Thread for basic questions

[dvgrn]

A flipping oscillator with even loopability is impossible, assuming the rules are isotropic.
The impossibility is because otherwise there would be two mirror images of the same reaction at the same time, which will necessarily remain mirror images of each other as they evolve (because the rules are isotropic), and either will never exchange with each other (contradicting the part "flipping") or will collide with each other (contradicting the part "even loopability").

It's not quite clear to me yet that this constitutes a proof of nonexistence of even-loopability RFOs, at least for isotropic rules with a large number of states

The "will never exchange" part of the above logic isn't necessarily true of isotropic patterns when the line of symmetry is along cell boundaries, right? Two moving patterns traveling on diagonally connected cells in a von Neumann neighborhood will pass through each other very nicely.

Then it's just a question of whether it's possible to find patterns that will loop around after they pass through each other, and turn into their own mirror images after switching to the other checkerboard square color. That's a tall order, for sure, but it seems like it might be possible to come up with a rather complicated engineered example somehow or other -- if we have enough states to work with. (?)

Code: Select all

#C diagonalize this isotropic rule (for example) and emulate orthogonally traveling patterns --
#C a mirror-image pair can be arranged to pass directly through each other at 90 degrees.
x = 10, y = 24, rule = ArtemDergachev-vonNeumann3state
2.A$.A.A$4.2A$.A2.2B.AB$.AB.B.3BA$.AB.B.3BA$.A2.2B.AB$4.2A$.A.A$2.A7$
8.A$4.A2B2.A$3.A.5B$2.B3.4B$.A7.A$.2B.2B2.A$A.A$.A!

Or... for isotropic rules with range > 1, couldn't it be arranged for two patterns travelling orthogonally in opposite directions to pass directly through each other, to maybe make a rectangular travel pattern possible after all? The only thing that's special about the figure-8 pattern is that the 90-degree crossings are maybe technically possible even at range 1.

[confocaloid]

[...]
The "will never exchange" part of the above logic isn't necessarily true of isotropic patterns when the line of symmetry is along cell boundaries, right? Two moving patterns traveling on diagonally connected cells in a von Neumann neighborhood will pass through each other very nicely.

Then it's just a question of whether it's possible to find patterns that will loop around after they pass through each other, and turn into their own mirror images after switching to the other checkerboard square color. [...]

I'm not sure whether I understand the suggestion.

It sounds like you are suggesting to rotate the von Neumann neighbourhood 45 degrees (so that it includes four diagonal neighbours of the cell, rather than four orthogonal neighbours), and then find a multistate CA using this neighbourhood where there is a flipping oscillator that's a compact active object, with a "figure-eight-shaped" envelope, which occupies cells of one checkerboard square colour when moving through the self-crossing of the envelope in one direction, but (somehow) occupies cells of the other checkerboard square colour when moving through the self-crossing of the envelope in another direction.

I think that's impossible while still using the same 4-cell neighbourhood with four diagonal neighbours. If a pattern starts with all nonzero cells on squares of a single colour, then no cell on a square of the other colour can be affected.

If you use the 8-cell Moore neighbourhood instead, then (even if states of orthogonal neighbours are "almost always" ignored) there will still be interaction when two mirror-image instances of a single object meet at the self-crossing of the envelope. Whether or not the two instances happen to reappear after the interaction "as if they never interacted", the collision will happen, and the pattern will not count as "loopability-2".

[dvgrn]

I think that's impossible while still using the same 4-cell neighbourhood with four diagonal neighbours. If a pattern starts with all nonzero cells on squares of a single colour, then no cell on a square of the other colour can be affected.

If you use the 8-cell Moore neighbourhood instead, then (even if states of orthogonal neighbours are "almost always" ignored) there will still be interaction when two mirror-image instances of a single object meet at the self-crossing of the envelope. Whether or not the two instances happen to reappear after the interaction "as if they never interacted", the collision will happen, and the pattern will not count as "loopability-2".

Sorry, I think I didn't emphasize the "more than two states" part of my theorizing. You mentioned a limitation to isotropic rules; I guess I'm suggesting that it might also be necessary to limit the impossibility statement to isotropic range-1 two-state rules.

I certainly don't have a counterexample! But it doesn't seem provably out of the question that a pattern might do its diagonal checkerboard travel trick at a time when it's made up of cell states that only interact diagonal von-Neuman-wise ... but that once the crossing is safely accomplished, it might evolve into a rare configuration that allows the birth of another cell state, which then mediates the transition of the pattern to the other checkerboard square color.

Seems like we might even be able to engineer a highly artificial example with maybe several dozen or even a few hundred cell states, where some asymmetrical multistate configuration could manage a crossing in this way while its cell states keep counting higher and higher -- like, one of the spaceships in Artem Dergachev's rule above, but with each new birth being a new higher cell state, and existing cells also incrementing their states to match.

All states would follow basically the same diagonal-von-Neumann rules until the self-intersecting crossing is safely accomplished ... but once the crossing is complete and the nose of the "spaceship" has reached a sufficiently high State X, then that state is engineered to cause orthogonal motion.

I'm don't know what the simplest design would be that could manage all of these tricks. Seems like a WireWorld-like two-cell arrangement definitely isn't enough, since in an isotropic rule it wouldn't know which way to turn. But maybe three cells would work -- a head, a body, and a tail off at 90 degrees from the direction of travel? Not sure. I think that's not enough either, because the head would spawn new heads in two directions.

So maybe four cells with three or four different states would work? Like, a WireWorld-ish head and tail, with distinct "left side state" and "right side state" cells to the sides of the tail, to prevent births to the left and right sides of the head?

[confocaloid]

I think that's impossible while still using the same 4-cell neighbourhood with four diagonal neighbours. If a pattern starts with all nonzero cells on squares of a single colour, then no cell on a square of the other colour can be affected.

If you use the 8-cell Moore neighbourhood instead, then (even if states of orthogonal neighbours are "almost always" ignored) there will still be interaction when two mirror-image instances of a single object meet at the self-crossing of the envelope. Whether or not the two instances happen to reappear after the interaction "as if they never interacted", the collision will happen, and the pattern will not count as "loopability-2".

Sorry, I think I didn't emphasize the "more than two states" part of my theorizing. You mentioned a limitation to isotropic rules; I guess I'm suggesting that it might also be necessary to limit the impossibility statement to isotropic range-1 two-state rules.

