Reviewing Special:RecentChanges

[confocaloid]

The purpose of this thread is to provide a place for reviewing/discussing recent LifeWiki edits.
The log of recent edits can be viewed via this link: Special:RecentChanges

Feel free to post here if you have any questions about a recent edit, or if you see any problems with a recent edit.

This thread is for verifying claims. Both edits linked from my previous post are to claims added to wiki pages. Hence on-topic. Either those claims have to be substantiated somehow (which seems unlikely), or those claims have to be removed.

This does seem like a reasonably good thread for this kind of thing -- the "Suggested LifeWiki edits" thread is more for new information that someone thinks should be added. It would be good if that thread didn't have to get too filled up with negotiations about edits that were just completed that appear to be wrong, so they will have to be adjusted or rolled back.

The first post of this thread explains its purpose: it's more for damage control for edits that don't have adequate references. It seems okay to extend that purpose to include edits that are most likely wrong and will need to be reverted; if someone can come up with a valid reference, then that will certainly fix the problem!

We could try starting a new separate thread for that "probably no substantiation is possible" category, but it also seems okay to keep using this one.
[...]

[confocaloid]

1
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=125212
Multiple patterns recently added to the page, with bad formatting (cleanup needed) and without providing links to sources (i.e. where these patterns come from?)
It is very easy to quickly add lots of patterns with unclear origin and bad formatting. It is much harder for someone else to go later and cleanup such additions, which would be unnecessary if the editor who added the patterns also added the links.

2
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=144801
The same problem; a pattern is added without linking to the source(s). I think I remember seeing that pattern somewhere before; unfortunately, the wiki page does not help me to remember where it was.

Further, with the addition of this pattern there are now three animated viewers on a page, which causes noticeable lag and visual distraction. I think AUTOSTART should be disabled for all viewers on that page.

3
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=139987
I think the addition of the section for medium period oscillators should be reverted. As far as I can see, that section was copy-and-pasted (again, without acknowledging source) from the page "Prime number" ( https://conwaylife.com/wiki/Prime_numbe ... scillators ) with modifications.
The medium-period oscillators are not relevant on the "Large prime oscillator" page.
The assertion "Most SKOPs for large prime periods are rectifier loops." is an unsubstantiated claim.
I suggest to revert the page to the revision https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... did=139987

4
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=128875
Again, bad formatting, no links to source(s). In addition, the description is misleading. (People knew that kickbacks can be used to create high-period oscillators. That particular oscillator may be interesting for different reasons. However, I don't think it should go on the "Kickback" page.)

5
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=145439
Should be reverted; incorrect reclassification of oscillators.

[Haycat2009]

2
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=144801
The same problem; a pattern is added without linking to the source(s). I think I remember seeing that pattern somewhere before; unfortunately, the wiki page does not help me to remember where it was.

Further, with the addition of this pattern there are now three animated viewers on a page, which causes noticeable lag and visual distraction. I think AUTOSTART should be disabled for all viewers on that page.

5
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=145439
Should be reverted; incorrect reclassification of oscillators.

Number 2 is partially fixed. 5 is correct. 141P134 is not Engine-based, but a glider loop based on G-to-X.

[confocaloid]

[...]
5
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=145439
Should be reverted; incorrect reclassification of oscillators.

Number 2 is partially fixed. 5 is correct. 141P134 is not Engine-based, but a glider loop based on G-to-X.

Re: #5 - the p131 osc is a rectifier loop, and was correctly marked as such before your edit. The p134 is not a glider loop, as there's just one segment where the glider moves; it could be described as a glider hassler which cannot be adjusted to another period.
Hence both of your changes in that page are incorrect and should be reverted.

EDIT by dvgrn: p131 and p134 are back to their old colors.

[confocaloid]

Probably it's up to someone else to decide what to do in this situation to stop the continued flood of low-quality / destructive edits. A very large fraction of edits from the same user account also needs to be reviewed and most likely reverted / completely rewritten.

