Page 104 of 137
Re: Thread for your unsure discoveries
Posted: September 19th, 2022, 11:46 am
by qqd
Is this P-to-R known? (Probably is, but I'm more interested on whether it's useful, because it has such a big reaction envelope, so it's hard to put the R-pentomino in a conduit):
Code: Select all
x = 26, y = 27, rule = LifeHistory
9.2A$8.B2AB$8.3B$9.B$7.6B$7.7B$7.7B$7.11B$5.14B$5.14B$5.15B$5.14B$5.
8B2D4B$5.9B2D3B$4.10BD5B$3.18B$.21B$22B$.21B$3.10B3C6B$4.9BCBC6B$5.8B
CBC6B2A$5.17BA.A$5.11B.3B4.A$6.8B4.B5.2A$8.6B$8.4B!
Re: Thread for your unsure discoveries
Posted: September 19th, 2022, 12:03 pm
by dvgrn
qqd wrote: ↑September 19th, 2022, 11:46 am
Is this P-to-R known? (Probably is, but I'm more interested on whether it's useful, because it has such a big reaction envelope, so it's hard to put to R-pentomino in a conduit)...
Yup, that's exactly the limitation. You can check the
Elementary Conduits Collection for yourself to see if it's "known": there is a matching PL*124R conduit in the ECC --
Code: Select all
x = 41, y = 42, rule = LifeHistory
4D2.D13.D4.3D5.D2.4D$D3.D.D5.D.D.D2.2D3.D3.D3.2D2.D3.D$D3.D.D6.3D4.D
7.D2.D.D2.D3.D$4D2.D5.5D3.D6.D2.D2.D2.4D$D5.D6.3D4.D5.D3.5D.D2.D$D5.D
5.D.D.D3.D4.D7.D2.D3.D$D5.5D8.3D2.5D4.D2.D3.D10$9.A$9.3A$12.A$11.2A$
11.7B$11.8B$10.10B3.B$9.17B$10.17B$11.16B$10.2B3C5BD6B$10.4BC4B3D5B$
8.4B3C6BD7B$8.22B$7.23B$7.23B.2B$7.25B2A$7.23B.B2A$9.21B2.B$9.17B$10.
16B$13.7B$14.5B$15.3B$15.3B$16.B!
-- but I don't remember who put it there, or why. Offhand I don't know what it would connect to. When I was maintaining the ECC I always tended to boycott the addition of conduits that didn't have a valid prefix conduit and a valid postfix conduit -- but I was happy to hand over the maintenance task to other people, and standards may have changed a bit now.
Re: Thread for your unsure discoveries
Posted: September 19th, 2022, 6:51 pm
by mniemiec
dvgrn wrote: ↑September 19th, 2022, 12:03 pm
When I was maintaining the ECC I always tended to boycott the addition of conduits that didn't have a valid prefix conduit and a valid postfix conduit -- but I was happy to hand over the maintenance task to other people, and standards may have changed a bit now.
One problem with such a boycott is that a specialized conduct may have no suitable connectors *yet*, but other similarly-specialized conduits might be found later - and both would be discarded based on this criterion.
Re: Thread for your unsure discoveries
Posted: September 19th, 2022, 9:54 pm
by dvgrn
mniemiec wrote: ↑September 19th, 2022, 6:51 pm
One problem with such a boycott is that a specialized conduct may have no suitable connectors *yet*, but other similarly-specialized conduits might be found later - and both would be discarded based on this criterion.
Yeah, it's just a judgment call, and everybody will do it a little differently. On the other hand, if the ECC had collected every implausible mechanism that might someday connect to something somewhere, it might be ten times as big now, and 89% of it would be useless theoretical conduits that don't connect to anything and just serve to clutter up the collection.
The remaining 1% would be conduits for which pre- and postfix connectors have since been found. Even those tend to be only marginally useful in practice: it's certainly interesting to be able to add another active object to the list, but really the new elementary conduits that get any significant amounts of use tend to be the ones that A) are small, B) are all made out of Spartan pieces, and/or C) immediately allow for lots of different connections -- as opposed to managing with great difficulty to make one or two types of connections. Possibly there's one example in the last two decades of a speculative conduit suddenly turning into a commonly used workhorse, but I can't think of any cases like that.
