Suggested LifeWiki edits

[dvgrn]

RGB332 feels similar to what I described above. You would still want to increment 75 at a time to avoid similar colors next to each other, though.

Depending on what unname4798 wants to use the RGB332 rule for, it might be better to have the states organized in some easy-to-predict enumeration with similar colors next to each other.

At the moment Display256 doesn't seem too likely to get changed to anything else, so we already have a solution for "similar colors not next to each other" -- we're more talking about a new and different rule table for some other purpose. That purpose still hasn't been stated, I think.

[TYCF]

Should Template:StillLifeComponent have a 'family' parameter? (I have already asked this on the tiki bar.)

What would be the intended use? What would be allowed values, and consequences of specifying a value? It's not obvious. Would be easier to understand the idea, if details of that kind were written explicitly.

It would be use for extended versions of a induction coil. For example a dock would be in the house family.

[confocaloid]

I'm not sure that's well-defined enough to go into infobox. I think it would be better to put that kind of information into article text, outside the infobox.
For example it's not clear why a dock should be in the house family. What else would be in the same family? What would be other families? Is there an intuitive underlying system that answers most such questions by a few simple rules? Or it's going to become arbitrary choices and points of contention between different wiki editors in future?
Additionally, each new parameter in the infobox increases height of the infobox. It's best to keep infoboxes compact, and put most content in text.

It would be use for extended versions of a induction coil.For example a dock would be in the house family

[dbell]

In the 'LifeWiki:Game of Life Status page', section 'c/4 diagonal spaceships, puffers, rakes':

The summary should be changed from 'All periods over 3488 are known' to 'All periods over 2752 are known',
since my post from 10 April improved the bounds.

BCNU,
-dbell

EDIT by dvgrn: Done (by Sokwe).

[NooneAtAll3]

https://conwaylife.com/wiki/Wire#2c/3_wire lags 2 pages of 2c/3 wires forum thread

both faster emitter and receiver tech

EDIT by dvgrn: Updated to add a couple more references.

[DroneBetter]

I will give a timeline of the events of the p49 bouncer loop page

• 1999-08-01: Noam Elkies finds 440-cell pipsquirter-based glider reflector loop
• 2003-01-24: Karel Suhajda finds a new pipsquirter, which reduces it to 400 cells
• 2009-09-14: In Talk:400P49, Matthias Merzenich decides that the pages 440P49.1 and 400P9 ought to be combined into "p49 glider shuttle," which later became p49 bouncer loop. He also proposes that the newer version be used in the infobox
• 2019-11-20: Dongook Lee finds another new pipsquirter, which reduces it further to 380
• 2022-12-21: I note it in Talk:p49 bouncer loop
• 2023-10-23: Galoomba adds the new minimal version to the page (initially 384, then a stator reduction later that day)
• 2024-04-19: In making the table now in Relay, I realise it supports all periods 35 + 14*n (the p35 representative also being fourfold rotationally symmetric)
• 2024-04-21: Ever the indecisive contrarian who doubles back on himself over 14.6 year intervals (), Matthias Merzenich replaces the 400-cell version in the infobox with the 440-cell one

Which representative should be used; the original, the one found 3.5 years later, or the one found 20.3 years later?
Here are some parallel prior instances:

• 180P8: Infobox version was reduced from the original 392P8 over the course of 2.8 years
• 258P3: Was reduced to 246 cells after 5.6 years, and to 244 after 21.7 by a stator reduction by Entity Valkyrie; neither is included
• 754P7: Was reduced from 1308 to 754 cells after 0.1 years (which is used), and to 678 after 0.84 (which is not)

As you can see, the acceptance of reductions to infoboxes/titles seems to be an inconsistent phenomenon. We shall discuss whether the first or smallest version of an oscillator is most useful to include (myself, I tend to agree with Matthias Merzenich's past self), until maybe a moderator can settle it to declare as a general rule or guideline.

Edit: For what it's worth, if we admit ourselves 5 gliders instead of 4, it could also be called the p28 bouncer loop, and it admits constructions of oscillators of all periods 28+7*n.

[confocaloid]

(1) If there is an infobox, then the infobox should at least be self-consistent. If it shows some specific pattern then it should describe that specific pattern.

(2) For article topics "the first known pattern of this type" (for example if the article is about the first known oscillator of a specific period), the infobox should show the original version, whenever that's possible.
If the original version is too large to be put in the infobox, nothing prevents hiding the infobox pattern (hideimg = true), and putting all patterns in the main part of the article instead.

Edit: For what it's worth, if we admit ourselves 5 gliders instead of 4, it could also be called the p28 bouncer loop, and it admits constructions of oscillators of all periods 28+7*n.