Basically the same issues already mentioned several times (need for cleanup, bad formatting / formatting broken by edits, lack of links to sources, dubious assertions, copy-pasting content without acknowledging source, irrelevant content, incorrectly marking significant changes as "minor", etc, etc) can be found in other pages. E.g. https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=127766

m (Jubjub loops are adjustable.)

Jubjub "loops" cannot exist. With two or more gliders, the output glider of the Jubjub reflector would collide with the next input glider, hence there can be only one glider. The affected page is the same as in previous posts.

[dvgrn]

Jubjub "loops" cannot exist. With two or more gliders, the output glider of the Jubjub reflector would collide with the next input glider, hence there can be only one glider.

How does the "only one glider" prevent a pair of Jubjubs from creating a glider loop, though? Glider loops can perfectly well contain only one glider.

There's some inconsistency in LifeWiki definitions on this point:

Loop (disambiguation) says: "A glider loop is, generally, some pattern containing gliders that are bounced around or back and forth."

Glider loop (disambiguation) says
"A glider loop oscillator is a closed track composed of several independent reflectors, with one or more gliders on the track.
An adjustable glider loop is a glider loop oscillator composed of stable reflectors."

Adjustable glider loop says "An adjustable glider loop is an oscillator composed of stable reflectors..."

glider loop oscillator says "A glider loop oscillator is a closed track made out of several independent reflectors, with one or several gliders on the track. By changing the number of gliders and positioning the reflectors, it is possible to adjust the oscillator to infinitely many different periods."

That last definition is the only one that seems to imply that multiple gliders have to be an option.

How about an adjustment to that second sentence to say "By changing the number of gliders and/or positioning the reflectors ..." That would bring the definition into line with the definition in Loop which explicitly allows a loop to be back-and-forth.

I think I'd rather make that change than try to exclude the back-and-forth option for glider loops -- since we do have at least one use of the term in that sense now.

Entertainingly, that use goes against my theories about "loop" vs. "shuttle", posted on Discord on 7/3/2023:

sonata> the "shuttle" article has this example of a "p88 glider shuttle" ...
sonata> it seems that the terms glider loop and glider shuttle have been used almost interchangeably
Much more so recently, I think. That case does look to me like a shuttle, though -- just one glider going back and forth. You couldn't put multiple gliders in there.

Anyway, "interchangeably" is a little too strong a statement. We know what shuttles are, like the queen-bee shuttle, and we wouldn't be likely to call a glider bouncing back and forth between two Jubjub reflectors a "loop". It's not a loop, but it certainly is a shuttle.

I just think that some unnecessarily vague terminology has crept in, mostly into the titles of LifeWiki articles -- it's not that "shuttle" is really in common use as a synonym for "loop", the term just got copy/pasted a few times. I've added another talk-page note to that effect.

That was in the context of calling things "shuttles" that weren't really shuttles. (Heh, other evidence strongly suggests that the p88 "shuttle" is really technically only a "quasi-shuttle" -- but that's a separate issue!)

The case for "loop" seems a bit more ambiguous -- it seems like "Jubjub shuttle" is maybe a better, more specific way of describing one of these back-and-forth-glider oscillators, but that doesn't mean that "Jubjub loop" is actually wrong. These things could be both loops and shuttles.

Thoughts?

[confocaloid]

The linked p134 is not adjustable in any straightforward way to any other period. Its evolution contains a segment where the reaction reduces to a single glider, but that does not allow changing it to oscillate at other periods. It could be also described as a "glider hassler" or "H-without-FNG hassler".