We do have a thread where "maybe someday" conduits can be posted: there's no harm in posting such things in the
thread for speculative elementary conduits. Anybody who particularly wants to root for the Underdog Conduits should certainly post things there and keep an eye on them, and crosspost to the regular thread if and when any new connections turn up.
Re: Thread for your unsure discoveries
Posted: September 24th, 2022, 6:40 pm
by squareroot12621
Pre–ship tie + banana spark = ship tie.
It would be hard to place the banana spark because of the reaction envelope, though.
Code: Select all
x = 14, y = 14, rule = LifeHistory
5.3B$3.6B$2.7B$2.7B$2.3BA3B$2.2BAB2A4BA$.3BA6BA2B$.B2A5BABA2B$BA7BA4B
$.BA7BAB$.BA5B2A2B$2.5BAB$2.2B2ABAB$5.BA!
Re: Thread for your unsure discoveries
Posted: September 27th, 2022, 1:06 pm
by qqd
Can someone measure the period of the top LWSS stream crystal (it's total madness going on!)
Code: Select all
x = 127, y = 108, rule = B3/S23
90b2o$86b4ob2o$86b6o$87b4o2$102b2o$100b2ob2o$86bo9bo3b4o$85bo11bo3b2o$
85b3o7bo2bo$97bo3b2o$96bo3b4o$100b2ob2o$68bo18b2o13b2o$67bo17bo4bo$67b
3o21bo$85bo5bo$86b6o$72b2o$71b2o$73bo2$70bo40b2o$70b2o35b4ob2o$69bobo
18b2o15b6o$89b2o17b4o9bo2bo$91bo33bo$121bo3bo$76bo36bo3bo4b4o$76b2o8b
4o23bo4b2o$75bobo7bo3bo18b2o7b3o$89bo17b2o9b2o$85bo2bo20bo7bo4b4o$121b
o3bo$82b3o14b2o24bo$82b3o13b4o19bo2bo$81bo3bo12b2ob2o$83b2o6bo2bo5b2o
6b6o$o79bo10bo3bo11bo5bo$3o73bo3b2ob2o5bo4b2o16bo$bo73bobo5b2o6bo3bo
11bo4bo$74bo3b2o2bo2bo5bo2bo5b2o7b2o$82bo2bo12b2ob2o$75bo5bo3bo12b4o$
77b7o15b2o2$88b6o$87bo5bo$93bo$79bo2bo4bo4bo$83bo5b2o$79bo3bo$80b4o3$
91b2o$87b4ob2o$87b6o$88b4o2$103b2o$101b2ob2o$87bo9bo3b4o$86bo11bo3b2o$
86b3o7bo2bo$98bo3b2o$97bo3b4o$101b2ob2o$69bo18b2o13b2o$68bo17bo4bo$68b
3o21bo$86bo5bo$87b6o$73b2o$72b2o$74bo2$71bo40b2o$71b2o35b4ob2o$70bobo
18b2o15b6o$90b2o17b4o9bo2bo$92bo33bo$122bo3bo$77bo36bo3bo4b4o$77b2o8b
4o23bo4b2o$76bobo7bo3bo18b2o7b3o$90bo17b2o9b2o$86bo2bo20bo7bo4b4o$122b
o3bo$83b3o14b2o24bo$83b3o13b4o19bo2bo$82bo3bo12b2ob2o$84b2o6bo2bo5b2o
6b6o$81bo10bo3bo11bo5bo$77bo3b2ob2o5bo4b2o16bo$76bobo5b2o6bo3bo11bo4bo
$75bo3b2o2bo2bo5bo2bo5b2o7b2o$83bo2bo12b2ob2o$76bo5bo3bo12b4o$78b7o15b
2o2$89b6o$88bo5bo$94bo$80bo2bo4bo4bo$84bo5b2o$80bo3bo$81b4o!
EDIT: Eureka! The period is from about 7 to 8 million generations!