I certainly don't have a counterexample! But it doesn't seem provably out of the question that a pattern might do its diagonal checkerboard travel trick at a time when it's made up of cell states that only interact diagonal von-Neuman-wise ... but that once the crossing is safely accomplished, it might evolve into a rare configuration that allows the birth of another cell state, which then mediates the transition of the pattern to the other checkerboard square color.
[...]

In other words, there would be some very rare situation when orthogonal neighbours can affect the cell, but most of the time reactions would proceed as if the neighbourhood included only four diagonal neighbours.

I think such a CA would still use the full Moore neighbourhood (both formally and actually). To clarify what I mean here:

• To know what is the "formal neighbourhood" of a cellular automaton, it suffices to look at the CA definition.
  If the CA definition says "range-1 Moore neighbourhood" then that is the "formal neighbourhood", even if the rules are such that (for example) current states of diagonal neighbours cannot possibly affect the state of the cell one tick later.
  If the CA definition says "range-3" then that is the "formal neighbourhood", even if the rules are such that (for example) only range-1 neighbours matter.
• To know what is the "actual neighbourhood" of a cellular automaton, it suffices to look at the ruleset of the CA, and to infer directly from the ruleset which cells can possibly affect the state of the cell in the next generation. Those, and only those, cells belong in the "actual neighbourhood".
  If a RuleLoader ruletable formally says "neighborhood:Moore", but the rules are such that only four orthogonal neighbours can possibly affect the state of the cell in the next generation, then the "actual neighbourhood" is the von Neumann neighbourhood.

In your imaginary counterexample with a rare event when another cellstate is created and used to trigger an interaction between orthogonally adjacent cells, the "actual neighbourhood" would still be the full Moore neighbourhood (because each of those 8 neighbours sometimes actually affects the state of the cell one tick later).

When two mirrored instances of such a flipping oscillator meet at the self-crossing of the envelope, some nonzero cell(s) in one of two instances of the oscillator will fall inside the neighbourhood of some nonzero cell(s) in the other instance of the oscillator. That means the two instances (or at least some nonempty parts of the two instances) will become a single object at that time (with the meaning of "single object" determined by the CA definition).
Because some nonzero cells created from the two instances of the oscillator become a single object at a certain time, it follows that there is a collision at that time. Since there is a collision, the instances are not noninteracting, contradicting "loopability-2".

[edit: reworded the above for clarity and fixed typos.]

Now, such an oscillator would be interesting in itself, as an example of something. However, I think it wouldn't be a "loopability-2 flipping oscillator", and it wouldn't be a counterexample to the "no even loopability" assumption.

[confocaloid]

In a Klein bottle universe, a statorless flipping oscillator with loopability 2 is possible:

Code: Select all

x = 44, y = 9, rule = LifeSuper:K64*,50
2O2.2O32.2S2.2S$2O3.O.2O26.2S.S3.2S$.O3.O.O28.S.S3.S$6.O30.S$.O40.S$.
2O38.2S$O2.O36.S2.S$O.O38.S.S$.O40.S!

Of course, whether or not it "counts" is TBD.

[...]
And on a side note, RFOs with loopability 2 are possible-think a rectangular track or envelope.

A flipping oscillator with even loopability is impossible, assuming the rules are isotropic.
The impossibility is because otherwise there would be two mirror images of the same reaction at the same time, which will necessarily remain mirror images of each other as they evolve (because the rules are isotropic), and either will never exchange with each other (contradicting the part "flipping") or will collide with each other (contradicting the part "even loopability").

A statorless flipping oscillator with an odd loopability >= 3 should be possible, but there are no known elementary examples.

edit:

actually, it might happen to be possible to have two noninteracting mirror-image instances of the oscillator, with a sufficiently complicated symmetric higher-range neighbourhood and with isotropic ruleset. However, that may require multiple states, or fine-tuning the rules in a way that is not possible with the existing NW... notation, or both.

Code: Select all

#C A certain higher-range neighbourhood
x = 23, y = 23, rule = LifeHistory
3D7.3D7.3D$DCD7.DCD7.DCD$3D7.3D7.3D8$3D17.3D$DCD8.C8.DCD$3D17.3D8$3D
7.3D7.3D$DCD7.DCD7.DCD$3D7.3D7.3D!
#C [[ GRID VIEWONLY ]]

In most reactions, the neighbours shown above with LifeHistory state 4 would be ignored, and everything would work as if the neighbourhood included only cells shown above with LifeHistory state 3. Then it would be possible to have two mirror-image reactions apparently "passing through" each other.

It would remain to find some way how the neighbours shown with LifeHistory state 4 would sometimes trigger birth by themselves (when all neighbours shown with state 3 are zero), to allow connecting the two crossing paths shown below:

Code: Select all

x = 146, y = 111, rule = LifeHistory
5.E9.E9.E9.E74.C9.C9.C9.C10$15.E9.E9.E9.E54.C9.C9.C9.C10$25.E9.E9.E9.
E34.C9.C9.C9.C10$35.E9.E9.E9.E14.C9.C9.C9.C10$45.E9.E9.E4.C4.E4.C9.C
9.C10$55.E4.C4.E4.C4.E4.C4.E4.C10$50.C9.C4.E4.C4.E4.C4.E9.E10$40.C9.C
9.C9.C4.E9.E9.E9.E10$30.C9.C9.C9.C24.E9.E9.E9.E10$20.C9.C9.C9.C44.E9.
E9.E9.E10$10.C9.C9.C9.C64.E9.E9.E9.E10$C9.C9.C9.C84.E9.E9.E9.E!
#C [[ VIEWONLY ]]

Neighbourhoods of state-3 cells don't overlap with the set of state-5 cells, and neighbourhoods of state-5 cells don't overlap with the set of state-3 cells. (Hence, while passing through the "crossing", no two nonzero cells from different instances of the oscillator can be neighbours of each other.)
Further, neighbourhoods of state-3 cells don't overlap with neighbourhoods of state-5 cells. (Hence, while passing through the "crossing", a birth-suppressing "pseudo" interaction between two instances of the oscillator is also impossible.)

[dvgrn]

In your imaginary counterexample with a rare event when another cellstate is created and used to trigger an interaction between orthogonally adjacent cells, the "actual neighbourhood" would still be the full Moore neighbourhood (because each of those 8 neighbours sometimes actually affects the state of the cell one tick later)...

