Thread for your miscellaneous posts and discussions

[Vlev2]

I have finally learned how to do RLE!
obobo$3obo$obobo3$bobo2$o3bo$b3o

[confocaloid]

I have finally learned how to do RLE!
obobo$3obo$obobo3$bobo2$o3bo$b3o

To be able to preview it, there needs to be a RLE header, and the code needs to be put between the "pattern" tags, as follows:

Code: Select all

x = 5, y = 9, rule = B3/S23
obobo$3obo$obobo3$bobo2$o3bo$b3o!

(If you're using Golly or LifeViewer as an editor, then the RLE can be copied into the clipboard by selecting part of a pattern and copying it.)

[wwei47]

I am going to point out the fact that any object including guns cannot start with an infinite bounding box.

I believe it is an informal usage intended to mean "Catagolue does not yet have a gun of this period".

[R2INT]

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

Here are some other threads where you could post random rules:

• Absolutely Useless Patterns Not Worthy of OCA Thread
• InDev Rules (best for intermediate rulegolfs)
• Rule Table Thread (better for multistate rules)
• haaaaaands' (un)notable rule dump (feel free to add yours)

[confocaloid]

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

Here are some other threads where you could post random rules:
[...]

Those links should be useful indeed, just wanted to clarify that "really random rules" almost certainly shouldn't be posted at all. There should be some nontrivial filtering between generating pseudorandom rulesets and posting them on the forums or anywhere. Many interesting CA families include gazillions of rulesets, obviously it is impossible to explore them all. In many cases, what can be said about a specific CA, happens to be also true for a large number of other CA, so therefore not an unique property that could possibly make these particular rules noteworthy.

There is an expectation of some significant effort / exploration, before you post a "new" CA (just so that there is something to be posted, pattern collection, explanation of any interesting observed behaviour, any interesting properties that might be rare, etc.)

Please don't post "random rules". Especially don't post "random rules" one-by-one.

It might be interesting to do a larger investigation involving generating and testing hundreds or thousands of pseudorandom rulesets. But in that case, your post will not be about any of those rulesets, instead it will be about the interesting ideas behind your investigation and any interesting results/statistics that were obtained.

[CARuler]

EDIT by dvgrn: this post was reported with the comment,

Patterns don't work and can't work; the format is unsupported and unlikely to be supported or useful. The basic idea is very old and reappears in various ways from time to time; this doesn't need a separate thread. Strictly speaking these aren't CA to begin with.

This seems pretty accurate to me, though it would have been nice if it had been a direct reply to this post, instead of being only in the post report where nobody but moderators could see it. Here's an example link to one of several places where stochastic CAs have been discussed -- "stochastic" meaning there's a random element in how cells evolve.

some reasons why this action doesn't make sense

• i don't see why an idea that keeps reappearing shouldn't have a thread.
• and yes they are CA to begin with.
• Your link is quite irrelevant and not on the topic of random CA, it proves nothing expect that random CA has not been given a through study, especially if that is the best you've got
• there are many topics that are like your description, that have not been taken down.
• of course patterns don't work, you have to figure out how they evolve or not at all. this is not a reason for any action, this is a reason for being irritated.

EDIT by dvgrn: I've removed some personal-attack-ish wording here so that I could close a post report...

meanwhile, I would like said thread back unless you have any arguments that hold water, in which case you should post them immediately to justify said action.

a policing system that cannot hold a trial is a broken one

EDIT by dvgrn: @CARuler, we've got a whole dispute-resolution system all laid out over on the LifeWiki at [[LW:DR]]. The idea is to keep disputes from escalating and get them off of the pubic forums, where they usually end up being just a nuisance and an embarrassment to everybody involved in the long run. This isn't technically a LifeWiki-related issue, but the same basic dispute resolution rules could be applied.

