Thread for your miscellaneous posts and discussions

[CARuler]

i though editing was encouraged

It does; instead of editing your post to add RLE you csn edit the RLE yourself.

that takes a lot of unnecessary time

[confocaloid]

i though editing was encouraged

It does; instead of editing your post to add RLE you csn edit the RLE yourself.

that takes a lot of unnecessary time

If the author of the post chooses to use some of their time to make and maintain a single stamp collection RLE edited in a single forum post, then that means that only the author of the post will need to use more time/efforts, once per update.
However, all the readers will have to spend less time and less efforts to get the really interesting information.

If the author of the post chooses to just dump all the updates as a chain of small RLEs with little or no meaningful comments, then that means that only the author of the post will save some time/efforts right now.
However, all the readers will have to spend more time and more efforts to understand which of these small RLEs are really interesting, and for what reason.

Now, wait several weeks or months, then return back to your post and try to read it again, and I think you might have to include yourself among the readers of your post having substantial difficulties with extracting some meaning that wasn't communicated well.

It's better to do more efforts just once to communicate what's interesting and why it's interesting, instead of having many people repeatedly spending the same efforts that really should be unnecessary.

[wwei47]

If the author of the post chooses to use some of their time to make and maintain a single stamp collection RLE edited in a single forum post, then that means that only the author of the post will need to use more time/efforts, once per update.
However, all the readers will have to spend less time and less efforts to get the really interesting information.

If the author of the post chooses to just dump all the updates as a chain of small RLEs with little or no meaningful comments, then that means that only the author of the post will save some time/efforts right now.
However, all the readers will have to spend more time and more efforts to understand which of these small RLEs are really interesting, and for what reason.

Now, wait several weeks or months, then return back to your post and try to read it again, and I think you might have to include yourself among the readers of your post having substantial difficulties with extracting some meaning that wasn't communicated well.

It's better to do more efforts just once to communicate what's interesting and why it's interesting, instead of having many people repeatedly spending the same efforts that really should be unnecessary.

I feel like editing the original RLE isn't strictly necessary (just describe all patterns in the RLE in the edit), but I generally agree. I have been so annoyed at 2018 me for not providing any descriptions for patterns.

[get_Snacked]

Is this a new p164 mod41 pi-heptomino hassler?

Code: Select all

x = 85, y = 85, rule = B3/S23
33bob2ob2ob2o$33b2obobo3bo$31b2o3bo2b3o$30bo3b2obobo$31b3obobo$33bobob
2o$34bo$23bo$23b3o$26bo$19b2o4b2o11b2o$20bo17b2o18b2o$20bobo35bo6b2o$
21b2o36b3obo2bo$50b2o4b3o3b4o$24b2o19b2obo4bobo3b2o$23bo2bo18bo10b3o2b
3o$24bobo19b2o6b2o4bo2bo$12b2o11bo17b3o2b6o2bob2obo$12bobo28bo2bo8b2ob
o2b2o11bo$14bo29b2o12bobo11b3o$13b2ob2o5b2o33b2ob2o8bo$14bobo2bobo2bo
36bo9b2o$13bo2bob2ob3o37bobo4bo7b2o$13bobobo2bo41b2o3bobo6bo$11bobobo
2bo2bo12b2o19b2o9bo2bo4bobo$11b2obobob4o12b2o19b2o10b2o5b2o$14bobo$14b
obob2o5b2o$15bobobo5b2o$17bo63bo$17b2o47bo13bobo$17b3o13bo31b2o13bobo$
17b3o12bobo29b2o13b2o2b2o$17b3o11bo3bo27b2o2b3o8bo2bobo$17b3o11bo3bo
28b2obo2b2o7b3o2bo$17b2o12b2ob2o31bo14b3o$17bo54b2o5b3o$15bobobo48bo5b
o4bo3b2o$15b2obobo46bo6bo6b2obo$18bobo47bob2obo8bo$18b2o49bo12bobo$2o
81b2o$obo62b2o$2bo24bobo34bobo$ob2o6b2o15b2o35bobob2o$2o3bo4b2o16bo36b
obobo$3b3o61bo$3o64b2o$o2b3o61b3o$bobo2bo60b3o$2o2b2o61b3o$2bobo62b3o$
2bobo62b2o$3bo63bo$58b2o5bobobo$58b2o5b2obobo$68bobo$9b2o5b2o10b2o33b
4obobob2o$8bobo4bo2bo9b2o33bo2bo2bobobo$8bo6bobo3b2o41bo2bobobo$7b2o7b
o4bobo37b3ob2obo2bo$12b2o9bo36bo2bobo2bobo$13bo8b2ob2o33b2o5b2ob2o$10b
3o11bobo6b2o4b2o29bo$10bo11b2o2bob2obo4bobo2bo13bo14bobo$23bob2obo10b
3o14bo2bo11b2o$21bo2bo4b2o6b2o15b5obo$21b3o2b3o2b6o2bo18bo2bo$24b2o3bo
8b2o19b2o$19b4o3b3o$18bo2bob3o36b2o$18b2o6bo35bobo$25b2o18b2o17bo$45b
2o11b2o4b2o$58bo$59b3o$61bo$50bo$46b2obobo$47bobob3o$45bobob2o3bo$43b
3o2bo3b2o$42bo3bobob2o$42b2ob2ob2obo!