Yeah, it seems like that all makes a good argument that this "checkerboard crossing" case doesn't really quite fulfil the "non-interacting copies" part of the official RRO definition.

Maybe "pseudo-RFO" would be a good descriptor of something like this, where the two copies would interact (by some technical definition of "interact") but without causing any actual difference in cell states.

[confocaloid]

I think the following pattern provides another example of the puzzle. It is a p5 oscillator. In the shown phase, two alive cells belong to a single duoplet (which is a single connected cluster with respect to the range-1 Moore neighbourhood, the "actual neighbourhood" of Conway's Life):

Code: Select all

x = 30, y = 14, rule = B3/S23
8b2o11b2o3b2o$6b3obo9bo2bobo2bo$5bo4bo9bob2ob2obo$3b3ob2ob2o7b2o2bobo
2b2o$2bo3bob2o3bo7bobo3bo$bo2bo5bo6bob3obobobo$bob3o4bo3bo5bo2bo4b2o$
2o4bo2bo5bo3bo4b3obo$2bobobob3obo6bo5bo2bo$2bo3bobo7bo3b2obo3bo$2o2bob
o2b2o7b2ob2ob3o$bob2ob2obo9bo4bo$bo2bobo2bo9bob3o$2b2o3b2o11b2o!

Code: Select all

x = 30, y = 14, rule = LifeSuper
8.2O11.2S3.2S$6.3O.O9.S2.S.S2.S$5.O4.O9.S.2S.2S.S$3.3O.2O.2O7.2S2.S.S
2.2S$2.O3.O.2O3.O7.S.S3.S$.O2.O5.O6.S.3S.S.S.S$.O.3O4.O3.O5.S2.S4.2S$
2O4.O2.O5.S3.S4.3S.S$2.O.O.O.3O.O6.S5.S2.S$2.O3.O.O7.S3.2S.S3.S$2O2.O
.O2.2O7.2S.2S.3S$.O.2O.2O.O9.S4.S$.O2.O.O2.O9.S.3S$2.2O3.2O11.2S!

This pattern feels like a single object to me, even though nothing changes in evolutions of subpatterns (compared to the situation when the same subpatterns are evolved separately from each other). Two instances of xp5_g8eh5u0e5he8zid4j2j4c5he2z178d54311 interact to create a duoplet; neither of two by itself would create a duoplet.

[confocaloid]

[...] Do we know who created the currently used standard for 3-neighbours isotropic hexagonal birth and survival, so they can be credited accordingly? [...]

Please read this forum post: viewtopic.php?p=193449#p193449

One thing I can't find at the moment is where and when the choice was made for "canonical" strings, to always use at most one letter after every digit (so that e.g. "B3-m" is preferred over "B3op" even though both have the same length). This does not match what happens with Hensel notation (where for example "B4aceijkn" is preferred over "B4-qrtwyz", both having the same length).

(IMO, the choice to use one letter and allow minuses in the "canonical" rulestring is unfortunate. Both because it's inconsistent with what happens in the case of Hensel notation; and because minuses and other separators are a problem when it comes to ability to search for rulestrings on the forums.)

[Drelectron8]

Are there any c/11 spaceships known in life? If not, I want to know what is the highest partial for it.

[pifricted]

Are there any c/11 spaceships known in life? If not, I want to know what is the highest partial for it.

There’s one c/11o caterloopillar.

Link: viewtopic.php?&p=30046#p30046

RLE:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/simsi ... ar_c11.rle

[confocaloid]

[...] the true SPOP of their respective period, [...]

[...] making it the smallest known true period-57 oscillator by population [...]

What do you mean by "true SPOP" or "true period-57 oscillator", exactly?

In the first example, interpreting "SPOP" as "smallest possible oscillator with a specific period", it's already known that the period of SPOP(n) equals n.
In second example (the wiki edit), 112P57 is a period-57 oscillator.
Inserting the word 'true' does not seem to tell anything new, and does not seem to explain anything.

The traditional distinction between 'true period' and 'pseudo period' is useful in the case of engineered glider guns, or with other engineered devices containing a stationary oscillating part, where the device functions as if it had period n (for example, a gun emits a period-n spaceship stream) despite actually having a higher period that is a multiple of n.

Neither smallest known/smallest possible oscillators of a specific period, nor 112P57 in particular, are examples of patterns where that distinction is useful. I think writing 'true' in these contexts is confusing.

[WhiteHawk]

[...] making it the smallest known true period-57 oscillator by population [...]

What do you mean by "true SPOP" or "true period-57 oscillator", exactly?

First one should be "smallest SPOP(n) in life" and all are implied to equal N. For the second one, I meant "nontrivial" but messed up the terminology.

As for supposed smaller trivial P57, this trivial p57 weld of Cribbage and Jam is only 103 cells in minimum population, beating the true-period oscillator by 9 cells (I had a smaller one, but lost it).

Code: Select all

x = 36, y = 23, rule = B3/S23
2b3o$o$o4bo2b2o$bo2bobo2bo$3bo2bobo10bo$4b2o2b2o9b3o$5bobo2bo11bo$5bo
b3obo9b2o$6bo4bo$7b3o15bo$4b3o2bo5bo8b2o7b2o$4bo2b2o6bo16bobo$7bo7bo8b
o7bo$5bobo16bo6b2o$5b2o7b2o8bo5bo2b2o$14bo15b3o2bo$28bo4bobo$17b2o9bo
b3obo$17bo11bo2bo$18b3o9b2o2bo$20bo10bob2o$31bo$30b2o!

[confocaloid]

[...] making it the smallest known true period-57 oscillator by population [...]

What do you mean by "true SPOP" or "true period-57 oscillator", exactly?

First one should be "smallest absolute SPOP in life" and all are implied to equal N. [...]

In that case, what do you mean by "smallest absolute SPOP", then?

Naively expanding your suggested abbreviation "SPOP(n)", I get the following:
>> "smallest absolute smallest possible oscillator with period n"
What does that mean, exactly?

What would change if one just wrote
>> "absolute smallest possible oscillator with period n"
instead, without repeating "smallest" twice?

What would change if one just wrote
>> "smallest possible oscillator with period n"
instead, without inserting the word 'absolute' (which is apparently a redundant distraction, as 'smallest possible' already tells that it's impossible to reduce it any further)?