You've tried step #1.
For step #2, you've posted here instead of in the LifeWiki discussion thread, because this isn't a LifeWiki issue. So far so good.
We're pretty much on step 3. I've intervened and done some moderator stuff -- moved your post (definitely did not "take it down", but did make it so it wasn't a separate thread) and talked with you a bit on Discord.
The next step is #4. It's really important not to skimp on that one. Give it at least a week.

[confocaloid]

[...] and yes they are CA to begin with. [...]

Not really. Those are an extension of the concept. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_automaton for details.

[...]
Your link is quite irrelevant and not on the topic of random CA,
[...]

Please explain. Your post is titled "Random CA". It looks reasonable to assume that that does not mean "random posts", but instead refers to essentially the same idea that was already discussed many times in earlier forum threads (linked above and below). Especially given lack of sufficiently detailed explanations of what you mean by "Random CA" exactly, there doesn't seem to be any need in a new forum thread that is going to duplicate existing threads at best, or devolve into a low-effort noisy chat at worst.

When one is starting a new forum thread, there should be a clear explanation written for other people, explaining what the thread is about (purpose, scope), how it relates to and differs from already existing threads, review of prior art, and so on. Explain what you did. Do not demand that people spend time and efforts guessing something that was never explained.

[...] there are many topics that are like your description, that have not been taken down. [...]

That's irrelevant. Existence of other low-level threads does not justify creating more and more low-level threads.
Compare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS

[...] of course patterns don't work, you have to figure out how they evolve or not at all. [...]

Why post those "patterns", then? (Even if they "worked", they would work differently each time. Then it becomes uninteresting to post specific "patterns", and one would expect instead a more high-level discussion involving more words and phrases and less specific patterns, about general tendencies or statistics.)

It is your task to explain in sufficient details how to interpret and use stuff you post, so that people can understand it. Do not request that other people "figure out how they evolve or not at all". It is your responsibility to convince others that a topic deserves attention. People here are volunteers/hobbyists. Nobody is obliged to "babysit" newcomers, or spend efforts interpreting unnecessarily obscure forum posts.

[...] i don't see why an idea that keeps reappearing shouldn't have a thread. [...]

Because it already has a thread (more than one thread, in this case). Quoting from another existing thread on the same topic:
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=5818 "Nondeterministic rules ("Radiolife"?)"

If we change a standard cellular automaton so that after the transition is complete each alive cell has a very low probability of turning off then it might cause these changes (I didn't run any experiments but this is probably going to be the case when using a life-like rule):
[...]

It could be fun to better understand consequences of introducing probability/randomness into a deterministic rule. The general idea was discussed before; see for example Interesting behaviour with probabilistic automata?, Making Cells Replicate/Move Randomly, Randomness in rules, Pseudorandom CA. One possibility is to run two parallel universes following two different rules, with states of cells in one universe used as a "background pseudorandom noise" to fine-tune evolution in another universe.

Edit: added a link.

[CARuler]

[...] and yes they are CA to begin with. [...]

Not really. Those are an extension of the concept. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_automaton for details.

though exceptions are known, such as the stochastic cellular automaton and asynchronous cellular automaton.

[...]
Your link is quite irrelevant and not on the topic of random CA,
[...]

Please explain. Your post is titled "Random CA". It looks reasonable to assume that that does not mean "random posts", but instead refers to essentially the same idea that was already discussed many times in earlier forum threads (linked above and below). Especially given lack of sufficiently detailed explanations of what you mean by "Random CA" exactly, there doesn't seem to be any need in a new forum thread that is going to duplicate existing threads at best, or devolve into a low-effort noisy chat at worst.

The topic linked only mentions random ca

[...] there are many topics that are like your description, that have not been taken down. [...]

That's irrelevant. Existence of other low-level threads does not justify creating more and more low-level threads.
Compare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS

it still doesn't let you justify taking it down

[...] of course patterns don't work, you have to figure out how they evolve or not at all. [...]