Code: Select all

x = 40, y = 43, rule = B3/S23
34bo$15bo16b3o$14bobo14bo$14bobo14b2o$12b3ob2o$11bo$12b3ob2o18b2o$14bo
b2o17bo2bo$36b3o2$35bob2o$11b2o22b2o2bo$11b2o25b2o7$3b2o$4bo16b2o13b2o
$4bob2o10b2o2bo8b2obo2bo$ob2obobo9bo12bobob3o$2obo12bo13bobo$3bo13bo3b
o6b3ob5o$3bob2o11b2o7bo3bo4bo$4bobo20b2o2bobo$5bo26b2o4$26b2o$25bo2bo
2b2o$25bobo4bo2bo$26bo5bobobo$29b2obo2bo$19bo9bo2bo$20b2o4bo4bo$18b2o
6b5o$20bo$28bo$27bobo$28bo!

Describing it either as a "loop" or as a "shuttle" is incorrect.

Describing a pair of Jubjub reflectors with a glider reflected between them as a "loop" is also incorrect. It does not work as an actual loop (one cannot add two or more gliders not interfering with each other), and it does not even look and/or feel like a loop.
I think it can be described as a shuttle (adjustable in this case, since the Jubjub reflector is not dependent, and can wait for the glider as long as desired without self-destructing.

Jubjub "loops" cannot exist. With two or more gliders, the output glider of the Jubjub reflector would collide with the next input glider, hence there can be only one glider.

How does the "only one glider" prevent a pair of Jubjubs from creating a glider loop, though? Glider loops can perfectly well contain only one glider.

[...]

The case for "loop" seems a bit more ambiguous -- it seems like "Jubjub shuttle" is maybe a better, more specific way of describing one of these back-and-forth-glider oscillators, but that doesn't mean that "Jubjub loop" is actually wrong. These things could be both loops and shuttles.

Thoughts?

I think "Jubjub loop" is actually wrong. Adjustable oscillators made out of two same-lane 180-degree reflectors are shuttles, but are not loops.
The same would apply to other shuttles made out of two 180-degree reflectors where the input lane either overlaps or too close to the input lane so that trying to add a second glider will result in a collision.

There are many forum posts containing incorrectly applied / inconsistent / misunderstood terminology. I'd say putting everything from the forums to the wiki unchanged is a horrible idea.
The forum posts will never be a consistent source for terminology (too many people using different wording, not always correctly, not always consistently).
However, the wiki can be consistent, and it should be consistent because the wiki is aimed towards readers/newcomers.

[Haycat2009]

that doesn't mean that "Jubjub loop" is actually wrong. These things could be both loops and shuttles.

I think that Jubjub loop is technically correct. The way I see it, it seems as if shuttles and relays are one and the same thing. Besides it uses stable and non-dependent reflectors (a la galumpher). Nobody cares if more gliders cannot be added, a p116 snark loop (not shuttle) can have 1 glider or more.

Also, I did not mean to open a can of worms - how was I supposed to know that this would happen?

[confocaloid]

Nobody cares

That assertion is technically incorrect, since I do care. And I'm not the only one.

It might (or might not) be the case that almost nobody (out of those who have an opinion on this) cares strongly enough to participate in discussions (either actively or at all).

Also, I did not mean to open a can of worms - how was I supposed to know that this would happen?

By past experience, and by counting cases where something did happen vs. cases when it didn't.

[dvgrn]

Nobody cares

That assertion is technically incorrect, since I do care. And I'm not the only one.

It might (or might not) be the case that almost nobody (out of those who have an opinion on this) cares strongly enough to participate in discussions (either actively or at all).

Also, I did not mean to open a can of worms - how was I supposed to know that this would happen?

By past experience, and by counting cases where something did happen vs. cases when it didn't.

@Haycat2009, I don't think you did anything wrong at all, for this particular "is a Jubjub shuttle actually a loop or not" case.

... There are other cases that confocaloid pointed out -- like the re-classification of the p131 entry, the various copy-paste edits without acknowledging source, and this edit where you inaccurately attributed a "discovery" to David Bell and also spelled period "perod" -- where you are still not editing nearly slowly or carefully enough. My request is that you carefully fix all of those issues that someone else hasn't fixed yet, before going on to edit anything else.

