style guidelines. Some userpages were not intended to be moved into mainspace to begin with.

No matter what is the current state of the page, it should be the decision of the initial contributor(s) whether or not the page can be moved.

From what I've known when I was here, the LifeWiki should be mostly focused on CGoL itself and should not contain too much content about other rules, so I put most of the LeapLife pages under my userpage. I don't know how things have changed after I left (now there's a new subforum for LifeWiki, I assume it changed a lot), so I don't have much objection on this.

The only argument I have is LifeWiki is supposed to be reliable, but the page mainly consists of my own qfind search results and I have no idea what searches have other contributors finished (unless they turn up with a result), and I can make mistakes myself, so it might not be accurate.

[confocaloid]

[...] From what I've known when I was here, the LifeWiki should be mostly focused on CGoL itself and should not contain too much content about other rules, so I put most of the LeapLife pages under my userpage. I don't know how things have changed after I left (now there's a new subforum for LifeWiki, I assume it changed a lot), so I don't have much objection on this.

The wiki is still supposed to be mostly focused on CGoL and closely related topics.
However, there is now a separate namespace (OCA:) for non-CGoL topics.

(As a somewhat related side note, many of the "In other rules" sections across the wiki look and feel like collections of tangentially relevant or irrelevant trivia. I think such information should instead go to the wiki page of the corresponding CA, assuming the CA itself is a notable topic, and also assuming the claim is notable in the context of that CA. Otherwise, most of remaining pieces of trivia should just be removed from the wiki, because either the CA is non-notable, or the claim is non-notable even in the correct context for that claim.)

[...] The only argument I have is LifeWiki is supposed to be reliable, but the page mainly consists of my own qfind search results and I have no idea what searches have other contributors finished (unless they turn up with a result), and I can make mistakes myself, so it might not be accurate.

A step towards being more reliable, would be to make the page verifiable, by adding sources (footnotes with links) for any nontrivial claims / nontrivial data that's given in the page.
As long as there are links to sources, any errors found in the wiki page can be tracked to corresponding errors in the source. That's certainly a better situation, compared to having an error but being unable to find out where it came from.

[Hunting]

The wiki is still supposed to be mostly focused on CGoL and closely related topics.
However, there is now a separate namespace (OCA:) for non-CGoL topics.

There always is. But there were objections to clutter the OCA namespace with your own rules, anyway, at least I thought there were.

In any case, it's not a good idea to allow creating OCA rule pages without having a notability criteria. I don't know if it exists now.

A step towards being more reliable, would be to make the page verifiable, by adding sources (footnotes with links) for any nontrivial claims / nontrivial data that's given in the page.
As long as there are links to sources, any errors found in the wiki page can be tracked to corresponding errors in the source. That's certainly a better situation, compared to having an error but being unable to find out where it came from.

Sources (like claims in forum posts) are equally reliable as wiki edits, in this case IMO.

[confocaloid]

Sources (like claims in forum posts) are equally reliable as wiki edits, in this case IMO.

When someone tries to add to the wiki some claim without linking to any source(s), that basically means either:

(a) they are trying to document their own discoveries/inventions/observations/etc. (which goes against LW:NB)

(b) they are adding something they took from some source, while failing to mention what the source was. This makes it unnecessarily hard for other people (including readers and editors) to understand "where it comes from" and "whether it is correct".

If there is a footnote referring to some source external to the wiki (maybe a forum post by someone else; maybe a web page; maybe a book or a published paper, etc.), that makes it easier to understand where the claims/the data come from, to verify claims/data that are correct, and to either fix or remove claims/data that aren't.

I think the bottom line is that editors are supposed to collect and document some knowledge that was already available elsewhere (as opposed to creating/inventing new knowledge and putting it directly to the wiki).

[confocaloid]

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=152137
Unexplained removal of the nontriviality condition ("at least one cell oscillates at the full period")

More generally, very many changes across the wiki that don't look like improvements, and don't have any edit summaries that would explain the reason for those changes.

[hotdogPi]

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=152137
Unexplained removal of the nontriviality condition ("at least one cell oscillates at the full period")

More generally, very many changes across the wiki that don't look like improvements, and don't have any edit summaries that would explain the reason for those changes.

There are no p2 or p19 cells in Raucci's p38, so a trivial oscillator involving it is impossible.

[confocaloid]

After the linked change, the page claims

The [[LCM oscillator]]s below are the smallest known oscillators of their period by population.

