ConwayLife.com

Posted: **February 27th, 2021, 1:26 pm**

Integral Sign FireCloud

( to make it clean, I had to use a Block to eat an incipient Traffic Light, and a Glider to destroy a Tub ) :

Code: Select all

x = 24, y = 29, rule = B3/S23
11b2o$8bo3bo$8b3o$10bo$6b2ob2o$7bo2bo$10bo$7bo2bo$8b2o2$2bobo17bo$5bo
15b2o$ob2obo$o4bo$bobo$2ob2o$2ob2o$2bo9$21b2o$21bobo$21bo!

Posted: **February 27th, 2021, 5:55 pm**

otismo wrote: ↑
February 27th, 2021, 1:26 pm
Integral Sign FireCloud

Here's another reaction that makes an integral sign:

Code: Select all

x = 13, y = 3, rule = B3/S23
11b2o$3o8b2o$o2bo!

Posted: **February 27th, 2021, 6:08 pm**

MathAndCode wrote: ↑
February 27th, 2021, 5:55 pm

otismo wrote: ↑
February 27th, 2021, 1:26 pm
Integral Sign FireCloud
Here's another reaction that makes an integral sign:
Code: Select all
x = 13, y = 3, rule = B3/S23
11b2o$3o8b2o$o2bo!

Thank You for sharing !

Please share your rarest object

( meta-seed, not soup ).

Posted: **February 27th, 2021, 8:46 pm**

otismo wrote: ↑
February 27th, 2021, 6:08 pm
Please share your rarest object

( meta-seed, not soup ).

Code: Select all

x = 10, y = 24, rule = B3/S23
2bo$3bo$3bo$3bo2$2bo$b3o$o2bo$b2o4$7b2o$6bo2bo$6bobo$bo5bo$b2o$2b2o$3b
obo$3b3o$2bo$bo2$2b2o!

Posted: **February 28th, 2021, 1:43 am**

MathAndCode wrote: ↑
February 27th, 2021, 8:46 pm

otismo wrote: ↑
February 27th, 2021, 6:08 pm
Please share your rarest object

( meta-seed, not soup ).
Code: Select all
x = 10, y = 24, rule = B3/S23
2bo$3bo$3bo$3bo2$2bo$b3o$o2bo$b2o4$7b2o$6bo2bo$6bobo$bo5bo$b2o$2b2o$3b
obo$3b3o$2bo$bo2$2b2o!

Thank You !

That's a rare one, all right !

Trans Longboat with Tail ?

Block makes Traffic Light go away :

Code: Select all

x = 10, y = 30, rule = B3/S23
2bo$3bo$3bo$3bo2$2bo$b3o$o2bo$b2o4$7b2o$6bo2bo$6bobo$bo5bo$b2o$2b2o$3b
obo$3b3o$2bo$bo2$2b2o5$3b2o$3b2o!

Posted: **February 28th, 2021, 12:35 pm**

otismo wrote: ↑
February 28th, 2021, 1:43 am
Block makes Traffic Light go away :

A fishhook works.

Code: Select all

x = 10, y = 28, rule = B3/S23
2bo$3bo$3bo$3bo2$2bo$b3o$o2bo$b2o4$7b2o$6bo2bo$6bobo$bo5bo$b2o$2b2o$3b
obo$3b3o$2bo$bo2$2b2o$6b2o$6bo$7b3o$9bo!

For a one-use fishhook, simply remove the tail, turning it into a block.

Code: Select all

x = 10, y = 28, rule = B3/S23
2bo$3bo$3bo$3bo2$2bo$b3o$o2bo$b2o4$7b2o$6bo2bo$6bobo$bo5bo$b2o$2b2o$3b
obo$3b3o$2bo$bo2$2b2o$6b2o$6bo!

Posted: **March 1st, 2021, 11:56 am**

MathAndCode wrote: ↑
February 28th, 2021, 12:35 pm

otismo wrote: ↑
February 28th, 2021, 1:43 am
Block makes Traffic Light go away :
A fishhook works.
Code: Select all
x = 10, y = 28, rule = B3/S23
2bo$3bo$3bo$3bo2$2bo$b3o$o2bo$b2o4$7b2o$6bo2bo$6bobo$bo5bo$b2o$2b2o$3b
obo$3b3o$2bo$bo2$2b2o$6b2o$6bo$7b3o$9bo!
For a one-use fishhook, simply remove the tail, turning it into a block.
Code: Select all
x = 10, y = 28, rule = B3/S23
2bo$3bo$3bo$3bo2$2bo$b3o$o2bo$b2o4$7b2o$6bo2bo$6bobo$bo5bo$b2o$2b2o$3b
obo$3b3o$2bo$bo2$2b2o$6b2o$6bo!