However, the can of worms you opened re: "Jubjub loop" is an actual LifeWiki inconsistency that probably needs to be adjusted somehow. It does happen quite often that your edits help to point out something that can be improved.

In this case, confocaloid appears to have written one of the LifeWiki definitions (Loop) (EDIT: sorry, no, it's Loop (disambiguation)) that clearly implies that a glider loop can indeed consist of a glider bouncing back and forth. Any "back and forth" shuttle-like motion (EDIT AGAIN: at least when the "back" glider overlaps the "forth" glider) is going to prevent any possibility of multiple gliders in the loop, and yet that definition specifically mentions "back and forth".

I happen to think that confocaloid's definition in Loop (disambiguation) is correct, and that there's no need to try to exclude one-glider back-and-forth loops from any of the general LifeWiki definitions of "loop".

I'd personally prefer to see people use, e.g., "Jubjub shuttle" rather than "Jubjub loop" for oscillators consisting of two of the same reflector -- EDIT: especially if the glider is returning on the exact same lane -- because "shuttle" is more precise in that case, and it makes it more likely that people will know what a shuttle is due to having another good example to look at. But that doesn't mean that "Jubjub loop" is technically incorrect, or that anybody should be corrected for using it.

If this seems to be a controversial topic, it's probably time to create a new LifeWiki discussion thread for it. EDIT: Here's the new thread.

[confocaloid]

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=145203 Incorrect. The oscillator 116P101 is not an U-turner hassler (see below).
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=145770 Incorrect change, confusion between two different phases.

Code: Select all

#C This phase has two blocks and two bullet heptominoes, but there are no U-turners.
x = 46, y = 39, rule = B3/S23
23b2o$23bo2b2o$24b2ob3o$15b2o13bo$4b2o10bo7b2ob3o$5bo10bob2o4b2obo$5b
obo9bo3b2o$6b2o14bo$22bo3$23bo$14b2o6bobo$14b2o3bobo3bo6b2o$19b2obobo
7b2o$12b2o9bo20b2o$11b3o30bo$12b2o28bobo$42b2o2$2b2o$bobo28b2o$bo30b3o
$2o20bo9b2o$12b2o7bobob2o$12b2o6bo3bobo3b2o$21bobo6b2o$22bo3$23bo$23b
o14b2o$23b2o3bo9bobo$18bob2o4b2obo10bo$16b3ob2o7bo10b2o$15bo13b2o$16b
3ob2o$18b2o2bo$21b2o!

Code: Select all

#C This phase has just two bullet heptominoes and two U-turners. The blocks are catalysts
x = 46, y = 39, rule = B3/S23
23b2o$23bo2b2o$24b2ob3o$15b2o13bo$4b2o10bo7b2ob3o$5bo10bobo5b2obo$5bo
bo9b2o$6b2o6$32b2o$10b2o20b2o$9bobo32b2o$8b3o22bo10bo$8b3o21b3o7bobo$
32b3o7b2o2$2b2o7b3o$bobo7b3o21b3o$bo10bo22b3o$2o32bobo$12b2o20b2o$12b
2o6$38b2o$27b2o9bobo$18bob2o5bobo10bo$16b3ob2o7bo10b2o$15bo13b2o$16b3o
b2o$18b2o2bo$21b2o!

[Haycat2009]

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=145203 Incorrect. The oscillator 116P101 is not an U-turner hassler (see below).
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=145770 Incorrect change, confusion between two different phases.

Code: Select all

#C This phase has two blocks and two bullet heptominoes, but there are no U-turners.
x = 46, y = 39, rule = B3/S23
23b2o$23bo2b2o$24b2ob3o$15b2o13bo$4b2o10bo7b2ob3o$5bo10bob2o4b2obo$5b
obo9bo3b2o$6b2o14bo$22bo3$23bo$14b2o6bobo$14b2o3bobo3bo6b2o$19b2obobo
7b2o$12b2o9bo20b2o$11b3o30bo$12b2o28bobo$42b2o2$2b2o$bobo28b2o$bo30b3o
$2o20bo9b2o$12b2o7bobob2o$12b2o6bo3bobo3b2o$21bobo6b2o$22bo3$23bo$23b
o14b2o$23b2o3bo9bobo$18bob2o4b2obo10bo$16b3ob2o7bo10b2o$15bo13b2o$16b
3ob2o$18b2o2bo$21b2o!