Yet another reduction:

Code: Select all

x = 71, y = 71, rule = B3/S23
16bo$16b3o$19bo$12b2o4b2o$13bo$13bobo21b2o$14b2o21bo$34b2obo$17b2o15b
2ob2o$16bo2bo18bo14bo$17bobo18bobo9bobobo$18bo20b2o2b2o5b2o2bo$43b2o9b
2o11bo$50b4o11b3o$16b2o31bo4b2o8bo$12bobo2bo18b3o9bo2b2obo9b2o$10b3ob
3o18b3o11b2obobobo4bo7b2o$9bo3bo41b2o3bobo6bo$10bo2bob2o10b2o30bo2bo4b
obo$11bobobo11b2o31b2o5b2o$10b2obo2bo$14bobo$15bo2$59bo$26bo31b2o$11b
2o12bobo29b2o$11b2o11bo3bo27b2o2b3o$24bo3bo28b2obo2b2o$24b2ob2o31bo$
10b2o52bo$11bo50b2o$5bo2b3o4b2o$5b4o5bo$17bo44b2o$7b2o6b2o37b2o6b2o$7b
2o44bo$20bobo33bo5b4o$20b2o32b2o4b3o2bo$21bo37bo$59b2o3$58b2o$58b2o4$
55bo$54bobo$54bo2bob2o$2b2o5b2o44bobobo$bobo4bo2bo42b2obo2bo$bo6bobo3b
2o41bo3bo$2o7bo4bobobob2o11b3o18b3ob3o$5b2o9bob2o2bo9b3o18bo2bobo$6bo
8b2o4bo31b2o$3b3o11b4o$3bo11b2o9b2o20bo$16bo2b2o5b2o2b2o17bo2bo$16bobo
bo9bobo14b5obo$17bo14bo18bo2bo$32b2ob2o15b2o$33bob2o$33bo21b2o$32b2o
21bobo$57bo$51b2o4b2o$51bo$52b3o$54bo!

this is a reduction by around 44%, which may be one of the largest reductions for an oscillator. it does not beat 248P199 -> 84P199; however, there may still be more reductions to be made.
EDIT: i think that the glider released by the reaction is close enough to where the block was to allow for some catalyst that can convert the glider back to that block with just one still life.
EDIT II (2025-1-11): as of my reduction, this is now over a 50% reduction (51%):

the fishhooks next to the blocks were unnecessary if you moved the toads to another position, giving a 44-cell reduction:

Code: Select all

x = 71, y = 71, rule = B3/S23
16bo$16b3o$19bo$12b2o4b2o$13bo$13bobo$14b2o$34b2o$17b2o15b2o$16bo2bo33b
o$17bobo30bobobo$18bo24b2o5b2o2bo$43b2o9b2o11bo$50b4o11b3o$16b2o31bo4b
2o8bo$12bobo2bo19b3o8bo2b2obo9b2o$10b3ob3o19b3o10b2obobobo4bo7b2o$9bo
3bo41b2o3bobo6bo$10bo2bob2o10b2o30bo2bo4bobo$11bobobo11b2o31b2o5b2o$10b
2obo2bo$14bobo$15bo2$59bo$26bo31b2o$11b2o12bobo29b2o$11b2o11bo3bo27b2o
2b3o$24bo3bo28b2obo2b2o$24b2ob2o31bo$64bo$15b2o45b2o$14bo$17bo$15b2o45b
2o$7b2o53b2o$7b2o45b2o$20bobo30bo$20b2o34bo$21bo32b2o4$58b2o$58b2o4$55b
o$54bobo$54bo2bob2o$2b2o5b2o44bobobo$bobo4bo2bo42b2obo2bo$bo6bobo3b2o
41bo3bo$2o7bo4bobobob2o10b3o19b3ob3o$5b2o9bob2o2bo8b3o19bo2bobo$6bo8b
2o4bo31b2o$3b3o11b4o$3bo11b2o9b2o20bo$16bo2b2o5b2o21bo2bo$16bobobo26b
5obo$17bo33bo2bo$35b2o15b2o$35b2o$55b2o$55bobo$57bo$51b2o4b2o$51bo$52b
3o$54bo!

[unname4798]

The Coolout Conjecture was proven in February 29th of 2000.
[offtheposttitle]
This post starts with false.
[/offtheposttitle]

[Sokwe]

The Coolout Conjecture was proven in February 29th of 2000.
[offtheposttitle]
This post starts with false.
[/offtheposttitle]

I moved this from the "CA empires" thread, in which it was clearly off-topic.

Please do not ever try to continue a thread after it's been locked. It should be obvious that doing so was an excessive flouting of moderator decisions, for which I have given you a ban of a few days (until Jan. 8).

Edit: to be clear, you may of course question moderator decisions. However, your post instead simply disregarded a moderator decision.

Edit 2: I decided that the temp-ban was too hasty, so I removed it. However, please do not attempt to continue a locked thread, especially not within a completely unrelated thread.

[hotcrystal0]

There have been two violations of the thread rules since I last posted (one of which I edited out). Thread locked.

Technically no, because those two posts were about Tommy himself.
You can change it to "no posts about people", instead of "no posts about other people".

[Sokwe]

There have been two violations of the thread rules since I last posted (one of which I edited out). Thread locked.

Technically no, because those two posts were about Tommy himself.
You can change it to "no posts about people", instead of "no posts about other people".

One violation was for off-topic content that I edited out. The other was for more than one post by a user within a 24-hour period.

[hotcrystal0]

One violation was for off-topic content that I edited out. The other was for more than one post by a user within a 24-hour period.

I feel like it's better for it to be made 12 hours, because I'm always annoyed when "once a day" is "once every 24 hours".

[Sokwe]

One violation was for off-topic content that I edited out. The other was for more than one post by a user within a 24-hour period.

I feel like it's better for it to be made 12 hours, because I'm always annoyed when "once a day" is "once every 24 hours".

As far as I can tell, I never seem to have said "once a day". In each case I've said "in a 24-hour period" in order to be completely unambiguous. That is how the rule is stated in the thread.

[confocaloid]

Maybe also mention that new still-lives or p2 oscillators etc are not considered notable unless they do something unusual.

I'm interested in good ways to formulate more directly what it means in this case to "do something unusual".

For example, I do understand that catalysts count (although how about useless variants of catalysts, like an eater 1 with a giant blob welded to it?)