As already noted on the talk page ( https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=148364 ) the article p49 bouncer loop is about the first known p49 oscillator, and shouldn't be moved to any other period.

[Sokwe]

2009-09-14: In Talk:400P49, Matthias Merzenich decides that the pages 440P49.1 and 400P9 ought to be combined into "p49 glider shuttle," which later became p49 bouncer loop. He also proposes that the newer version be used in the infobox
...
2024-04-21: Ever the indecisive contrarian who doubles back on himself over 14.6 year intervals (), Matthias Merzenich replaces the 400-cell version in the infobox with the 440-cell one

In my defense, at the time the newer version was also the smallest p49 oscillator. I was trying to choose what I thought at the time was the most notable form. It was a judgement call that people could reasonably disagree with. When snark loops were discovered, the bouncer loop was no longer the smallest p49, so the original form became unambiguously the most notable form. I meant to change it eventually, but it was always a low priority. I was suddenly inspired to complete this task when I saw some posts on the talk page. The p26 pre-pulsar shuttle page should likewise be changed to use the original form, with the smaller variants included in the gallery.

And I know you're just being cheeky, but the "indecisive contrarian" comment could potentially be interpreted as negative by some. I know I sound like the "no fun" guy, but please try to avoid descriptions of other users that could even potentially be viewed negatively.

Which representative should be used; the original, the one found 3.5 years later, or the one found 20.3 years later?

In this case, the original should be used, as it's the first known p49 oscillator. None of the other variants have a similarly notable property. Being the former smallest isn't as notable as being the first.

Generally, I think the most notable variant of a pattern should be used in the infobox. What property makes a pattern most notable can change over time, even reverting back to an earlier form.

Here are some parallel prior instances:

• 180P8: Infobox version was reduced from the original 392P8 over the course of 2.8 years
• ...
• 754P7: Was reduced from 1308 to 754 cells after 0.1 years (which is used), and to 678 after 0.84 (which is not)

These are notable for simply being strong sparkers of relatively high period. In these cases I would say the "nicest" version is the most notable. That would generally be the smallest as long as it doesn't significantly sacrifice clearance around the spark.

258P3: Was reduced to 246 cells after 5.6 years, and to 244 after 21.7 by a stator reduction by Entity Valkyrie; neither is included

This one could probably be moved to a p3 domino sparker page that lists several variants without using an infobox.

if we admit ourselves 5 gliders instead of 4, it could also be called the p28 bouncer loop, and it admits constructions of oscillators of all periods 28+7*n.

The p28 bouncer loop is not notable enough to have its own page. It could be included on the p7 bouncer page if someone feels so inclined to add it. An argument could be made that the p49 bouncer loop could also be merged into the p7 bouncer page, but I personally wouldn't bother.

[DroneBetter]

In my remarks upon User talk:H. H. P. M. P. Cole/ConwayLife 2050, I formalised one of their conjectures,

Is there a pair of constants c₀,c₁, such that for any synthesisable still life, there exists a sequence of constellations (with the last being the still life itself), such that a set of ≤ c₀ gliders may be added around the nth member to produce the n+1th, whose effect in each stage is constrained to a c₁ × c₁ bounding box?

Would this be considered a meaningful problem to be solved, and does it warrant inclusion in the Problem page? And does anyone have heuristic evidence of its falsehood, ie. a wick for which the only known synthesis methods are to construct all segments simultaneously?

[confocaloid]

No strong opinion on the specific problem you asked about,

[...] and does it warrant inclusion in the Problem page? [...]

however, I believe it would be an improvement if the wiki entry Problem would be shortened, and would list fewer specific problems/conjectures and instead give more "Further reading" hyperlinks at the end.
Otherwise, there are just way too many specific interesting conjectures and problems to list them all.

Some relevant forum links:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1685 Knuth's conjecture about CGoL
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2040 How about a unidimensional spaceship?
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3180 Unproven conjectures
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=5471 Speed limits and theorems about the existence of periodic objects
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5922 Construction Challenges and Ideas
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5929 Level wave speed limit?
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=6042 There Are No 4 Row High Orphans in Conway's Game of Life
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=6047 Upper limit for oscillator period with N cells in envelope box

[unname4798]

Administrators, could you remove my common.js? I have played too much with substitution.

[hotdogPi]

Done.

[b-engine]

The LW:NB is still confusing that I couldn't even know if a pattern is notable.

Is a smoking spaceship even notable? There're only a few smoking spaceships in the category.

Can

[confocaloid]

The LW:NB is still confusing that I couldn't even know if a pattern is notable.

I think the important part is this:

A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus is usually worthy of notice. Verifiable facts and content that are not deemed notable may be appropriate for inclusion in a separate article.