Why post those "patterns", then? (Even if they "worked", they would work differently each time. Then it becomes uninteresting to post specific "patterns", and one would expect instead a more high-level discussion involving more words and phrases and less specific patterns, about general tendencies or statistics.)

it would take an entire post for me to explain, and your message is a lot of noise

[...] i don't see why an idea that keeps reappearing shouldn't have a thread. [...]

Because it already has a thread (more than one thread, in this case). Quoting from another existing thread on the same topic:
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=5818 "Nondeterministic rules ("Radiolife"?)"

from what i can see, the thread does not introduce any new ideas such as a notation for said rules, and the thread is about a rule called radiolife

It is your task to explain in sufficient details how to interpret and use stuff you post, so that people can understand it. Do not request that other people "figure out how they evolve or not at all". It is your responsibility to convince others that a topic deserves attention. People here are volunteers/hobbyists. Nobody is obliged to "babysit" newcomers, or spend efforts interpreting unnecessarily obscure forum posts.

chill with the "babysit" this is only antagonizing.

if you haven't noticed already, human communication takes effort from both people and i have done my best. try harder

[confocaloid]

[...] it would take an entire post for me to explain, and your message is a lot of noise [...]

How so? I just spent some efforts writing "an entire post" to reply to your complaints. Earlier, several other people here on the forums spent time and efforts writing posts attempting to explain to you the forum rules and basic expectations. You are responding to that by posts containing lots of unnecessarily long quotes, followed by short cryptic replies.

It's those one-line chatty replies that look like "lot of noise", and not others' posts trying to explain something important.
If you aren't willing to spend time writing your entire posts, don't expect that other people will do more work for you.

[...] from what i can see, the thread does not introduce any new ideas such as a notation for said rules, and the thread is about a rule called radiolife [...]

That thread isn't about a speciifc rule(set). Instead, that thread is about a general idea, applicable/implementable in many ways. Additionally, several other forum threads on the same topic were already linked above.

[CARuler]

[...] it would take an entire post for me to explain, and your message is a lot of noise [...]

How so? I just spent some efforts writing "an entire post" to reply to your complaints. Earlier, several other people here on the forums spent time and efforts writing posts attempting to explain to you the forum rules and basic expectations. You are responding to that by posts containing lots of unnecessarily long quotes, followed by short cryptic replies.

It's those one-line chatty replies that look like "lot of noise", and not others' posts trying to explain something important.
If you aren't willing to spend time writing your entire posts, don't expect that other people will do more work for you.

[...] from what i can see, the thread does not introduce any new ideas such as a notation for said rules, and the thread is about a rule called radiolife [...]

That thread isn't about a speciifc rule(set). Instead, that thread is about a general idea, applicable/implementable in many ways. Additionally, several other forum threads on the same topic were already linked above.

• in what way is said post chatty?
• if you find the world cryptic, that is not my problem, it is yours, and i have no sympathy for you
• these "basic forum rules and expectations" you mentioned seem to contain an extravagant amount of one rule which is about efficiency and can get contributors banned, frankly, your loss
• your post was just as much noise as yours, expect with more words
• yes, i am trying to explain something, and that like most of human debate, is that your are wrong
• if so, why wasn't the post moved there
• i have a hard time getting ideas out, if you can't try to figure it out, live with it
• if you weren't here who would report the thread? if other people don't care, why are you shutting it down? you're just closing ideas this way.

[confocaloid]

[...] i have a hard time getting ideas out, [...]

These forums are a place for people to communicate with each other about Conway's Life and related cellular automata.

In the event that you have a hard time getting ideas out and consequently cannot productively discuss Life/CA with others here, keep in mind that people on these forums cannot help you with that problem, even in principle. There are other places beyond these forums.

[CARuler]

[...] i have a hard time getting ideas out, [...]

These forums are a place for people to communicate with each other about Conway's Life and related cellular automata.

In the event that you have a hard time getting ideas out and consequently cannot productively discuss Life/CA with others here, keep in mind that people on these forums cannot help you with that problem, even in principle. There are other places beyond these forums.

like discord? nothing gets put there.