Long story short, so far it's unclear what kind of new information is supposed to be conveyed by inserting 'true' or 'absolute' or whatever before 'SPOP', considering that the first two letters ('SP') already mean "smallest possible".

[WhiteHawk]

I assume this is a typo for 16 cells, given your wiki edit.

Yes, it was.

We have no idea if we have all the 11-16 cell oscillators or not. The database is what's currently known and isn't exhaustive. It was also updated almost a decade ago, so Rob's p16 (21 cells) is missing.

So the claim made on Mazing that "All strict still lifes with a population of 22 or fewer cells, all oscillators with 16 or fewer cells, and all spaceships with 31 or fewer cells are known to be glider-constructible. A glider synthesis of this object can be found in the infobox to the right."
is not totally correct since it's not known whether there are any novel 11-cell oscillators.

Perhaps that should be acknowledged on the List of oscillators with 3 to 16 cells as well

[Haycat2009]

Are patterns found in 2022 allowed in POTY 2024 (a la 128P171?)

Also, no offence intended to anyone, but does the one who crossposted from discord to forums, and did not originally find it, deserve credit for "finding it"?

[confocaloid]

Are patterns found in 2022 allowed in POTY 2024 (a la 128P171?)

Also, no offence intended to anyone, but does the one who crossposted from discord to forums deserve credit for "finding it"?

The person who originally found the pattern definitely deserves credit for finding it (obviously).

What would happen if 128P171 was actually crossposted to the forums immediately, and if it was nominated for POTY 2022 back then?

Code: Select all

---
id: 1017113182722076732
author: [144816695070949376, 'mvr']
time: Wed Sep  7 16:44:39 2022 UTC
content:
this eats the junk, but interacts with the eater
---
id: 1017113146734936145
author: [144816695070949376, 'mvr']
time: Wed Sep  7 16:44:31 2022 UTC
content:
```x = 14, y = 15, rule = B3/S23
9bo$8bobo$8bobo$7b2ob3o$13bo$7b2ob3o$3b2o2b2obo$3b2o3$3bo$2bobo$b2ob2o
$b2o$2o!```
---
id: 1017109689110110319
author: [866749792214581249, 'hotdogpi']
time: Wed Sep  7 16:30:46 2022 UTC
content:
a custom p3 that's welded with the current fishhook that gets destroyed might work
---
id: 1017105082057248828
author: [343222107255078914, 'ljkiernan1']
time: Wed Sep  7 16:12:28 2022 UTC
content:
yeah p3/p9 CatForce search yields one meh result where the adjacent eater1 gets destroyed ```x = 64, y = 50, rule = B3/S23
47b2o$44b2o2bo$47bo$18b2o27bo8b2o$18b2o23bo12bo$47b2o5bobo$32b2o11b2ob
2o4b2o$33bo15b2o$30b3o16b3o$30bo18b2o$38bo6b2ob2o4b2o$36b3o8b2o5bobo$
35bo7bo12bo$35b2o10bo8b2o$47bo$44b2o2bo$2o45b2o$bo$bobo$2b2o2$59bo$18b
3o36b3o$17bo3bo34bo$17b2ob2o34b2o$6b2o34b2ob2o$7bo34bo3bo$4b3o36b3o$4b
o2$60b2o$60bobo$62bo$15b2o45b2o$15bo2b2o$16bo$6b2o8bo10b2o$7bo12bo7bo$
7bobo5b2o8b3o$8b2o4b2ob2o6bo$13b2o18bo$12b3o16b3o$13b2o15bo$8b2o4b2ob
2o11b2o$7bobo5b2o$7bo12bo23b2o$6b2o8bo27b2o$16bo$15bo2b2o$15b2o!```
---
id: 1017104107707826287
author: [527532315732344852, 'inomed']
time: Wed Sep  7 16:08:36 2022 UTC
content:
wait no, p9 works too
---
id: 1017103619130130442
author: [527532315732344852, 'inomed']
time: Wed Sep  7 16:06:39 2022 UTC
content:
171, that's 57x3
---
id: 1017102428899901480
author: [144816695070949376, 'mvr']
time: Wed Sep  7 16:01:55 2022 UTC
content:
replacing the eater 2 with something, I mean
---
id: 1017102359798747267
author: [144816695070949376, 'mvr']
time: Wed Sep  7 16:01:39 2022 UTC
content:
any ideas?
---
id: 1017102354652340234
author: [144816695070949376, 'mvr']
time: Wed Sep  7 16:01:38 2022 UTC
content:
so close!
---
id: 1017102248658083900
author: [144816695070949376, 'mvr']
time: Wed Sep  7 16:01:12 2022 UTC
content:
```x = 64, y = 44, rule = LifeHistory
18.2A$17.B2AB2.3B$18.3B.5B$16.B2.B.6B5.2A$14.14B5.A12.A.2A$14.13B3.3A
11.3A.2A$14.13B3.A12.A$15.15B8.A4.A.2A.2A$16.15B5.3A3.2A.2A.A$12.B.
18B3.A7.B4.A$11.21B3.2A5.2AB3A$11.26B5.BA.A$11.24B4.5B$2A8.32B$.A8.
31B2D$.A.AB3.33B2DB$2.2AB.38B2.3B$4.40B.5B$4.47B8.A$5.13B3A32B4.3A$8.
9BA3BA32B2.A$6.11B2AB2A32B2.2A$6.2A2.32B2AB2A11B$7.A2.32BA3BA9B$4.3A
4.32B3A13B$4.A8.47B$14.5B.40B$15.3B2.38B.B2A$20.B2D33B3.BA.A$21.2D31B
8.A$22.32B8.2A$20.5B4.24B$18.A.AB5.26B$16.3AB2A5.2A3.21B$15.A4.B7.A3.
18B.B$15.A.2A.2A3.3A5.15B$14.2A.2A.A4.A8.15B$20.A12.A3.13B$14.2A.3A
11.3A3.13B$14.2A.A12.A5.14B$30.2A5.6B.B2.B$37.5B.3B$38.3B2.B2AB$44.2A
!```
---