Thank You MAC !

Your post leads us to just the "tip of the iceberg" of the "semantic dilemma" that hobbles CGoL :

is it a fishhook sans tail, or is it a Block Predecessor - or does all verbiage have to be contextual

- or does any body really care ?

Your presentations in general are usually quite clear, as in this case.

I know that my posts can be confusing; and a newbie could quickly get frustrated and quit.

I have stalled my development of http://conway.life ( a video website ) until I "catch up" with everyone.

My goal is to make it the best CGoL newb site, where a budding LifeEnthusiast can get up to speed fast by watching a bunch of videos.

There is only one guy on the utube that makes perfect CGoL videos - he has an intro set of six...

Posted: **March 1st, 2021, 2:04 pm**

otismo wrote: ↑
March 1st, 2021, 11:56 am
I know that my posts can be confusing.

To me, the aspect of your posts that makes them hardest to read is your frequent usage of line breaks, especially when they are in the middle of sentences. If you switch to paragraph form, that will make your posts easier to read.

otismo wrote: ↑
March 1st, 2021, 11:56 am
I have stalled my development of http://conway.life ( a video website ) until I "catch up" with everyone.

I don't think that you should think in terms of catching up to everyone, and the main reason is because none of the Lifeenthusiasts have caught up to each other. There are many different facets of Life that can be explored, and no one is the best in all of them. If you want to know more about how to clean up rare objects using still-lives, learning more about catalysts, which you will do if you research conduits, is a good idea because many catalysts have one-use forms, as I demonstrated with the fishhook. Alternatively, if you want to focus on reactions that make rare objects, you will probably want to learn how to make glider syntheses. You'll still have to figure out how to remove unwanted debris, but it's typically more efficient to do this directly with gliders.

Posted: **March 1st, 2021, 3:02 pm**

MathAndCode wrote: ↑
March 1st, 2021, 2:04 pm

otismo wrote: ↑
March 1st, 2021, 11:56 am
I know that my posts can be confusing.
To me, the aspect of your posts that makes them hardest to read is your frequent usage of line breaks, especially when they are in the middle of sentences. If you switch to paragraph form, that will make your posts easier to read.
otismo wrote: ↑
March 1st, 2021, 11:56 am
I have stalled my development of http://conway.life ( a video website ) until I "catch up" with everyone.
I don't think that you should think in terms of catching up to everyone, and the main reason is because none of the Lifeenthusiasts have caught up to each other. There are many different facets of Life that can be explored, and no one is the best in all of them. If you want to know more about how to clean up rare objects using still-lives, learning more about catalysts, which you will do if you research conduits, is a good idea because many catalysts have one-use forms, as I demonstrated with the fishhook. Alternatively, if you want to focus on reactions that make rare objects, you will probably want to learn how to make glider syntheses. You'll still have to figure out how to remove unwanted debris, but it's typically more efficient to do this directly with gliders.

Sage Advice MAC !

Rare objects appearing out of the soup precludes Glider cleanup ( if more than one G ).

Either Soup or G-synth.

I want to avoid mis-educating/mis-informing the newbs.

I should approach that guy on youtube who makes the Perfect CGoL Videos and commission HIM.

You are way more advanced than I am ( linebreak ) where should we go NEXT ?

Posted: **March 1st, 2021, 3:12 pm**

otismo wrote: ↑
March 1st, 2021, 3:02 pm
Rare objects appearing out of the soup precludes Glider cleanup ( if more than one G ).

Using more than one cleanup glider is perfectly acceptable. Here is an example.

Posted: **March 1st, 2021, 4:32 pm**

MathAndCode wrote: ↑
March 1st, 2021, 3:12 pm

otismo wrote: ↑
March 1st, 2021, 3:02 pm
Rare objects appearing out of the soup precludes Glider cleanup ( if more than one G ).
Using more than one cleanup glider is perfectly acceptable. Here is an example.

beg to differ, MAC

the object becomes less rare with every G

Gsynth=nonrare

( highly improbable to emerge from a "small" soup )

Posted: **March 1st, 2021, 5:13 pm**

otismo wrote: ↑
March 1st, 2021, 4:32 pm
beg to differ, MAC

the object becomes less rare with every G

Gsynth=nonrare

( highly improbable to emerge from a "small" soup )

That is not true. There are several objects that occur in the ash of one or more three-glider collisions but only with other objects and that are rarer than objects that have clean three-glider syntheses. Also, most objects that form naturally don't form completely from glider syntheses. I've never seen it happen naturally for any object costing more than two gliders.