Re: Thread for your unsure discoveries
Posted: September 27th, 2022, 3:25 pm
by dvgrn
qqd wrote: ↑September 27th, 2022, 1:06 pm
Can someone measure the period of the top LWSS stream crystal (it's total madness going on!)
...
EDIT: Eureka! The period is from about 7 to 8 million generations!
At T=19,559, the lower LWSS stream produces a block that allows it to settle into producing ash with a period of 4540. It occasionally interrupts the upper stream, which causes all kinds of complicated things to happen.
Until you can find a unit of repetition for the left side of the upper stream, where the LWSSes that make it through the periodic interruptions are running into the messy ash cloud that's creeping rightward, you can't really say that the upper stream has a period. You may have found a temporary unit of repetition in the 7-8 million tick range, but if so it's only temporary. The eventual period is just 4540.
Things start to get interesting at T=39,000,000 where a glider is visible inside the big upper triangle. It has been kicked back from the two crossing glider streams from the north, and it will hit the horizontal spine at just past T=40,576,000 and block the LWSS stream, eventually creating a new collision point and starting to spew random gliders from a different location. Here you can see that the remaining left-hand part of the LWSS stream has just finally been exhausted, so the far left X-shaped glider source has suddenly stopped producing new gliders:
- Snapshot1.png (32.94 KiB) Viewed 1506 times
Another pair of gliders impacts the spine very soon after that, around T=42,351,000, but fails to block the LWSS stream. Yet another glider -- coming from the old intersection point, oddly enough, since the gliders produced by the original LWSS stream are still crossing the old and new streams of NW-traveling gliders -- succeeds in starting a new chaotic ash cloud just after T=33,919,000. Another reboot succeeds after T=50,620,000.
Eventually the period of the upper LWSS stream drops to match the period of the lower stream, when an LWSS eater happens to appear at (2623139,17) at T=55,334,906. Once the LWSS stream clears its way to that eater, the fun is pretty much over. As soon as the crossing glider streams fail to create any more kicked-back gliders for possible reboots, at around T=54,493,000, Golly can suddenly run the pattern at warp speed, because there's no longer anything chaotic happening anywhere. At that point the central area looks like this:
- Snapshot2.png (40.06 KiB) Viewed 1506 times
Long story short: there are a lot of ways for sneaky things to happen to generate new novelty... and conversely, there are lots of sneaky ways to knock out novelty generators that look like they're going to keep doing new and interesting stuff indefinitely.
Re: Thread for your unsure discoveries
Posted: September 28th, 2022, 1:54 pm
by qqd
qqd wrote: ↑September 16th, 2022, 8:29 am
Is this twin bees shuttle variant known?
Code: Select all
x = 36, y = 21, rule = B3/S23
12bo$11bobo$11bobo$10b2ob3o$16bo$2o8b2ob3o$obo7b2obo$2bo$2b2o$4bo$2b3o
12b2o$bo14bobo15b2o$b2o13bo17b2o$16b3o$4b2o$3bobo$3bo$2b2o12b3o$7b2o7b
o17b2o$7b2o7bobo15b2o$17b2o!
Re: Thread for your unsure discoveries
Posted: September 28th, 2022, 1:56 pm
by squareroot12621
Reduction:
Code: Select all
x = 35, y = 20, rule = B3/S23
7b2o$7bo2bobo$9b2ob3o$15bo$b2o6b2ob3o$2bo6b2obo$bo$b2o$3bo$b3o12b2o$o
14bobo15b2o$2o13bo17b2o$15b3o$3b2o$2bobo$2bo$b2o12b3o$6b2o7bo17b2o$6b
2o7bobo15b2o$16b2o!
Re: Thread for your unsure discoveries
Posted: September 28th, 2022, 2:12 pm
by dvgrn
qqd wrote: ↑September 28th, 2022, 1:54 pm
qqd wrote: ↑September 16th, 2022, 8:29 am
Is this twin bees shuttle variant known?
It might or might not be known, but there also might be a reason that this question wasn't answered the first time.