The shown oscillator is a p190. Is it really "the smallest known oscillator of its period" when the nontriviality restriction is dropped?
Or maybe there are known lower-population trivial p190 oscillators? (Not necessarily involving Raucci's p38.)
Is this obvious? If so, how/why?
Is any of this even relevant, considering that most pages with sections "LCM oscillators" explicitly require nontriviality?

The linked content removal by Galoomba changes the meaning in a nontrivial and unexplained way. I don't see it as an improvement. I think the page should be reverted to say explicitly "while also satisfying the condition that at least one cell oscillates at the full period".

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=152137
Unexplained removal of the nontriviality condition ("at least one cell oscillates at the full period")

More generally, very many changes across the wiki that don't look like improvements, and don't have any edit summaries that would explain the reason for those changes.

There are no p2 or p19 cells in Raucci's p38, so a trivial oscillator involving it is impossible.

[confocaloid]

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=152137
Unexplained removal of the nontriviality condition ("at least one cell oscillates at the full period") [...]

There are no p2 or p19 cells in Raucci's p38, so a trivial oscillator involving it is impossible.

Although the claim is obviously incorrect, below is given an explicit counterexample:

Code: Select all

#C A trivial p114 oscillator involving Raucci's p38
x = 44, y = 35, rule = B3/S23
17b3o3b3o2$15bo4bobo4bo$15bo4bobo4bo$15bo4bobo4bo$17b3o3b3o2$17b3o3b3o
$15bo4bobo4bo$15bo4bobo4bo$15bo4bobo4bo2$17b3o3b3o10$o42bo$3o38b3o$3bo
36bo$2b2o36b2o3$13b2o14b2o$14bo14bo$b3o3b2o3b2o16b2o3b2o3b3o$7b2o3bo
18bo3b2o$5bo32bo$5bo32bo$5bo32bo!

In case someone takes issue with the fact that it is not a single strict object (which doesn't disqualify it from being a trivial oscillator), below is given a trivial p114 oscillator involving Raucci's p38 that *is* a single strict object:

Code: Select all

x = 51, y = 16, rule = B3/S23
3b2o$3bobo$5bo$5bobo42bo$2bo2bob3o38b3o$bob2o5bo36bo$bo7b2o36b2o$2o2$
20b2o14b2o$21bo14bo$8b3o3b2o3b2o16b2o3b2o3b3o$14b2o3bo18bo3b2o$12bo32b
o$12bo32bo$12bo32bo!

Here is a trivial p190 oscillator with minimum population of 58 bits:

Code: Select all

#C 58P190
x = 33, y = 25, rule = B3/S23
5b2o12bo$b3o2bo11bo2bo$4b2o12bo2bo2bo$o19bo3bo$o23bo$4b2o$b3o2bo$5bo$
6b3o$9bo14bo$8b2o14b2o$23b2o2$14b2o$13b2o14b2o$14bo14bo$30b3o$32bo3$
14bo$14bo3bo$14bo2bo2bo$17bo2bo$19bo!

The latter example above (58P190) illustrates how the unexplained content removal in ( https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=152137 ) transformed a possibly-correct claim into a certainly-incorrect claim.
The oscillator 62P190 shown in the page may or may not be the smallest known nontrivial p190 oscillator (in other words, it may or may not be "the smallest known one by population, while also satisfying the condition that at least one cell oscillates at the full period").
However, it is definitely not "the smallest known oscillator of its period by population", despite the wiki page claiming so after the linked change.

[dvgrn]

The latter example above (58P190) illustrates how the unexplained content removal in ( https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=152137 ) transformed a possibly-correct claim into a certainly-incorrect claim.

This seems like an easy obvious one to roll back, so I've done that -- simplifying the wording slightly to match what's in Beluchenko's p13.

If anyone wants to improve the standardized wording at the top of "LCM oscillators" sections, it looks like it all started out as a boilerplate phrase copy/pasted across a lot of different articles (looks like that's just a small sampling). If the wording needs to change significantly, it'd probably be good if it changed everywhere.

[confocaloid]

I think further changes ( such as edits https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=152450, https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... did=155973, https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... did=153740 by User:Galoomba) need to stop immediately, until and unless there's some observable consensus regarding what "the ideal wording" should be.

The latter example above (58P190) illustrates how the unexplained content removal in ( https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=152137 ) transformed a possibly-correct claim into a certainly-incorrect claim.

This seems like an easy obvious one to roll back, so I've done that -- simplifying the wording slightly to match what's in Beluchenko's p13.

If anyone wants to improve the standardized wording at the top of "LCM oscillators" sections, it looks like it all started out as a boilerplate phrase copy/pasted across a lot of different articles (looks like that's just a small sampling). If the wording needs to change significantly, it'd probably be good if it changed everywhere.