Posted: **March 1st, 2021, 6:08 pm**

MathAndCode wrote: ↑
March 1st, 2021, 5:13 pm

otismo wrote: ↑
March 1st, 2021, 4:32 pm
beg to differ, MAC

the object becomes less rare with every G

Gsynth=nonrare

( highly improbable to emerge from a "small" soup )
That is not true. There are several objects that occur in the ash of one or more three-glider collisions but only with other objects and that are rarer than objects that have clean three-glider syntheses. Also, most objects that form naturally don't form completely from glider syntheses. I've never seen it happen naturally for any object costing more than two gliders.

what determines rarity

1. one can simply draw any object
2. all objects are glider synthesizable ( ? )
3. scripts can tweak so-called random soups
4. so-called "Universal Construction" ( which is constantly improving )
5. Turing Completeness suggests there is no such thing as rarity

in the past ( Achim F. ), rarity was relative abundance in random ash

( like the relative abundance of elements in the Earth's Crust [ but that can be manipulated ] )

today we have more engineered objects

the rarity issue is key...

Posted: **March 1st, 2021, 6:12 pm**

otismo wrote: ↑
March 1st, 2021, 6:08 pm
1. one can simply draw any object
2. all objects are glider synthesizable ( ? )
3. scripts can tweak so-called random soups
4. so-called "Universal Construction" ( which is constantly improving )
5. Turing Completeness suggests there is no such thing as rarity

Some objects still don't happen as commonly from random soups as other objects. That is what is meant by saying that some objects are rarer than other objects.

Posted: **March 1st, 2021, 6:48 pm**

Rarity is the relative abundance in random ash (only defined by Catagolue rather than Achim's census, there are differences).
1. Duh. (That doesn't count though.)
2. Not proven. Some patterns are non-glider-synthesisable, but for objects caught by Catagolue (ruling out all our Gardens of Eden), none have been proven to be so.
3. Those don't count. An effective way of determining this is to see whether one can provide a SHA-256 hash for the soup (apgsearch generates soups from hashes).
4. We have yet to see whether UC setups can possibly emerge from Catagolue's soups, and they can only construct anything plain gliders can.
5. See above.

Posted: **March 1st, 2021, 8:37 pm**

The existence of universal constructors does not prove that rarity is obsolete. If you fill a sufficiently large universe with sufficiently sparse cells, eventually objects of all rarities will emerge, including universal constructors, but the universe will soon be dominated by quadraticly expanding patterns (most likely dirty MMS switch-engine-based breeders) that will expand to fill all available space before hitting each other. Universal constructors are typically built as existence proofs, and not for robustness; even a single glider in the wrong place can totally destroy a universal constructor, and based on rarity, the universe will be filled mostly with 1) blonks (blocks and blinkers), 2) patterns with 4-bit predecessors (e.g. tubs, beehives, traffic lights), 3) patterns with 5-bit predecessors (including gliders and R-pentominoes), and 4) everything else. It would be very unlikely that a universal constructor would escape one glider in its general vicinity, and the probability gets more and more vanishingly close to zero with each additional glider. I.e. universal constructors (and anything that relies on them) are extremely rare.

Posted: **March 1st, 2021, 9:10 pm**

mniemiec wrote: ↑
March 1st, 2021, 8:37 pm
The existence of universal constructors does not prove that rarity is obsolete. If you fill a sufficiently large universe with sufficiently sparse cells, eventually objects of all rarities will emerge, including universal constructors, but the universe will soon be dominated by quadraticly expanding patterns (most likely dirty MMS switch-engine-based breeders) that will expand to fill all available space before hitting each other. Universal constructors are typically built as existence proofs, and not for robustness; even a single glider in the wrong place can totally destroy a universal constructor, and based on rarity, the universe will be filled mostly with 1) blonks (blocks and blinkers), 2) patterns with 4-bit predecessors (e.g. tubs, beehives, traffic lights), 3) patterns with 5-bit predecessors (including gliders and R-pentominoes), and 4) everything else. It would be very unlikely that a universal constructor would escape one glider in its general vicinity, and the probability gets more and more vanishingly close to zero with each additional glider. I.e. universal constructors (and anything that relies on them) are extremely rare.