I'll give it a try now. There are a lot of ways to catalyze the spark from a twin-bees shuttle, and many of them have likely been seen in passing but then discarded because they didn't do anything interesting -- e.g., they didn't produce an output glider, and didn't make available a new and different spark that's accessible from outside the oscillator. Here's a useless twin bees shuttle variant that I just made up, which also wouldn't really qualify as either "known" or "unknown":
Code: Select all
x = 34, y = 14, rule = B3/S23
2o$bo$bobo$2b2o11b2o$14bobo15b2o$14bo17b2o$14b3o$2b2o$bobo$bo$2o12b3o$
5b2o7bo17b2o$5b2o7bobo15b2o$15b2o!
Now, your variant is definitely a little bit more interesting than this! My example just has a couple of zero-effect catalysts -- taking away the catalysts doesn't change much of anything at all. It's smaller than your variant, which might count as an improvement, but then removing the eaters would make it even smaller.
Your version extends the life of the spark by six ticks, compared to not having any catalysts. On the other hand, the spark is hemmed in by catalysts so that it doesn't look like anything new or interesting can be done with it.
If the spark could be guided to the edge of the oscillator, where it could be reached by additional catalysts or other sparks, maybe it could be turned into an output glider or *WSS or something -- and then it would definitely be interesting. But it doesn't appear to be too likely that that will be possible.
Re: Thread for your unsure discoveries
Posted: September 29th, 2022, 7:39 am
by C28
p8 C to U
Code: Select all
x = 19, y = 16, rule = B3/S23
16bo2$14b3obo$13bob2o$13b2obo$4bo6bob3o$4b3o$7bo5bo$6b2o3$bo$obo5b3o$
bo6bobo$7bo2bo$7b2o!
edit: dirty H to r-turner
Code: Select all
x = 17, y = 17, rule = B3/S23
8b2o$8bo2bobo$10b2ob3o$16bo$10b2ob3o$10b2obo3$15bo$14bobo$15b2o2$15b2o
$o13bobo$obo12bo$3o$2bo!
Re: Thread for your unsure discoveries
Posted: September 29th, 2022, 11:10 am
by qqd
Check accidental discoveries for a long line of little things I discovered, and please classify as 'known', 'useful', or/and 'interesting'
EDIT: Wait, have I just discovered a reaction MOVING AT 3C?! (please do generation by generation otherwise you won't notice anything)
Code: Select all
x = 5, y = 20, rule = B3/S23
2bo$2bo$2bo2$b3o2$bobo$2bo$bobo$2bo$bobo$bobo$bobo$bobo$2ob2o$2ob2o$bo
bo3$2ob2o!
Re: Thread for your unsure discoveries
Posted: October 1st, 2022, 1:27 pm
by qqd
ALERT! See above post!
Re: Thread for your unsure discoveries
Posted: October 1st, 2022, 2:29 pm
by vivi
qqd wrote: ↑October 1st, 2022, 1:27 pm
ALERT! See above post!
please don't bump your own post like this. also, this kind of reaction isn't actually moving at 3c -- it's just an illusion. information can't be transmitted faster than c.
Re: Thread for your unsure discoveries
Posted: October 1st, 2022, 4:13 pm
by otismo
C3 Pulsar :
Code: Select all
x = 5, y = 20, rule = B3/S23
2bo$2bo$2bo2$b3o2$bobo$2bo$bobo$2bo$bobo$bobo$bobo$bobo$2ob2o$2ob2o$bo
bo3$2ob2o!
#C [[ AUTOSTART ]]
#C [[ ZOOM 16 ]]
#C [[ GPS 10 ]]
#C [[ LOOP 8 ]]
#C [[ TITLE "C3 Pulsar" ]]
#C [[ STARS ]]
#C [[ RAINBOW ]]
the Hurricane blew the Asteroid away -
WheW !
Cheers !
Re: Thread for your unsure discoveries
Posted: October 7th, 2022, 2:24 pm
by C28
Code: Select all
x = 18, y = 12, rule = B3/S23
bo5bo$b2o3bobo$2o4bobo$7bo$16b2o$14bo2bo$14b3o$11bo$11b4o$14bo$13bo$13b
2o!
it's transparent (at least for a bit), but it doesn't look too promising.
