Talk:Glider synthesis

Should the fact that there are upper and lower bounds (by example) on the maximum number of cells a synthesisable pattern can have (and equivalently, the minimum an unsynthesisable one can have), as mentioned in https://cp4space.hatsya.com/2022/01/14/conway-conjecture-settled/? (Now the lower bound is ≤21 cells to be synthesisable instead, but I think 306 is the upper bound still) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DroneBetter (talk • contribs)

I suppose (EDIT to insert: by "synthesizable pattern") you mean "synthesizable still life"? The relevant section of article has already mentioned it. GUYTU6J (talk) 15:03, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood the suggestion -- this seems to be about the best bounds proven so far -- i.e. every still life below N cells can be constructed with gliders, and some still lifes above M cells cannot be constructed with gliders, with a preference for larger N and smaller M. Confocal (talk) 16:32, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I edited my last message, by which I intended to express the following: on a closer look, the relevant section of article does mention that "The synthesis for ... 21-bit still lifes [was completed] in November 2022" and that "...a still life with 306 cells that is impossible to synthesize with gliders." Clearly these two sentences point out the bounds N=21 and M=306. And I have not heard about any improvements on either bound, so I am not clear how to have "preference for larger N and smaller M". GUYTU6J (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I think the idea is to have these bounds mentioned explicitly - i.e. if the best known lower bound is 21 and the best known upper bound is 306, then it might be a good idea to directly state that in the article. Just mentioning synthesis for all 21-bit still lifes and the 306-cell non-constructible still life does not imply that these bounds are in fact the best bounds known to this community. Confocal (talk) 17:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)