To prevent overenthusiastic edits and conflicts of interest, a commonly accepted rule is that the discoverer of a pattern, inventor of new terminology, writer of a program, etc., etc., should not be the one to document that pattern, term, or program on the LifeWiki.

If you create a dedicated article about something discovered by someone else,
and if several months (or even years) pass after the page is created,
and if nobody objects to the existence of the page and there are no controversies about it

...that probably means that the topic of the article was indeed [considered] notable at the time.

[b-engine]

Wait. Why LifeWiki:General_disclaimer is blank?

Please edit LW:NB so it's more reader-friendly.

[confocaloid]

Wait. Why LifeWiki:General_disclaimer is blank?

Not a new issue, though. There were no responses to any of previous suggestions, as far as I know.

Create LifeWiki:General disclaimer because it is linked from the bottom of all pages.

Here is why LifeWiki needs a General Disclaimer, like some other encyclopedias and reference works:

1. The "general disclaimer" page on LifeWiki is missing.

[Haycat2009]

Today, there has been EXTREME VANDALISM in the eater 1 page. I think that all these edits should be reverted.

[confocaloid]

Today, there has been EXTREME VANDALISM in the eater 1 page. I think that all these edits should be reverted.

Care to provide more details, on what is wrong with which edits?

Also, would you care to explain this edit (especially edit summary)? https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... did=147891
Re: the edit itself (ignoring edit summary) -- instead of adding yet another link, I'd really rather remove hyperlinks from section headings completely (to improve accessibility and make style more uniform). As a rule of thumb, section headings should be plain unformatted text, preceded and followed by two or more equals signs.

[Haycat2009]

I'd really rather remove hyperlinks from section headings completely (to improve accessibility and make style more uniform). As a rule of thumb, section headings should be plain unformatted text, preceded and followed by two or more equals signs.

And where should they be moved to? The section heading is the most natural place to add alt names without making the section too long. The link is relevant.

[confocaloid]

And where should they be moved to?

The link "eater 1" can (and should) be moved into the section text: "Here are some examples of eater 1 catalyses:" (edit: updated the link)
The link "fishhook" is unnecessary (and therefore unnecessarily distracting). The section is about a reaction, rather than about a specific still life.
All other links in section headings on that page also can and should be moved into the corresponding section text, in the same way.

Section headings shouldn't contain any links or other markup. The only purpose of a section heading is to provide a visible heading for the section that can be linked to from another page:

Code: Select all

[[LinkedPageName#Section name|Displayed link text]]

That works if you have a page named "LinkedPageName" with a section named "Section name" and without any markup in section headings.

You did not answer other questions:

Today, there has been EXTREME VANDALISM in the eater 1 page. I think that all these edits should be reverted.

Care to provide more details, on what is wrong with which edits?

Also, would you care to explain this edit (especially edit summary)? https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... did=147891
Re: the edit itself (ignoring edit summary) -- [...]

[Sokwe]

Today, there has been EXTREME VANDALISM in the eater 1 page. I think that all these edits should be reverted.

Vandalism is deliberate destruction or damage. The most recent edits to fishhook and Eater 1 were clearly made in good faith, so they are not vandalism.

That being said, I think there should have been some (recent) discussion before "eater 1" was moved to "fishhook". This is one of the most fundamental Life patterns, so page name changes should be done more cautiously. Further, the new Eater 1 page should either be moved to "eater 1 reaction" or merged into fishhook, with "eater 1" redirecting to "fishhook" (or vice versa, depending on the outcome of the discussion).

Edit: Haycat2009, for the moment, please stop editing pages containing "eater 1". I want to discuss the "eater 1"->"fishhook" move before more edits are done that may need to be reverted.

[TYCF]

Eater 1 is a reaction that eats various patterns with a 2-cell or 3-cell leading edge (or occasionally more), most notably gliders. The term was originally used for the fishhook, and the fishhook is often still called "eater 1", but the term "eater 1" is more general and frequently refers to the reaction.

I am not sure I have seen anyone using this meaning of eater 1.
I support moving the new eater 1 page to eater 1 reaction or merged into fishhook/eater 1.

[hotdogPi]

I undid the page move due to opposition (including from bubblegum, who only posted on Discord). The new page now exists at "Eater 1 reaction".

[Haycat2009]

Edit: Haycat2009, for the moment, please stop editing pages containing "eater 1". I want to discuss the "eater 1"->"fishhook" move before more edits are done that may need to be reverted.

I just removed a redundant link and changed to main template to point to Eater 1 reaction. Other than these, I will stop.

[Haycat2009]

“Every finite phoenix evolves into an oscillator”

But the domino and dot do not do this?