Re: Thread for your unsure discoveries
Posted: October 7th, 2022, 2:27 pm
by hotdogPi
C28 wrote: ↑October 7th, 2022, 2:24 pm
Code: Select all
x = 18, y = 12, rule = B3/S23
bo5bo$b2o3bobo$2o4bobo$7bo$16b2o$14bo2bo$14b3o$11bo$11b4o$14bo$13bo$13b
2o!
it's transparent (at least for a bit), but it doesn't look too promising.
This keeps it transparent, but it still only acts as an eater.
Code: Select all
x = 18, y = 27, rule = B3/S23
2bo$2b3o$5bo$4b2o12$bo5bo$b2o3bobo$2o4bobo$7bo$16b2o$14bo2bo$14b3o$11b
o$11b4o$14bo$13bo$13b2o!
Re: Thread for your unsure discoveries
Posted: October 7th, 2022, 2:31 pm
by C28
hotdogPi wrote: ↑October 7th, 2022, 2:27 pm
C28 wrote: ↑October 7th, 2022, 2:24 pm
Code: Select all
x = 18, y = 12, rule = B3/S23
bo5bo$b2o3bobo$2o4bobo$7bo$16b2o$14bo2bo$14b3o$11bo$11b4o$14bo$13bo$13b
2o!
it's transparent (at least for a bit), but it doesn't look too promising.
This keeps it transparent, but it still only acts as an eater.
Code: Select all
x = 18, y = 27, rule = B3/S23
2bo9bo$2b3o5b3o$5bo3bo$4b2o3b2o12$bo5bo$b2o3bobo$2o4bobo$7bo$16b2o$14b
o2bo$14b3o$11bo$11b4o$14bo$13bo$13b2o!
only 1 of the eater 1s is needed
Code: Select all
x = 18, y = 27, rule = B3/S23
2bo$2b3o$5bo$4b2o12$bo5bo$b2o3bobo$2o4bobo$7bo$16b2o$14bo2bo$14b3o$11b
o$11b4o$14bo$13bo$13b2o!
edit: i just had an idea: what if instead of deleting junk with the lower catalyst, we preturb it into a glider?
Re: Thread for your unsure discoveries
Posted: October 7th, 2022, 3:55 pm
by qqd
Can someone verify the following 889-bit number as the number encoded in the bottom LWSS stream in the p46-based PRNG?(LWSS absent encoded by '0', LWSS present encoded by '1')
Code: Select all
x = 156, y = 75, rule = B3/S23
146b2o5b2o$146b2o5b2o8$147bo5bo$146b3o3b3o$145b2obo3bob2o3$148bo3bo$
148bo3bo5$147bo$146bobo$33bo111b2ob2o$32b2o8b2o101bo3bo$18b2o11b3obo5b
o2bo99b3ob3o$18b2o10b2o8b2ob3o99bo3bo$31b2o8b2obo100bo3bo$32bo10bo102b
obo4b2o$147bo5b2o$32bo$31b2o$18b2o10b2o13b2o30b2o$18b2o11b3obo9b2o30b
2o$b2o29b2o$b2o30bo3$41bo2bo$19b4o22bo19b4o$18bo3bo18bo3bo18bo3bo58b2o
$22bo19b4o22bo59b2o$18bo2bo42bo2bo59bo$b3o3b3o$o2bo3bo2bo$2obo3bob2o
69bo$57bo5bo5b2o8b2o15b2o$21b2o19bob2o11bo5bo5b2o7b2o16b2o$20b2o14b2o
3bo2b2o2b3o28b2o2b2o$22bo13b2o3bo6b2o3b2o11b2o$41b2o3b3o$43bo3bo9bo5bo
52bo$57bo5bo15b2o2b2o31b2o$43bo3bo21b2o7b2o16b2o17bobo$41b2o3b3o20b2o
8b2o15b2o$36b2o3bo6b2o13b2o15bo$36b2o3bo2b2o2b3o12b2o$42bob2o$33bo$32b
2o58b2o$32bobo17bo38bo$b2o5b2o41b2o25b2o10bo2b2o$b2o5b2o40b3obo9b2o12b
2o10bo2bo18bo$30b2o17b2o13b2o24bobo11b2o4bo2bo$32bo17b2o39b2o12b2o3b5o
10b2o$17b2o10b2o2bo17bo52bo5b3ob2o9b2o$17b2o11bo2bo57b2o18b2obo$31bobo
17bo38bobo19b2o$31b2o17b2o26b2o10bo2bo$49b2o13b2o12b2o10bo2b2o17b2o$
31b2o17b3obo9b2o25bo19b2obo$31bobo17b2o39b2o16b3ob2o9b2o$17b2o11bo2bo
18bo57b5o10b2o$17b2o10b2o2bo76bo2bo$32bo79bo$30b2o!