[LuveelVoom]

[...] i have a hard time getting ideas out, [...]

These forums are a place for people to communicate with each other about Conway's Life and related cellular automata.

In the event that you have a hard time getting ideas out and consequently cannot productively discuss Life/CA with others here, keep in mind that people on these forums cannot help you with that problem, even in principle. There are other places beyond these forums.

like discord? nothing gets put there.

Except, you know, the unsynth still life and the reduced glider gun. Just today.

[confocaloid]

Speaking of POTY, when is the 2022 one happening?

Many notable discoveries from 2024 are yet to be nominated (don't have a nomination forum post, and aren't even mentioned in the wiki page). The news archive does mention some of those "missing nominations", but that's a long way from a POTY2024 nomination.

More or less the same is true for the OCADOTY2024, except in that case even a news archive is not available where one could search for nomination ideas.

[Timelord Missionary]

How common is this for pseudo-random soups?

Code: Select all

x = 36, y = 61, rule = B3/S23
$16b3o$16b3o$15bo3bo$15b2ob2o2$11b3o$11bobo2$10bo4b4o2b3o3bo$15bo3bo2b
o3b3o$12bo2bo3bo2b3ob3o$13b4ob2o4b2o$5b2o10b3o5b2obo$5b2o10b4o4bo2b2o
$17b2ob2o7bo$18bob2ob9o$16bo3b2o4bo2b3o$20bo$18b2o4b2o$16b3o4bo$16b2o
$13bobob2o14b2o$12b2ob2o16b2o$11bo3bo$10bo2bobo$10b5o20bo$8b2o8bo16bo
$7bo2bo7bo16bo$2b2o3b3ob2obobobo$2o2bo7b2ob2o$2b2o3b3ob2obobobo$7bo2b
o7bo16bo$8b2o8bo16bo$10b5o20bo$10bo2bobo$11bo3bo$12b2ob2o16b2o$13bobo
b2o14b2o$16b2o$16b3o4bo$18b2o4b2o$20bo$16bo3b2o4bo2b3o$18bob2ob9o$17b
2ob2o7bo$5b2o10b4o4bo2b2o$5b2o10b3o5b2obo$13b4ob2o4b2o$12bo2bo3bo2b3o
b3o$15bo3bo2bo3b3o$10bo4b4o2b3o3bo2$11bobo$11b3o2$15b2ob2o$15bo3bo$16b
3o$16b3o!

[confocaloid]

I think you'll need to provide more details on what you mean by "this" and how the posted pattern is related.

The posted pattern appears to be an intermediate generation of some (unspecified) reaction which appears to be symmetric.
The posted pattern isn't a pseudo-random soup, as far as I can tell. So it's unclear why it is posted with a question about pseudo-random soups.
The final pattern (obtained by evolving the posted pattern until it settles) contains an instance of the still-life xs21_ad1e8gz5b871 which has a large number of soups in various Catagolue censuses.

However, so far all of that still fails to add up to any coherent way to interpret the post as some specific question. What is "this"? Is the question somehow related to Catagolue soups, or soups in general? Is the shown pattern produced by evolving a soup? Is the exact shown pattern even important? Is it important at all that that 21-bit still-life appears in the final pattern, or the idea is about something else?

How common is this for pseudo-random soups?