Code: Select all

x = 64, y = 44, rule = LifeHistory
18.2A$17.B2AB2.3B$18.3B.5B$16.B2.B.6B5.2A$14.14B5.A12.A.2A$14.13B3.3A
11.3A.2A$14.13B3.A12.A$15.15B8.A4.A.2A.2A$16.15B5.3A3.2A.2A.A$12.B.
18B3.A7.B4.A$11.21B3.2A5.2AB3A$11.26B5.BA.A$11.24B4.5B$2A8.32B$.A8.
31B2D$.A.AB3.33B2DB$2.2AB.38B2.3B$4.40B.5B$4.47B8.A$5.13B3A32B4.3A$8.
9BA3BA32B2.A$6.11B2AB2A32B2.2A$6.2A2.32B2AB2A11B$7.A2.32BA3BA9B$4.3A
4.32B3A13B$4.A8.47B$14.5B.40B$15.3B2.38B.B2A$20.B2D33B3.BA.A$21.2D31B
8.A$22.32B8.2A$20.5B4.24B$18.A.AB5.26B$16.3AB2A5.2A3.21B$15.A4.B7.A3.
18B.B$15.A.2A.2A3.3A5.15B$14.2A.2A.A4.A8.15B$20.A12.A3.13B$14.2A.3A
11.3A3.13B$14.2A.A12.A5.14B$30.2A5.6B.B2.B$37.5B.3B$38.3B2.B2AB$44.2A
!

[dvgrn]

Are patterns found in 2022 allowed in POTY 2024 (a la 128P171?)

No. Nominations have always been disqualified if the nominated pattern wasn't found in the right year. The rules are usually written so that this point is very clear:

... The only rules are that

1) the pattern in question works in B3/S23
2) that it was discovered in the year 2023

[Tawal]

Hello,

Sorry, I won't share my script because it is too ugly
But this script is to find the RT of a conduit.
It only checks if the conduit is safe without junks, so all the "eaters reaction" are counted and also the period multiplier.
It returns a string in a golly note like

Code: Select all

(128) (130-152) (218)

It also (with an option) puts the results patterns on a new layer (with the corresponding RT below each of them).
I made it in order to easily update the lack informations of the stamp collections which need it.

So I began with the H-to-Gn stamp collection.
And for NE-16T203_SE37T143, I got some stuffs.
The script returned me this string in golly note :

Code: Select all

(107) (115) (117) (129) (189)

And the results pattern :