And the number:
0000000101010101001100110010001000100101101001001110010010000100100101001001001101101101110001110000101111010110000011000101011101001100001101110101110000110000101000101001101001101110010001111011010000011100101011110110011111000100000010110101011000110011101000100001101001010001101100101110001001111010010000011011010100011100110100001000110101101000110001101000101110010110000100111010110111100111000001000010101101011001110011101111011110000011111010100000011001010100010011001011011101100011110001011111010011111100100000001001010101101100110001110111010000111100101000001001101010010001100100101110110110000111000101000010110010100111011001000011101101011110001100000101110101001111001101111101110000001111010101111100110000001000101010010110011011000100011101001011110011001111101101111110001111111010000000011010101011100110011110111011111000011111101011111110011111111011111111100000
Number of zeros at the end of the number might be different, so please correct it if it's needed.
Re: Thread for your unsure discoveries
Posted: October 7th, 2022, 9:37 pm
by wirehead
qqd wrote: ↑October 7th, 2022, 3:55 pm
Can someone verify the following 889-bit number as the number encoded in the bottom LWSS stream in the p46-based PRNG?(LWSS absent encoded by '0', LWSS present encoded by '1')
And the number:
0000000101010101001100110010001000100101101001001110010010000100100101001001001101101101110001110000101111010110000011000101011101001100001101110101110000110000101000101001101001101110010001111011010000011100101011110110011111000100000010110101011000110011101000100001101001010001101100101110001001111010010000011011010100011100110100001000110101101000110001101000101110010110000100111010110111100111000001000010101101011001110011101111011110000011111010100000011001010100010011001011011101100011110001011111010011111100100000001001010101101100110001110111010000111100101000001001101010010001100100101110110110000111000101000010110010100111011001000011101101011110001100000101110101001111001101111101110000001111010101111100110000001000101010010110011011000100011101001011110011001111101101111110001111111010000000011010101011100110011110111011111000011111101011111110011111111011111111100000
Number of zeros at the end of the number might be different, so please correct it if it's needed.
892 characters in this string = 3 too many zeros at the end.
Re: Thread for your unsure discoveries
Posted: October 8th, 2022, 4:04 am
by qqd
wirehead wrote: ↑October 7th, 2022, 9:37 pm
qqd wrote: ↑October 7th, 2022, 3:55 pm
Can someone verify the following 889-bit number as the number encoded in the bottom LWSS stream in the p46-based PRNG?(LWSS absent encoded by '0', LWSS present encoded by '1')
And the number:
0000000101010101001100110010001000100101101001001110010010000100100101001001001101101101110001110000101111010110000011000101011101001100001101110101110000110000101000101001101001101110010001111011010000011100101011110110011111000100000010110101011000110011101000100001101001010001101100101110001001111010010000011011010100011100110100001000110101101000110001101000101110010110000100111010110111100111000001000010101101011001110011101111011110000011111010100000011001010100010011001011011101100011110001011111010011111100100000001001010101101100110001110111010000111100101000001001101010010001100100101110110110000111000101000010110010100111011001000011101101011110001100000101110101001111001101111101110000001111010101111100110000001000101010010110011011000100011101001011110011001111101101111110001111111010000000011010101011100110011110111011111000011111101011111110011111111011111111100000
Number of zeros at the end of the number might be different, so please correct it if it's needed.