Code: Select all

x = 36, y = 61, rule = B3/S23
$16b3o$16b3o$15bo3bo$15b2ob2o2$11b3o$11bobo2$10bo4b4o2b3o3bo$15bo3bo2b
o3b3o$12bo2bo3bo2b3ob3o$13b4ob2o4b2o$5b2o10b3o5b2obo$5b2o10b4o4bo2b2o
$17b2ob2o7bo$18bob2ob9o$16bo3b2o4bo2b3o$20bo$18b2o4b2o$16b3o4bo$16b2o
$13bobob2o14b2o$12b2ob2o16b2o$11bo3bo$10bo2bobo$10b5o20bo$8b2o8bo16bo
$7bo2bo7bo16bo$2b2o3b3ob2obobobo$2o2bo7b2ob2o$2b2o3b3ob2obobobo$7bo2b
o7bo16bo$8b2o8bo16bo$10b5o20bo$10bo2bobo$11bo3bo$12b2ob2o16b2o$13bobo
b2o14b2o$16b2o$16b3o4bo$18b2o4b2o$20bo$16bo3b2o4bo2b3o$18bob2ob9o$17b
2ob2o7bo$5b2o10b4o4bo2b2o$5b2o10b3o5b2obo$13b4ob2o4b2o$12bo2bo3bo2b3o
b3o$15bo3bo2bo3b3o$10bo4b4o2b3o3bo2$11bobo$11b3o2$15b2ob2o$15bo3bo$16b
3o$16b3o!

[hotdogPi]

By the way, "pseudorandom" means it wasn't created via random.org or rolling dice (or certain other methods). It has nothing to do with symmetry.

[Timelord Missionary]

By the way, "pseudorandom" means it wasn't created via random.org or rolling dice (or certain other methods). It has nothing to do with symmetry.

Well in that case, it was pseudo-random, because I generated it via a deterministic algorithmic game that wastes much time when done by hand where I start with some symmetrical pattern such as ash and add one cell to the end of the leftmost stable pattern straddling the middle over and over again, with examples being turning a beehive into a honeyfarm or a blinker or a tub into a beehive, along with a bunch of other rules. It's a bit complicated to put here and basically only makes sense in my head. I guess I could code something to play it for me, but I feel too lazy.

The pattern is only rewound as little as it is because that is the last generation that makes sense without additional cells being filled in using PASTET, as indicated by the peculiarly-shaped honey farm ancestor on the left side. Also, it is only the active part of the bigger pattern, the unshown parts not affecting the development of the still life in question.

[Anivec]

What would happen if Steven Wolfram joined the forums? I’m imagining that he would try to advertise his book to every single forum user online.

[confocaloid]

What would happen if Steven Wolfram joined the forums? [...]

An earlier discussion of that possibility:

Thanks for your posts, and I have a few ideas:
1.Why don’t Wolfram post these here?

I'm not entirely sure what this point is supposed to mean. It'd certainly be interesting if he could get in on the action, given his substantial research into early 1D rules, but this question is basically asking why Eric Clapton doesn't give anybody anywhere who asks guitar lessons.

[WhiteHawk]

EDIT 5: p32 Pi-heptomino hassler:

Code: Select all

x = 34, y = 30, rule = B3/S23
13bo13bo3b2o$12bobo10b2obo$11bo3bo9b3o$12bo3bo7bo6bo$2ob6o4bo3bo5bo2bo
bobobo$2ob6o5bo3bo5b3obob2o$2o13bobo$2o5b2o7bo7b3obob2o$2o5b2o14bo2bob
obobo$2o5b2o15bo6bo$7b2o16b3o$6ob2o16b2obo$6ob2o4b2o12bo3b2o$13bobo3b
2o$15bo2bobo$13bobo2bo$13b2o3bobo$b2o3bo12b2o4b2ob6o$5bob2o16b2ob6o$6b
3o16b2o$2bo6bo15b2o5b2o$bobobobo2bo14b2o5b2o$2b2obob3o7bo7b2o5b2o$16bo
bo13b2o$2b2obob3o5bo3bo5b6ob2o$bobobobo2bo5bo3bo4b6ob2o$2bo6bo7bo3bo$
6b3o9bo3bo$5bob2o10bobo$b2o3bo13bo!

How might this oscillator be synthesized, given that the supporting oscillators are super close and offer little room to trigger the pi-hassling reaction?

[confocaloid]

[...] How might this oscillator be synthesized, given that the supporting oscillators are super close [...]