What should be mentioned to explain the "do something unusual" part?

[KittyTac]

Maybe also mention that new still-lives or p2 oscillators etc are not considered notable unless they do something unusual.

I'm interested in good ways to formulate more directly what it means in this case to "do something unusual".

For example, I do understand that catalysts count (although how about useless variants of catalysts, like an eater 1 with a giant blob welded to it?)

What should be mentioned to explain the "do something unusual" part?

I'm not sure it can be formulated in a rigorous way. "Has an unique and useful reaction associated with it" (so the eater 1 with a blob wouldn't count because the actual reacting part is the same as the eater 1).

Defining "useful" is harder but I think common sense can manage.

[wwei47]

I think either people need to learn to avoid clearly unnecessary doubleposting (forum rule 3a)

its been almost two months, I believe that after one month, the double posting rule doesn't need to be followed

This is my personal opinion: The only instances in which double posting is okay is when you have no other option. This means reaching the character limit and not being able to edit in more "content" (RLEs, descriptions of RLEs, etc.), or having three files attached to your post and needing to attach more.

perhaps this forum thread should be moved into Sandbox due to being too low-effort and noisy and cluttering the forums.

i don't see any reason to do that, no one's posted in nearly two months. are you alright?

I agree with you on this one. Alternating checkerboard rules themselves are completely on-topic for the OCA forum, and this thread should not be moved just because any particular discoveries in it are low-effort. Not all fruit hangs at the same height.

[confocaloid]

[...] Alternating checkerboard rules themselves are completely on-topic for the OCA forum, [...]

Just because the underlying idea or concept is on-topic for the OCA forum, doesn't automatically mean that the particular implementation of that idea belongs to the OCA forum.

At the point when it comes to "are you alright" type remarks and the thread is previously flooded by low-effort "dump" posts, it's pretty clear that the implementation doesn't deserve much more attention than a typical Sandbox thread.

(And the underlying idea / the topic deserves a much better implementation than that.)

Hence I think many such threads should be moved into Sandbox. If you don't want to put in the effort to contribute to the topic, let other people show that the idea is interesting. Don't bury the interesting concept with low-effort "dump" posts.

[CARuler]

[highlight]At the point when it comes to "are you alright" type remarks [/highlight]and the thread is previously flooded by low-effort "dump" posts

i do not believe the "are you alright" comment came from anything that you, yourself did not start.

, it's pretty clear that the implementation doesn't deserve much more attention than a typical Sandbox thread.

1) I would set the bar lower for a sandbox thread
2) There have been useful contributions made which is more than you can say for many other OCA topics
3) I don't think its clear at all, you seem to think everyone agrees with you

[confocaloid]

1) I would set the bar lower for a sandbox thread

Read again through all posts in the forum thread in question:
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=6718

How many of those posts are from you and how many from other people?
How many of those posts have reasonably well formatted patterns (i.e. not just random-looking blobs)?
How many of those posts have meaningful human-readable descriptions for the posted patterns?

I think it's obvious that the thread looks like a typical Sandbox thread, and (at best) belongs to the Sandbox, not OCA.

[CARuler]

Please don't clutter threads by posting or reposting patterns with insufficient descriptions. It's generally expected that people who post will contribute something new of interest to others, [highlight]but many of your recent posts either fail to contribute anything new [/highlight], or fail to explain what is posted, or are otherwise low-effort and problematic.

0 words:

if you actually look, i've been rulegolf a lot lately
edit:

crawlers

[wwei47]

[...] Alternating checkerboard rules themselves are completely on-topic for the OCA forum, [...]

Just because the underlying idea or concept is on-topic for the OCA forum, doesn't automatically mean that the particular implementation of that idea belongs to the OCA forum.

At the point when it comes to "are you alright" type remarks and the thread is previously flooded by low-effort "dump" posts, it's pretty clear that the implementation doesn't deserve much more attention than a typical Sandbox thread.