Code: Select all

#C This phase has just two bullet heptominoes and two U-turners. The blocks are catalysts
x = 46, y = 39, rule = B3/S23
23b2o$23bo2b2o$24b2ob3o$15b2o13bo$4b2o10bo7b2ob3o$5bo10bobo5b2obo$5bo
bo9b2o$6b2o6$32b2o$10b2o20b2o$9bobo32b2o$8b3o22bo10bo$8b3o21b3o7bobo$
32b3o7b2o2$2b2o7b3o$bobo7b3o21b3o$bo10bo22b3o$2o32bobo$12b2o20b2o$12b
2o6$38b2o$27b2o9bobo$18bob2o5bobo10bo$16b3ob2o7bo10b2o$15bo13b2o$16b3o
b2o$18b2o2bo$21b2o!

Both done, but I am not 100% sure if I should have undone these.

[confocaloid]

Edit: reverted in https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=145772

The change in 116P101 still remains unresolved.

[...]
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=145770 Incorrect change, confusion between two different phases.
[...]

[dvgrn]

The change in 116P101 still remains unresolved.

I'm seeing no net change and no net change at this point. Am I missing anything?

@Haycat2009, I do think it was reasonable to roll back those changes -- thanks for doing that. You had added this phrase:

"The active reaction consists in some phases of two copies of an [[evolution]]ary sequence #242 (zero-indexed) in [[census.rle]], which consists of a block plus a [[bullet heptomino]], as well as a [[U-turner]]. Another phase is a [[procrastinator]] plus a transparent [[loaf]] in another area."

The phase that the article is talking about is 14 ticks before the phase with the U-turner. At that time, the active reaction is just a block plus bullet heptomino, and some dying junk to one side. Confocaloid's post showed the two phases. They have very similar descriptions -- easy to confuse.

However, evolutionary sequence #242 is block plus bullet heptomino -- not block plus bullet heptomino plus U-turner. What you added would have been technically true if that sentence had been talking about the oscillator. But where you added it, it just made a mess of the meaning.

Maybe this would have worked, for example:

"The active reaction consists in some phases of two copies of an [[evolution]]ary sequence #242 (zero-indexed) in [[census.rle]], which consists of a block plus a [[bullet heptomino]]. Coincidentally, another phase of the oscillator includes two copies of a U-turner plus a block and bullet heptomino in a different relative orientation. Another phase is pairs of a [[procrastinator]] plus [[loaf]] combination."

... I'm not sure if that would be any kind of improvement, though! Other phases of the oscillator resolve into even more complex combinations -- pi plus R plus blinker plus a bo$b2o$3bo$obo$b2o! block-and-beehive predecessor -- but explaining all that doesn't seem like it would do anything but make the article longer and less readable.

X hasslers hassle just X's -- not X's-plus-maybe-other-stuff
Here's the bigger more important point:

It's definitely not at all workable to classify that p101 as a U-turner hassler. The U-turner does show up, but not in isolation. So that P101 is a hassler of "block plus bullet heptomino plus U-turner" (but the LifeWiki definitely doesn't have a category for that). That P101 is _not_ a "block hassler" or a "bullet heptomino hassler" -- or a "U-turner hassler".

Does that make sense now? Definitely ask questions if it doesn't.

[confocaloid]

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=140609
I don't see a "traffic light predecessor" hassled in the pattern.