Well, if it is possible to insert the figure eights last (what are known figure eight syntheses that can work there?), then it might be possible to have a seed inside that is triggered (into the correctly-phased hassled reaction) by the sparks from the figure eights, but keep in mind that it's just me writing the first idea that comes to mind without actually doing the work needed to determine whether this idea can be used at all. Alternatively, it might be possible to send two gliders to trigger a seed and immediately insert the figure eights but that would need to be done quickly.

[ababa11e]

I'm back!
Yeah, srry about being gone.
I'm gonna work harder.
Expect new stuff.

[wwei47]

This is a "dumb rule" that I don't feel like merits being posted in the OCA forum; I do find comedic value in it, and thus consider it worth at least posting in the sandbox. This is NeutroniumPlus. It behaves like Neutronium, except cells with four or more neutronic neighbors become neutronic. The R-pentomino showcases pretty well what happens in this rule.

Code: Select all

x = 3, y = 3, rule = NeutroniumPlus
.2A$2A$.A!
@RULE NeutroniumPlus
@TABLE
n_states:3
neighborhood:Moore
symmetries:permute
var a={1,2}
var b={1,2}
var c={1,2}
var d={1,2}
var e={1,2}
var f={1,2}
var g={1,2}
var h={1,2}
var i={0,1,2}
var j=i
var k=i
var l=i
var m=i

0,a,b,c,0,0,0,0,0,1
i,2,2,2,2,j,k,l,m,2
1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
1,a,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
1,a,b,c,d,0,0,0,0,0
1,a,b,c,d,e,0,0,0,0
1,a,b,c,d,e,f,0,0,0
1,a,b,c,d,e,f,g,0,0
1,a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,2 
@COLORS
0 48 48 48
1 255 255 255
2 255 0 0

EDIT:

Rule:
1. You can add transitions to make a new pattern work
2. New pattern must show in the collection
3. You can't remove any patterns in the collection

Suggestion: A number should be attached to each version of the rule instead of updating the original rule.
Also, there appears to be a typo in the name of the first version of the rule.

[b-engine]

An idea for a half-bakery diagonal ship:
A pair of gliders pass through an array of HB (half-bakery) pairs, producing glider pairs which pass through arrays of HBs, forming salvos and moving the constellations at the bottom of the ship, as well as producing a salvo, which travels backward. Meanwhile the initial glider pairs collides with a OTT along with the backward salvo, creating the exact glider pair (reflected) and the OTT. The process repeats, thus moving the spaceship.

The "HBD'' would look like this:

Code: Select all

#C state 1 = recovered OTT
#C state 2 = salvo
#C state 3 = half-bakeries
#C state 4 = glider pair
#C state 5 = constellations
#C state 6 = incomplete OTT
x = 34, y = 34, rule = B/SHistory
17.F$18.F$16.C2$14.C3.C2$12.C3.C3.C2$10.C3.C3.C3.C2$8.C3.C3.C3.C3.C$6.
D3.B3.B3.B3.B3.B$6.CD.BC2.BC2.BC2.BC2.BC2$4.C3.C3.C3.C3.C3.C3.C2$2.C3.
C3.C3.C3.C3.C3.C3.C2.E$A31.E$.A2.C3.C3.C3.C3.C3.C3.C2.E$30.E$6.C3.C3.
C3.C3.C3.C2.E$28.E$8.C3.C3.C3.C3.C2.E$26.E$10.C3.C3.C3.C2.E$24.E$12.C
3.C3.C2.E$22.E$14.C3.C2.E$20.E$16.C2.E$18.E$17.E$16.E!