Code: Select all

x = 2411, y = 597, rule = LifeHistory
2394.A$2394.2A$2253.3A137.A.A$2113.2A140.A$1973.2A139.2A138.A$1833.A
138.A.A138.A$1833.2A139.A$1692.3A137.A.A$1552.2A140.A$1412.2A139.2A
138.A$1272.A138.A.A138.A$1272.2A139.A$1131.3A137.A.A$991.2A140.A$851.
2A139.2A138.A$850.A.A138.A$852.A34$2344.A$2204.A139.2A$2064.A139.2A
137.A.A$1924.A139.2A137.A.A$1784.A139.2A137.A.A$1644.A139.2A137.A.A$
1504.A139.2A137.A.A$1364.A139.2A137.A.A$1224.A139.2A137.A.A$1084.A
139.2A137.A.A$944.A139.2A137.A.A$804.A139.2A137.A.A$804.2A137.A.A$
803.A.A26$637.2A$636.A.A$638.A9$2294.A$2154.2A138.2A$2014.2A137.A.A
137.A.A$1735.A138.3A138.2A138.A$483.2A1110.2A138.2A139.A137.A$482.A.A
970.2A137.A.A137.A.A138.A$484.A691.A138.3A138.2A138.A$341.3A692.2A
138.2A139.A137.A$343.A552.2A137.A.A137.A.A138.A$342.A413.3A138.2A138.
A$758.A137.A$757.A6$192.3A$194.A$193.A31$2244.A$1965.A138.2A138.2A$
1686.A138.2A138.2A138.2A136.A.A$1407.A138.2A138.2A138.2A136.A.A137.A$
572.3A553.A138.2A138.2A138.2A136.A.A137.A$574.A274.A138.2A138.2A138.
2A136.A.A137.A$573.A135.2A138.2A138.2A136.A.A137.A$710.2A136.A.A137.A
$709.A5$424.3A$284.2A140.A$283.A.A139.A$285.A4$139.2A$138.A.A$140.A
28$2194.A$1637.A138.2A137.2A137.3A137.2A$1080.A138.2A137.2A137.3A137.
2A136.A.A138.2A138.A136.A.A$662.2A137.2A137.3A137.2A136.A.A138.2A138.
A136.A.A138.A137.A139.A$661.A.A138.2A138.A136.A.A138.A137.A139.A$663.
A137.A139.A13$508.2A$507.A.A$509.A$366.2A$226.3A136.A.A$228.A138.A$
85.3A139.A$87.A$86.A24$615.A138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A
138.A138.A138.A$615.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.
2A137.2A137.2A137.2A$614.A.A136.A.A136.A.A136.A.A136.A.A136.A.A136.A.
A136.A.A136.A.A136.A.A136.A.A136.A.A12$28.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A
137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A$
28.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.
2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A13$38.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.
2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A$38.2A137.2A
137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A
137.2A137.2A137.2A20$12.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A
137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A$11.A.A136.A.A136.A.A
136.A.A136.A.A136.A.A136.A.A136.A.A136.A.A136.A.A136.A.A136.A.A136.A.
A136.A.A136.A.A136.A.A$11.A138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A
138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A$10.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.
2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A3$7.2A
137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A
137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A$8.A138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A
138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A$8.A.A136.A.A136.A.A136.A.A136.A.A
136.A.A136.A.A136.A.A136.A.A136.A.A136.A.A136.A.A136.A.A136.A.A136.A.
A136.A.A$9.2A17.2A.2A115.2A17.2A.2A115.2A17.2A.2A115.2A17.2A.2A115.2A
17.2A.2A115.2A17.2A.2A115.2A17.2A.2A115.2A17.2A.2A115.2A17.2A.2A115.
2A17.2A.2A115.2A17.2A.2A115.2A17.2A.2A115.2A17.2A.2A115.2A17.2A.2A
115.2A17.2A.2A115.2A17.2A.2A$28.2A.A.A133.2A.A.A133.2A.A.A133.2A.A.A
133.2A.A.A133.2A.A.A133.2A.A.A133.2A.A.A133.2A.A.A133.2A.A.A133.2A.A.
A133.2A.A.A133.2A.A.A133.2A.A.A133.2A.A.A133.2A.A.A$33.A138.A138.A
138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A$33.
2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A
137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A4$9.A138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A
138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A$9.A.A18.2A116.A.A18.2A116.A.A18.
2A116.A.A18.2A116.A.A18.2A116.A.A18.2A116.A.A18.2A116.A.A18.2A116.A.A
18.2A116.A.A18.2A116.A.A18.2A116.A.A18.2A116.A.A18.2A116.A.A18.2A116.
A.A18.2A116.A.A18.2A$9.3A18.2A116.3A18.2A116.3A18.2A116.3A18.2A116.3A
18.2A116.3A18.2A116.3A18.2A116.3A18.2A116.3A18.2A116.3A18.2A116.3A18.
2A116.3A18.2A116.3A18.2A116.3A18.2A116.3A18.2A116.3A18.2A$11.A138.A
138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A138.
A5$2.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A
137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A$3.A19.2A117.A19.2A117.A19.2A117.A19.2A
117.A19.2A117.A19.2A117.A19.2A117.A19.2A117.A19.2A117.A19.2A117.A19.
2A117.A19.2A117.A19.2A117.A19.2A117.A19.2A117.A19.2A$3A20.A115.3A20.A
115.3A20.A115.3A20.A115.3A20.A115.3A20.A115.3A20.A115.3A20.A115.3A20.
A115.3A20.A115.3A20.A115.3A20.A115.3A20.A115.3A20.A115.3A20.A115.3A
20.A$A23.3A112.A23.3A112.A23.3A112.A23.3A112.A23.3A112.A23.3A112.A23.
3A112.A23.3A112.A23.3A112.A23.3A112.A23.3A112.A23.3A112.A23.3A112.A
23.3A112.A23.3A112.A23.3A$26.A138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A138.
A138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A10$10.D2.D3.3D2.5D.D121.D2.D3.D2.
5D.D122.D2.D3.D2.5D.D121.D2.D3.3D3.3D2.D120.D2.D3.3D3.3D2.D120.D2.D3.
3D3.3D2.D121.D2.D3.3D3.D2.D121.D2.D3.3D3.3D2.D120.D2.D3.3D3.3D2.D120.
D2.D3.3D5.D2.D120.D2.D3.3D2.5D.D120.D2.D3.3D3.3D2.D120.D2.D3.3D2.5D.D
120.D2.D3.3D3.3D2.D120.D2.D3.3D3.3D2.D119.D2.3D3.3D3.3D2.D$9.D2.2D2.D
3.D5.D2.D119.D2.2D2.2D2.D6.D120.D2.2D2.2D6.D2.D119.D2.2D2.D3.D.D3.D2.
D118.D2.2D2.D3.D.D3.D2.D118.D2.2D2.D3.D.D3.D2.D119.D2.2D2.D3.D.2D3.D
119.D2.2D2.D3.D.D3.D2.D118.D2.2D2.D3.D.D3.D2.D118.D2.2D2.D3.D3.2D3.D
118.D2.2D2.D3.D.D6.D118.D2.2D2.D3.D.D3.D2.D118.D2.2D2.D3.D5.D2.D118.D
2.2D2.D3.D.D3.D2.D118.D2.2D2.D3.D.D3.D2.D117.D2.D3.D.D3.D.D3.D2.D$9.D
3.D2.D3.D4.D3.D119.D3.D3.D2.D6.D120.D3.D3.D5.D3.D119.D3.D6.D.D3.D2.D
118.D3.D2.D3.D.D3.D2.D118.D3.D2.D3.D.D3.D2.D119.D3.D2.D3.D2.D3.D119.D
3.D2.D3.D5.D2.D118.D3.D2.D3.D5.D2.D118.D3.D2.D3.D2.D.D3.D118.D3.D2.D
3.D.D6.D118.D3.D2.D3.D.D6.D118.D3.D2.D3.D4.D3.D118.D3.D2.D3.D.D3.D2.D
118.D3.D2.D3.D.D3.D2.D117.D6.D.D3.D.D3.D2.D$9.D3.D2.D.D.D4.D3.D119.D
3.D3.D3.3D3.D120.D3.D3.D5.D3.D119.D3.D5.D3.4D2.D118.D3.D3.3D3.4D2.D
118.D3.D3.4D.D.D.D2.D119.D3.D3.4D2.D3.D119.D3.D3.4D4.D3.D118.D3.D3.4D
3.2D3.D118.D3.D3.4D.D2.D3.D118.D3.D3.4D2.3D3.D118.D3.D3.4D.4D3.D118.D
3.D3.4D4.D3.D118.D3.D3.4D2.3D3.D118.D3.D3.4D2.4D2.D117.D5.D2.D.D.D.D.
D.D2.D$9.D3.D2.D3.D3.D4.D119.D3.D3.D6.D2.D120.D3.D3.D4.D4.D119.D3.D4.
D7.D2.D118.D3.D2.D3.D5.D2.D118.D3.D6.D.D3.D2.D119.D3.D6.D2.D3.D119.D
3.D6.D3.D4.D118.D3.D6.D5.D2.D118.D3.D6.D.5D2.D118.D3.D6.D5.D2.D118.D
3.D6.D.D3.D2.D118.D3.D6.D3.D4.D118.D3.D6.D.D3.D2.D118.D3.D6.D5.D2.D
117.D4.D3.D3.D.D3.D2.D$9.D3.D2.D3.D3.D4.D119.D3.D3.D2.D3.D2.D120.D3.D
3.D4.D4.D119.D3.D3.D4.D3.D2.D118.D3.D2.D3.D.D3.D2.D118.D3.D2.D3.D.D3.
D2.D119.D3.D2.D3.D2.D3.D119.D3.D2.D3.D2.D5.D118.D3.D2.D3.D.D3.D2.D
118.D3.D2.D3.D4.D3.D118.D3.D2.D3.D.D3.D2.D118.D3.D2.D3.D.D3.D2.D118.D
3.D2.D3.D3.D4.D118.D3.D2.D3.D.D3.D2.D118.D3.D2.D3.D.D3.D2.D117.D3.D4.
D3.D.D3.D2.D$10.D.3D2.3D4.D3.D121.D.3D.3D2.3D2.D122.D.3D.3D3.D3.D121.
D.3D.5D2.3D2.D120.D.3D2.3D3.3D2.D120.D.3D2.3D3.3D2.D121.D.3D2.3D2.3D.
D121.D.3D2.3D2.5D.D120.D.3D2.3D3.3D2.D120.D.3D2.3D5.D2.D120.D.3D2.3D
3.3D2.D120.D.3D2.3D3.3D2.D120.D.3D2.3D4.D3.D120.D.3D2.3D3.3D2.D120.D.
3D2.3D3.3D2.D119.D.5D2.3D3.3D2.D$629.A.A136.A.A136.A.A136.A.A136.A.A
136.A.A136.A.A136.A.A136.A.A136.A.A136.A.A136.A.A$630.2A137.2A137.2A
137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A137.2A$630.A138.A138.
A138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A138.A45$678.A137.A139.A$676.
A.A138.2A138.A136.A.A138.A137.A139.A$677.2A137.2A137.3A137.2A136.A.A
138.2A138.A136.A.A138.A137.A139.A$1095.A138.2A137.2A137.3A137.2A136.A
.A138.2A138.A136.A.A$1652.A138.2A137.2A137.3A137.2A$2209.A42$724.A$
725.2A136.A.A137.A$724.2A138.2A138.2A136.A.A137.A$864.A138.2A138.2A
138.2A136.A.A137.A$1143.A138.2A138.2A138.2A136.A.A137.A$1422.A138.2A
138.2A138.2A136.A.A137.A$1701.A138.2A138.2A138.2A136.A.A$1980.A138.2A
138.2A$2259.A39$772.A$773.A137.A$771.3A138.2A138.A$911.2A137.A.A137.A
.A138.A$1051.2A138.2A139.A137.A$1191.A138.3A138.2A138.A$1470.2A137.A.
A137.A.A138.A$1610.2A138.2A139.A137.A$1750.A138.3A138.2A138.A$2029.2A
137.A.A137.A.A$2169.2A138.2A$2309.A37$818.A.A$819.2A137.A.A$819.A139.
2A137.A.A$959.A139.2A137.A.A$1099.A139.2A137.A.A$1239.A139.2A137.A.A$
1379.A139.2A137.A.A$1519.A139.2A137.A.A$1659.A139.2A137.A.A$1799.A
139.2A137.A.A$1939.A139.2A137.A.A$2079.A139.2A137.A.A$2219.A139.2A$
2359.A34$867.A$865.A.A138.A$866.2A139.2A138.A$1006.2A140.A$1146.3A
137.A.A$1287.2A139.A$1287.A138.A.A138.A$1427.2A139.2A138.A$1567.2A
140.A$1707.3A137.A.A$1848.2A139.A$1848.A138.A.A138.A$1988.2A139.2A
138.A$2128.2A140.A$2268.3A137.A.A$2409.2A$2409.A!