Code: Select all

x = 81, y = 21, rule = B3/S23
9bo59bo$8bobo57bobo2$6bo3b2o54bo3b2o$5bo5bo53bo5bo$6bobo57bobo$8b2o6bo
51b2o6bo$16bo59bo$2bo5b2o4b3o21b2o22bo11b3o$2bo11b2o46bo11b2o$3o7b2o2b
2o2b3o19b2o18b3o11b2o2b3o$2o6bob2o4b3o19bob2o18b2o14b3o$2o2b3obobo5b3o
19bobo19b2o2b3o9b3o$2b3o57b3o$2b3o6bo50b3o6bo$10bobo57bobo2$8bo3b2o54b
o3b2o$7bo5bo53bo5bo$8bobo57bobo$10b2o58b2o!

EDIT by dvgrn: Reverted by hotdogPi

[confocaloid]

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=145786
Misplaced sentence with awkward wording.
In particular, what "it" refers to? "It" cannot be "Another phase" mentioned in previous sentence.
Also, instead of stating that those objects are "hassling the active region", one could say that the engine is supported by those objects.
Further, "eater 2" should not be uppercased.

EDIT by dvgrn: Fixed.

[confocaloid]

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=145800
"Overall, the oscillator consists of X, which consists in some phases of Y, which consists of Z."

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=145150
"The canonical eater 2 ranks about 381st..." -- misleading wording. It should be either exactly 381st, or changed back to about 400th.

EDIT by dvgrn:: Fixed (by me and by Haycat2009, respectively.)

[confocaloid]

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=145833
I don't see 10 eater 1s in the pattern. Further, two out of four blocks are temporary and belong to the hassled reaction.

EDIT by dvgrn: Fixed. Haven't addressed the larger question of whether a text summary of the full census of this kind of oscillator is really a good idea in general. For oscillators that aren't neo-Spartan, it seems like that kind of thing might get rather long and unreadable.

[confocaloid]

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=145870
Repeated modification of a quote taken from https://web.archive.org/web/20000226192 ... anted.html Quotes should not be edited.
(previous modification of a quote on the same page: https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=145608 )

---

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=142444
I don't think "I for ill" is an existing term in common use. The linked edit appears to be an instance of someone documenting their own terminology.

[confocaloid]

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=138709

Embed viewer is acting us this is nonsence

I think the caption should be changed from

Code: Select all

69P16, found by [[Nico Brown]] on February 18, {{year|2024}}. <ref name="post178355" /> Uses [[Coe’s p8]] to covert a [[beehive to a [[block]].

to the following

Code: Select all

69P16, found by [[Nico Brown]] on February 18, {{year|2024}}.<ref name="post178355" /> Uses [[Coe’s p8]] to convert a [[beehive]] to a [[block]]

[Haycat2009]

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=138709

Embed viewer is acting us this is nonsence

I think the caption should be changed from

Code: Select all

69P16, found by [[Nico Brown]] on February 18, {{year|2024}}. <ref name="post178355" /> Uses [[Coe’s p8]] to covert a [[beehive to a [[block]].

to the following

Code: Select all

69P16, found by [[Nico Brown]] on February 18, {{year|2024}}.<ref name="post178355" /> Uses [[Coe’s p8]] to convert a [[beehive]] to a [[block]]

Can you help me with the embviewer? It does not work for some reason

[confocaloid]

Can you help me with the embviewer? It does not work for some reason

I already wrote what exactly I think should be done (to the revision I linked to) to fix things. Unfortunately I cannot do much more than that

[Haycat2009]

Can you help me with the embviewer? It does not work for some reason

I already wrote what exactly I think should be done (to the revision I linked to) to fix things. Unfortunately I cannot do much more than that

I meant that the embviewer stopped working for no reason, so I need help for this.

Undid it for the time being.

[confocaloid]

I meant that the embviewer stopped working for no reason, so I need help for this.

I think I saw the reason, and I posted the specific change that should fix it.

[Haycat2009]

I meant that the embviewer stopped working for no reason, so I need help for this.

I think I saw the reason, and I posted the specific change that should fix it.

Oops. Should a hassler that uses a dependent reflector loop as a catalyst count as one?