892 characters in this string = 3 too many zeros at the end.
Thank you very much!
Here's the modified number:
0000000101010101001100110010001000100101101001001110010010000100100101001001001101101101110001110000101111010110000011000101011101001100001101110101110000110000101000101001101001101110010001111011010000011100101011110110011111000100000010110101011000110011101000100001101001010001101100101110001001111010010000011011010100011100110100001000110101101000110001101000101110010110000100111010110111100111000001000010101101011001110011101111011110000011111010100000011001010100010011001011011101100011110001011111010011111100100000001001010101101100110001110111010000111100101000001001101010010001100100101110110110000111000101000010110010100111011001000011101101011110001100000101110101001111001101111101110000001111010101111100110000001000101010010110011011000100011101001011110011001111101101111110001111111010000000011010101011100110011110111011111000011111101011111110011111111011111111100
Can someone do a more thorough check now?(Use the RLE in my previous post to check as it's in a different phase than the one in the wiki)
Re: Thread for your unsure discoveries
Posted: October 8th, 2022, 4:26 am
by confocaloid
qqd wrote: ↑October 7th, 2022, 3:55 pm
Can someone verify the following 889-bit number as the number encoded in the bottom LWSS stream in the p46-based PRNG?(LWSS absent encoded by '0', LWSS present encoded by '1')
Please do not post long multi-bit binary strings. It does not seem reasonable to expect someone to proofread a 0/1 string and double-check whether it corresponds with how the pattern work (at least not without some reason why this should be considered something interesting/fun). Also, saying "the number encoded" is incorrect, because the pattern is periodic and you can start at any point, obtaining different possible bitstrings, and then interpret either of resulting bitstrings in different ways potentially obtaining different numbers.
Re: Thread for your unsure discoveries
Posted: October 8th, 2022, 9:21 am
by wirehead
qqd wrote: ↑October 8th, 2022, 4:04 am
wirehead wrote: ↑October 7th, 2022, 9:37 pm
qqd wrote: ↑October 7th, 2022, 3:55 pm
Can someone verify the following 889-bit number as the number encoded in the bottom LWSS stream in the p46-based PRNG?(LWSS absent encoded by '0', LWSS present encoded by '1')
And the number:
<lots of bits>
Number of zeros at the end of the number might be different, so please correct it if it's needed.
892 characters in this string = 3 too many zeros at the end.
Thank you very much!
Here's the modified number:
<lots of bits>
Can someone do a more thorough check now?(Use the RLE in my previous post to check as it's in a different phase than the one in the wiki)
I think a better approach would be to analyze the pattern and determine the feedback structure, and then model the mechanism in Python or Lua and see if the outputs match. From my looking at it, it is composed of a toggle mechanism and an inverter. I do not know the length (in bits) of the feedback loop but a script could easily check to see what loop length produces a period of 889.
Re: Thread for your unsure discoveries
Posted: October 9th, 2022, 7:09 pm
by squareroot12621
These have to be known already.
Code: Select all
x = 38, y = 29, rule = LifeHistory
10.A.A$10.2A$11.A14$.A$.A.A20.A5.A3.3D$.2A5.A14.A2.2D.A5.2D$7.A15.3A2D
.3A2.D.D$7.3A23.D$32.D$.2C19.2C7.D$D2C2.D16.2C11.D.D$2D2.D5.D21.D2.D.
D$3.D3.D2.D20.3D.3D$D.D3.3D.D21.D4.D$2D5.D2.D26.D$3D7.D!
Re: Thread for your unsure discoveries
Posted: October 11th, 2022, 3:58 am
by C_R_116
I found a 64-cell Period 2 oscillator
It looks somehow familiar.
Code: Select all
x = 17, y = 17, rule = B3/S23
8bo$7bobo$8bo$5bo5bo$5b7o$3b2o7b2o$4bo2b3o2bo$bo2bobo3bobo2bo$obobobo
3bobobobo$bo2bobo3bobo2bo$4bo2b3o2bo$3b2o7b2o$5b7o$5bo5bo$8bo$7bobo$8b
o!