We can see that the periods 107, 115, 117 and 129 are x2 period multiplier for the NE Glider and there's no SE Glider.

OK, now the basic question :
How to name this kind of specific RT ?

Edit
Do you think this is sufficient and comprehensible :

Code: Select all

x = 107, y = 109, rule = LifeHistory
39.D3.D.5D9.D4.3D2.5D2.3D3.3D3.3D$39.2D2.D.D12.2D3.D7.D3.D3.D.D3.D.D
3.D$39.D.D.D.D13.D3.D7.D7.D.D2.2D5.D$39.D2.2D.3D3.5D3.D3.4D4.D6.D2.D.
D.D3.2D$39.D3.D.D13.D3.D3.D3.D5.D3.2D2.D5.D$39.D3.D.D13.D3.D3.D3.D4.D
4.D3.D.D3.D$39.D3.D.5D8.3D3.3D4.D3.5D2.3D3.3D4$40.3D2.5D2.3D2.5D.5D3.
D6.D3.3D$39.D3.D.D5.D3.D5.D3.D4.2D5.2D2.D3.D$39.D5.D9.D4.D4.D5.D4.D.D
6.D$40.3D2.3D5.2D4.D5.D5.D3.D2.D4.2D$43.D.D9.D2.D6.D5.D3.5D5.D$39.D3.
D.D5.D3.D.D7.D5.D6.D2.D3.D$40.3D2.5D2.3D2.D7.D4.3D5.D3.3D5$59.2A15.3B
$58.B2AB13.4B$59.2B13.4B$60.2B11.4B$59.4B9.4B$57.6B8.4B$57.7B6.4B$55.
10B4.4B$55.11B2.4B$52.19B$50.20B$48.21B$47.21B$47.19B3.B$49.18B.B2A$
49.20B2A$50.18B.B$49.18B$49.17B$49.16B$49.17B$49.17B$48.18B$48.19B$
47.20B$48.18B$48.17B$48.15B$47.16B$46.18B$45.21B$45.22B$45.21B$45.19B
$45.18B$43.2A17B$42.A.A18B$42.A4.17B$41.2A5.17B$47.12B3.4B$47.12B4.4B
$38.2A7.10B7.4B$39.A8.10B7.4B$39.A.AB6.11B6.4B$40.2AB.3B.11B2A.2A3.4B
$42.17B2ABA.A3.4B$42.19B3.A4.4B$43.19B2.2A4.4B$42.20B9.4B$40.20B12.4B
$38.21B14.4B$38.2BD19B.B12.4B$37.3BDBD4B.13B2A12.4B$38.2B3D4B2.12B2A
13.3B$37.5BD4B2.11B.B15.2B$36.10B3.9B20.B$35.4B10.6B.B$35.3B12.5B$33.
4B13.4B$33.2A16.5B$34.A19.2A$31.3A20.A$31.A23.3A$57.A4$7.3D6.D2.D3.3D
2.5D.D6.D2.D3.D2.5D.D6.D2.D3.D2.5D.D6.D2.D3.3D3.3D2.D$6.D3.D4.D2.2D2.
D3.D5.D2.D4.D2.2D2.2D2.D6.D4.D2.2D2.2D6.D2.D4.D2.2D2.D3.D.D3.D2.D$D3.
D5.D4.D3.D2.D3.D4.D3.D4.D3.D3.D2.D6.D4.D3.D3.D5.D3.D4.D3.D6.D.D3.D2.D
$.D.D5.D5.D3.D2.D.D.D4.D3.D4.D3.D3.D3.3D3.D4.D3.D3.D5.D3.D4.D3.D5.D3.
4D2.D$2.D5.D6.D3.D2.D3.D3.D4.D4.D3.D3.D6.D2.D4.D3.D3.D4.D4.D4.D3.D4.D
7.D2.D$.D.D3.D7.D3.D2.D3.D3.D4.D4.D3.D3.D2.D3.D2.D4.D3.D3.D4.D4.D4.D
3.D3.D4.D3.D2.D$D3.D.5D5.D.3D2.3D4.D3.D6.D.3D.3D2.3D2.D6.D.3D.3D3.D3.
D6.D.3D.5D2.3D2.D8$44.D2.D3.3D3.3D2.D$43.D2.2D2.D3.D.D3.D2.D$43.D3.D
2.D3.D.D3.D2.D$43.D3.D3.3D3.4D2.D$43.D3.D2.D3.D5.D2.D$43.D3.D2.D3.D.D
3.D2.D$44.D.3D2.3D3.3D2.D!