Wouldn't a breeder be destroyed by the first object it hits?

Posted: **March 1st, 2021, 9:15 pm**

hotdogPi wrote: ↑
March 1st, 2021, 9:10 pm
Wouldn't a breeder be destroyed by the first object it hits?

Not necessarily (everything can be destroyed by the first object it hits)—what happens when a Gosper glider gun puffer's gliders collide with a block, for example?

Posted: **March 2nd, 2021, 5:00 am**

hotdogPi wrote: ↑
March 1st, 2021, 9:10 pm
Wouldn't a breeder be destroyed by the first object it hits?

It's very unlikely. Given that a breeder expands quadraticly and its intermediate parts expand linearly, if a breeder and its progeny interact with another object, it's most likely that the interaction will be with the quadraticly expanding part, unlikely that will be with the linearly expanding part, and virtually zero that it will be with the breeder engine itself.

In the case of an MMM breeder hitting a block, the most likely scenario will be that one of the generated gliders will hit the block and turn into a messy soup, but the breeder engine and all of the puffers will be unaffected, and still tile the plane, with only a tiny irregularity where the collision occurred.

With an MMS breeder hitting a block, it would be one of the generated puffers that would be destroyed to form the soup, but just as in the previous example, the breeder would still tile the plane except for a tiny irregularity.

In the case of a slow breeder (e.g. one made of switch engines), it's possible that a glider or xWSS escaping from the soup will travel back and kill the engine, but again, with so many generated puffers, it's extremely unlikely that the breeder engine will even be in a convenient line to be hit. This is more likely in CAs that have common oblique spaceships, but it's still very unlikely.

Posted: **March 2nd, 2021, 10:11 am**

bubblegum wrote: ↑
March 1st, 2021, 6:48 pm
Rarity is the relative abundance in random ash (only defined by Catagolue rather than Achim's census, there are differences).

is there a list ?

does everyone agree ?

should we forget rarity in favor of some "improbability factor" ?

this is relevant in regards to the way information is stored - both in the soup that makes a rare object AND in the object itself...

Posted: **March 2nd, 2021, 10:29 am**

otismo wrote: ↑
March 2nd, 2021, 10:11 am

bubblegum wrote: ↑
March 1st, 2021, 6:48 pm
Rarity is the relative abundance in random ash (only defined by Catagolue rather than Achim's census, there are differences).
is there a list ?

does everyone agree ?

Here: https://catagolue.hatsya.com/census/b3s23/C1

Posted: **March 2nd, 2021, 12:04 pm**

I think Achim's census is more accurate. Putting empty space on the edges, as Catagolue does, makes ships much more common than they should be, being formed from Herschels. In addition, how do you determine the frequency of gliders and other spaceships if it's highly dependent on your initial bounding box? (Achim's census skips them entirely, but if you don't require them to survive, which is not the case for either census, you can get a frequency for them.)

Posted: **March 2nd, 2021, 12:17 pm**

hotdogPi wrote: ↑
March 2nd, 2021, 12:04 pm
I think Achim's census is more accurate. Putting empty space on the edges, as Catagolue does, makes ships much more common than they should be, being formed from Herschels. In addition, how do you determine the frequency of gliders and other spaceships if it's highly dependent on your initial bounding box? (Achim's census skips them entirely, but if you don't require them to survive, which is not the case for either census, you can get a frequency for them.)

It's better to look at what we're actually measuring: The frequency of objects that survive until the end of the evolution of random 16x16 soups. If we did 1000x1000x soups, spaceships would of course be disproportionately more common. Symmetric objects more commonly arise from soups that share their symmetry. There is no real "better" or "worse" representation of object demographics (unless the way you're measuring it is very artificial).

Posted: **March 2nd, 2021, 2:17 pm**

mniemiec wrote: ↑
March 2nd, 2021, 5:00 am
Given that a breeder expands quadraticly and its intermediate parts expand linearly, if a breeder and its progeny interact with another object, it's most likely that the interaction will be with the quadraticly expanding part, unlikely that will be with the linearly expanding part, and virtually zero that it will be with the breeder engine itself.