(And the underlying idea / the topic deserves a much better implementation than that.)

Hence I think many such threads should be moved into Sandbox. If you don't want to put in the effort to contribute to the topic, let other people show that the idea is interesting. Don't bury the interesting concept with low-effort "dump" posts.

Aren't many of the older posts in that thread very interesting? I feel like that if we are to move anything to the sandbox, we should move the "low-effort posts" instead of the entire thread.

[confocaloid]

[...] Alternating checkerboard rules themselves are completely on-topic for the OCA forum, [...]

Just because the underlying idea or concept is on-topic for the OCA forum, doesn't automatically mean that the particular implementation of that idea belongs to the OCA forum. [...][...]

Aren't many of the older posts in that thread very interesting? I feel like that if we are to move anything to the sandbox, we should move the "low-effort posts" instead of the entire thread.

Currently, the thread viewtopic.php?f=11&t=6718 contains several posts that just show specific examples of some patterns (without discussing the general idea). And there are only few general observations or otherwise interesting discussion about the topic.

And there are multiple big RLEs that are apparently random soups. It shouldn't be necessary to post them at all. If you want to post a spaceship, post a spaceship, don't post a 300-by-200 or so random pattern that at some point maybe produces the spaceship without even explaining when or how it does so.

Pretty much every interesting topic can be killed/buried, by posting a large number of isolated examples without giving adequate explanations/descriptions and without discussing any general ideas that connect the scattered dots.

I think it's better to move that thread (in its current state) in the Sandbox. (The same applies to other similar cases.)

[CARuler]

And there are multiple big RLEs that are apparently random soups. It shouldn't be necessary to post them at all. If you want to post a spaceship, post a spaceship, don't post a 300-by-200 or so random pattern that at some point maybe produces the spaceship without even explaining when or how it does so.

same can be said about a good amount of the other topics

[confocaloid]

Existence of other low-effort content elsewhere doesn't support creating more and more such low-effort content at the expense of the shared environment.

same can be said about a good amount of the other topics

[...] I think it's better to move that thread (in its current state) in the Sandbox. (The same applies to other similar cases.)

[CARuler]

Existence of other low-effort content elsewhere doesn't support creating more and more such low-effort content at the expense of the shared environment.

same can be said about a good amount of the other topics

[...] I think it's better to move that thread (in its current state) in the Sandbox. (The same applies to other similar cases.)

so just move all those topics to the sandbox ok?
im sure the mods would agree to that.

I don't don't see any other cases that warranted moving a topic to the sandbox

[Sokwe]

[...] Alternating checkerboard rules themselves are completely on-topic for the OCA forum, [...]

Just because the underlying idea or concept is on-topic for the OCA forum, doesn't automatically mean that the particular implementation of that idea belongs to the OCA forum.

I believe that this particular thread should not be moved to the sandbox, as its subject is reasonably appropriate for the OCA forum. However, I do think that the following criticisms have merit:

How many of those posts have reasonably well formatted patterns (i.e. not just random-looking blobs)?
How many of those posts have meaningful human-readable descriptions for the posted patterns?

It should generally be more clear what the posted patterns are demonstrating. This is the reason for rule 5(b), and many of the posts in that thread violate it, especially those by CARuler.

[confocaloid]

Regarding signals and "signals", one recurring idea is that they appear to be "unnecessary entities" in explanations of many interesting patterns. Introducing the concept often amounts to additional unnecessary complexity.

In the p43 Snark loop, there are 344/43 = 8 circulating gliders. Each of those 8 gliders moves on the same glider track, in the same direction, with equal gaps between consecutive gliders. There is no objective reason to "single out" any one out of those gliders. (Any choice will be arbitrary. Neither of circulating gliders is "more important" or "more interesting" than any other glider on the same track.)