[dvgrn]

We can see that the periods 107, 115, 117 and 129 are x2 period multiplier for the NE Glider and there's no SE Glider.

OK, now the basic question :
How to name this kind of specific RT ?

Let's see, "overclocking" only applies when a particular period happens to work normally, when some higher periods don't.

I think if you want to include documentation on these kinds of unusual effects, you'll need a good long specific label for each one --

"[107,115,117,129]: x2 period multiplier for NE glider, suppress SE glider"

There are too many possible unusual effects to come up with a short memorable name for each one. There could perfectly well be x3 period multipliers that suppress only the first SE glider that would normally appear, or only the second one; there could be x2 period multipliers with no suppression effect; there could be x2 period multipliers that put out an extra glider somewhere else entirely; etc.

So I'd say your suggested in-pattern label is good, as long as there's also something in the comments or an associated text file or something, that explains what the short-form notation means, and maybe includes the note about the SE glider being suppressed in this case.

[Tawal]

…
There are too many possible unusual effects to come up with a short memorable name for each one. There could perfectly well be x3 period multipliers that suppress only the first SE glider that would normally appear, or only the second one; there could be x2 period multipliers with no suppression effect; there could be x2 period multipliers that put out an extra glider somewhere else entirely; etc.

So I'd say your suggested in-pattern label is good, as long as there's also something in the comments or an associated text file or something, that explains what the short-form notation means, and maybe includes the note about the SE glider being suppressed in this case.

OK, I understand that there are too many cases.
But perhaps something like this :

Code: Select all

x = 140, y = 9, rule = LifeHistory
.D2.D3.3D2.5D5.D3.D2.5D5.D3.D2.5D5.D3.3D3.3D2.D12.3D3.D3.D.5D28.3D2.
5D$D2.2D2.D3.D5.D4.2D2.2D2.D8.2D2.2D6.D4.2D2.D3.D.D3.D2.D10.D3.D2.2D
2.D.D31.D3.D.D$D3.D2.D3.D4.D6.D3.D2.D9.D3.D5.D6.D6.D.D3.D2.D4.D3.D5.D
2.D.D.D.D13.4D.D3.D.D.2D3.D5.D$D3.D2.D.D.D4.D6.D3.D3.3D6.D3.D5.D6.D5.
D3.4D2.D5.D.D5.D3.D.D.D.4D9.D5.D3.D.2D2.D3.3D2.4D$D3.D2.D3.D3.D7.D3.D
6.D5.D3.D4.D7.D4.D7.D2.D6.D5.D4.D.D.D.D13.3D2.D3.D.D3.D6.D.D$D3.D2.D
3.D3.D7.D3.D2.D3.D5.D3.D4.D7.D3.D4.D3.D2.D5.D.D3.D5.D2.2D.D16.D.D2.2D
.2D2.D2.D3.D.D$.D.3D2.3D4.D4.D.3D.3D2.3D3.D.3D.3D3.D4.D.3D.5D2.3D2.D
5.D3.D.5D2.D3.D.5D8.4D3.2D.D.D.2D4.3D2.5D$19.D16.D16.D68.D$122.D!

with a legend in a corner of the collection …

[Haycat2009]

Are there any Bx106 or Lx65_R64 style H duplicators that have no restrictions of FNG of output conduits? Bx106 needs to top output to be independent and the bottom dependent, while Lx65_R64 needs both outputs to have the same dependency.

[confocaloid]

Are there any Bx106 or Lx65_R64 style H duplicators that have no restrictions of FNG of output conduits? Bx106 needs to top output to be independent and the bottom dependent, while Lx65_R64 needs both outputs to have the same dependency.

Don't know what you mean by "Bx106 or Lx65_R64 style", however, if I understand right then Lx65_R64 doesn't really require both outputs to be followed by conduits of the same type: viewtopic.php?p=194030#p194030

[dvgrn]

Are there any Bx106 or Lx65_R64 style H duplicators that have no restrictions of FNG of output conduits? Bx106 needs to top output to be independent and the bottom dependent, while Lx65_R64 needs both outputs to have the same dependency.

Don't know what you mean by "Bx106 or Lx65_R64 style", however, if I understand right then Lx65_R64 doesn't really require both outputs to be followed by conduits of the same type: viewtopic.php?p=194030#p194030

Yup -- which means the Lx65_R64 is just hugely better on the usability scale than previous duplicators.

There really haven't been very many elementary signal duplicators of any kind, let alone specifically Herschel duplicators. Besides the Bx106, the other one that comes to mind is this old one of Guam's, BLx303H_Rx161B, or Jormungant's later variant of it (see notes at the end of this post. Those were kind of big and slow and awkward, with various limitations as to how things can be attached to the inputs and outputs -- nobody ever really tried to use them, because they just weren't very practical.

Are there any more elementary signal fanout devices that I'm forgetting about? Seems like up until now, there weren't really any elementary options that were any kind of improvement over a nice flexible composite conduit -- a H-to-2G attached to a couple of G-to-Hs.

[pifricted]

Is it possible emulate rules like this (use checker board dual and 3-states)?

4. B1e2e3eikq4aenz5ei6aci7/S1e2ei3ernq4aekqz5e6akn

Code: Select all

#R B1e2e3eikq4aenz5ei6aci7/S1e2ei3ernq4aekqz5e6akn
!
# [[ RANDOMIZE ]]

[get_Snacked]

is it just me or do people love stuff related to glider syntheses?
POTY2023's winner was spacefiller syntheses. POTY2022's winners were unsynthesisable stuff and RCT15. POTY2022's third place and POTY2021's winner were both self-synthesising loopships. while POTY2020's third place was spaceship syntheses.
why do we love this stuff? and why didn't we love this stuff before? why is our love for it increasing?