While that is the case, as the density decreases, the average number of cells created by breeders per area still decreases. Let's represent the initial density of cells with the letter d, and let's suppose that the minimum number of cells necessary for quadratic growth is eleven (It's probably higher, but that would only make the influence of breeders decrease faster as the initial density decreases.) and that the breeder is an MMX breeder. This means that when the grid is sufficiently sparse, the number of breeders that spawn per unit area is proportional to d¹¹. Also, when the grid is sufficiently sparse, the density of blonks is proportional to d³. If we assume that the likelihood of the breeder to be destroyed upon crashing into a blonk does not depend on the density of blonks, the average distance that the breeder travels for before crashing into a blonk and being destroyed is asymptotically proportional to d⁻³, so the number of rakes or puffers that the breeder will create before getting destroyed will be asymptotically proportional to d⁻³. Likewise, the average distance that the rakes or puffers travel before getting destroyed by hitting a blonk will be asymptotically proportional to d⁻³, so the average amount of debris that they will create beforehand will be asymptotically proportional d⁻³. Therefore, the average amount of cells that each breeder that forms creates will be asymptotically proportional to d⁻⁶, but because the average density of breeders will be asymptotically proportional to d¹¹, the average number of cells per area that are from breeders with be asymptotically proportional to d⁵. Because the power of d is not less than zero (More than eleven cells being required for quadratic growth will only make the power of d more positive, and using a SXX or MSX breeder instead will not decrease the power of d (although they probably won't increase the power of d either).), breeders will not dominate SparseLife.

Posted: **March 2nd, 2021, 5:58 pm**

Removing an eater from the quinti-snark turns it into a hexi-snark

Code: Select all

x = 34, y = 52, rule = B3/S23
32bo$31bo$31b3o3$27bo$26bo$26b3o3$22bo$21bo$11b2o8b3o$11bo$9bobo$9b2o
6bo$5bo10bo$4bobo9b3o$4bobo$5bo$12bo$11bo$11b3o3$7bo$2b2o2bo$bo2bob3o$
2b2o$13b2o$13bobo$6b2o7bo$5bo2bo6b2o$6b2o4$5b4o$4b6o$3bob4obo$b3o6b3o$
o4bo3bo3bo$b5o2bo2bobo$9bob2o$3b2ob4o$2bo3bo3b3o$2bobob4o3bo$b2ob2obo
3b2o$9bobo$9bobo$7bobob2o$7b2o!

Sample usage: edgeshooting p720 glider gun

Code: Select all

x = 42, y = 45, rule = B3/S23
32b2o$32b2o3$29b2o$29b2o2$32b2o$32b2o$40b2o$40bo$38bobo$21b3o14b2o$22b
o$12b2o8b3o$12bo$10bobo$10b2o$6bo$5bobo$5bobo$6bo3$21b2o$21b2o2$24b2o$
24b2o3$14b2o5b2o$14bobo4b2o$16bo$7b2o7b2o$7b2o3$7b2o$2b2obo4bob2o$2bo
10bo$3b2o6b2o$3o2b6o2b3o$o2bo8bo2bo$b2o10b2o!

ConwayLife.com

Thread For Your Accidental Discoveries

Re: Thread For Your Accidental Discoveries

Re: Thread For Your Accidental Discoveries

Re: Thread For Your Accidental Discoveries

Re: Thread For Your Accidental Discoveries

Re: Thread For Your Accidental Discoveries

Re: Thread For Your Accidental Discoveries

Re: Thread For Your Accidental Discoveries

Re: Thread For Your Accidental Discoveries

Re: Thread For Your Accidental Discoveries

Re: Thread For Your Accidental Discoveries

Re: Thread For Your Accidental Discoveries

Re: Thread For Your Accidental Discoveries

Re: Thread For Your Accidental Discoveries

Re: Thread For Your Accidental Discoveries

Re: Thread For Your Accidental Discoveries

Re: Thread For Your Accidental Discoveries

Re: Thread For Your Accidental Discoveries

Re: Thread For Your Accidental Discoveries

Re: Thread For Your Accidental Discoveries

Re: Thread For Your Accidental Discoveries

Re: Thread For Your Accidental Discoveries

Re: Thread For Your Accidental Discoveries

Re: Thread For Your Accidental Discoveries

Re: Thread For Your Accidental Discoveries

Re: Thread For Your Accidental Discoveries