Further, it is straightforward to rearrange the Snarks and to add more gliders (while keeping essentially the same design, with all the same reactions, and without adding any new reactions that would require additional explanation/attention beyond what was already explained/understood).
It appears obvious that the "interestingness" of the entire glider loop oscillator must be essentially unaffected by such trivial adjustments.
Each glider undergoes the same reactions in the same sequence, regardless of how many are there gliders on the same track.

But that just means that "interestingness" isn't really in the individual gliders to begin with. Instead, "interestingness" is in the specific design, leading to a family of engineered oscillators. The "interesting" part of a glider loop oscillator consists of those components and reactions that stay unchanged when the oscillator is adjusted. Those components and those reactions are likely to need additional attention, when one is trying to understand how the oscillator works.

In contrast, each individual glider doesn't need an explanation by itself, and doesn't require extra attention for itself. That implies that each individual glider in the oscillator doesn't carry any signal of interest at all:

Code: Select all

x = 65, y = 65, rule = B3/S23
27b2o$27bobo$29bo4b2o$25b4ob2o2bo2bo$25bo2bo3bobob2o$28bobobobo$29b2o
bobo$33bo2$19b2o$20bo8bo$20bobo5b2o$21b2o$35bo$36bo$34b3o2$25bo$25b2o
$24bobo4b2o22bo$31bo21b3o$32b3o17bo$34bo17b2o2$45bo$46b2o12b2o$45b2o14b
o$3b2o56bob2o$4bo9b2o37bo5b3o2bo$2bo10bobo37b2o3bo3b2o$2b5o8bo5b2o35b
2obo$7bo13bo22b2o15bo$4b3o12bobo21bobo12b3o$3bo15b2o22bo13bo$3bob2o35b
2o5bo8b5o$b2o3bo3b2o37bobo10bo$o2b3o5bo37b2o9bo$2obo56b2o$3bo14b2o$3b
2o12b2o$19bo2$11b2o17bo$12bo17b3o$9b3o21bo$9bo22b2o4bobo$38b2o$39bo2$
28b3o$28bo$29bo$42b2o$35b2o5bobo$35bo8bo$44b2o2$31bo$30bobob2o$30bobo
bobo$27b2obobo3bo2bo$27bo2bo2b2ob4o$29b2o4bo$35bobo$36b2o!

I believe mentions of the idea of signals should be avoided in situations like this.

The main reason why, is because the word "signal" suggests that it has to be something important, something worthy of attention, something that adds some additional complexity, something that needs an additional explanation.
In those cases when adding a glider fails to add something genuinely new to the pattern, it's misleading to describe the glider as "signal" or to claim that it carries a signal. That misleads the reader into searching for a "hidden meaning" where there is nothing of interest to be found (and distracts the reader from other components that may be more interesting and deserve more attention).

In a typical glider synthesis, the colliding gliders don't carry any signals. The gliders just "do the work". This isn't circuitry. Intuitively, glider syntheses are much closer to chemistry.

The R-pentomino emits six gliders during its evolution. Neither of those six gliders carries any signal; they just happen to be emitted, as one of many consequences of the rules of CGoL. Intuitively, this situation is much closer to "physics" than "circuitry".

A signal must be some moving information of interest, carried (in some way / by some mechanism) through the CA universe, and deserving (or even requiring) a specific mention in a human-readable explanation of how a given engineered pattern works.
If adding/removing/retiming a given moving reaction does have some "interesting consequences" for how the pattern works, then it may be helpful to assign (ascribe) some meaning to that particular moving reaction, and it may be helpful to say that such-and-such moving reaction carries such-and-such signal (encoded or represented in some specific way). Then that particular signal can be tracked as it moves, even when the carrying reaction/object transforms/deforms in various ways, and moreover it might be helpful and not misleading to draw attention to that particular signal (rather than to some other part of the pattern under discussion).

[Citation needed]

I'm on another forum where occasionally a bot will seem to post something relevant, although sometimes it's clear that it was AI-generated. After 6-10 days, the bot edits the post to add a spam link.

On another wiki website, I suffered from two different forms of vandalism within one day.