How it works:

Code: Select all

x = 224, y = 35, rule = B/SHistory
17.F36.F152.A$16.D.F36.F36.F37.F38.A38.A$16.CD75.F37.F38.A35.C$54.C36.
C37.C2.2B34.C$14.C3.C113.B71.C3.C$52.C3.C32.C3.C33.C3.C34.C3.C$12.C3.
C3.C76.2B103.C3.C3.C$50.C3.C3.C28.C3.C3.C.B27.C3.C3.C30.C3.C3.C$10.C3.
C3.C3.C177.C3.C3.C3.C$48.C3.C3.C3.C24.C3.C3.C3.C25.C3.C3.C3.C26.C3.C3.
C3.C$8.C3.C3.C3.C3.C173.C3.C3.C3.C3.C$43.D2.C3.C3.C3.C3.C20.C3.C3.C3.
C3.C21.C3.C3.C3.C3.C22.C3.C3.C3.C3.C$6.C3.C3.C3.C3.C3.C16.CD3.B3.B3.B
3.B3.B131.C3.C3.C3.C3.C3.C$47.BC2.BC2.BC2.BC2.BC16.C3.C3.C3.C3.C3.C17.
C3.C3.C3.C3.C3.C18.C3.C3.C3.C3.C3.C$4.C3.C3.C3.C3.C3.C3.C12.C3.C3.C3.
C3.C3.C3.C128.C3.C3.C3.C3.C3.C3.C$79.C3.C3.C3.C3.C3.C3.C13.C3.C3.C3.C
3.C3.C3.C14.C3.C3.C3.C3.C3.C3.C$2.C3.C3.C3.C3.C3.C3.C3.C2.E5.C3.C3.C3.
C3.C3.C3.C3.C2.E6.D113.DC3.C3.C3.C3.C3.C3.C3.C2.E$A31.E4.A31.E7.CD2.C
3.C3.C3.C3.C3.C3.C2.E6.C3.C3.C3.C3.C3.C3.C3.C2.E7.C3.C3.C3.C3.C3.C3.C
3.C2.E4.F.D29.E$.A2.C3.C3.C3.C3.C3.C3.C2.E6.A2.C3.C3.C3.C3.C3.C3.C2.E
6.A31.E5.AD30.E6.AD30.E6.F2.C3.C3.C3.C3.C3.C3.C2.E$30.E36.E8.A2.C3.C3.
C3.C3.C3.C3.C2.E6.DA2.C3.C3.C3.C3.C3.C3.C2.E7.DA2.C3.C3.C3.C3.C3.C3.C
2.E36.E$6.C3.C3.C3.C3.C3.C2.E13.C3.C3.C3.C3.C3.C2.E38.E37.E38.E13.C3.
C3.C3.C3.C3.C2.E$28.E36.E15.C3.C3.C3.C3.C3.C2.E14.C3.C3.C3.C3.C3.C2.E
12.2B.C3.C3.C3.C3.C3.C2.E36.E$8.C3.C3.C3.C3.C2.E17.C3.C3.C3.C3.C2.E38.
E37.E13.B24.E17.C3.C3.C3.C3.C2.E$26.E36.E19.C3.C3.C3.C3.C2.E18.C3.C3.
C3.C3.C2.E19.C3.C3.C3.C3.C2.E36.E$10.C3.C3.C3.C2.E21.C3.C3.C3.C2.E38.
E16.2B19.E38.E21.C3.C3.C3.C2.E$24.E36.E23.C3.C3.C3.C2.E17.B4.C3.C3.C3.
C2.E23.C3.C3.C3.C2.E36.E$12.C3.C3.C2.E25.C3.C3.C2.E38.E37.E38.E25.C3.
C3.C2.E$22.E36.E23.2B2.C3.C3.C2.E26.C3.C3.C2.E27.C3.C3.C2.E36.E$14.C3.
C2.E29.C3.C2.E24.B13.E37.E38.E29.C3.C2.E$20.E36.E31.C3.C2.E30.C3.C2.E
31.C3.C2.E36.E$16.C2.E33.C2.E38.E37.E38.E33.C2.E$18.E36.E35.C2.E34.C2.
E35.C2.E36.E$17.E36.E38.E37.E38.E36.E$16.E36.E38.E37.E38.E36.E$91.E37.
E38.E!