LifeWiki Did-You-Knows

[confocaloid]

Maybe it could be "that mold and mazing, the smallest period 4 oscillators, are smaller than the heavyweight spaceship but larger than the other elementary spaceships, which are all also period 4?"

That would be incorrect. Sir Robin is an elementary spaceship, but it is not period-4, and certainly much larger.

With "... the other standard spaceships,..." instead, I think that would become technically correct. But the main question "why this is interesting?" remains. If you are putting this in a DYK item, you're basically asking a question to the LifeWiki reader:

"Did you know that mold and mazing, the smallest period 4 oscillators, are smaller than the heavyweight spaceship but larger than the other standard spaceships, which are all also period 4?"

Now, why would a LifeWiki reader even want to know that particular piece of information? I don't see how it is particularly interesting. I think it is an arbitrary comparison (perhaps arising from an initial error when some editor mistakenly believed that HWSS is smaller than mold and mazing).

TL,DR: I object to the suggestion to add this arbitrary complicated comparison between some p4 oscillators and some p4 spaceships as a DYK item.

[Haycat2009]

Maybe it could be "that mold and mazing, the smallest period 4 oscillators, are smaller than the heavyweight spaceship but larger than the other elementary spaceships, which are all also period 4?"

I'll add a second objection

The claim is false.

Since there is dispute with 1 supporting me and 2 against, I will wait another 20 hours.

[Haycat2009]

…that Life and B35/S236 are two of the only rules where Turing-completeness was proved by creating a universal computer, instead of the more common W110 unit cell?

[confocaloid]

…that Life and B35/S236 are two of the only rules where Turing-completeness was proved by creating a universal computer, instead of the more common W110 unit cell?

[citation needed]

I am a LifeWiki reader and I noticed the assertion ("... two of the only rules ...") How do I verify the claim? Is it even true? Where do I read more about it?

If it is unverifiable, then it should not go on LifeWiki.

[dvgrn]

If it is unverifiable, then it should not go on LifeWiki.

Yup. I'm somewhat skeptical that this one can be turned into a workable DYK.

I think there are quite a lot of deliberately engineered multistate rules that are designed to support universal computation, which are not excluded by the statement as it's written anyway. Not that I have a citation, either! The first example that comes to mind is the Quest for Tetris emulator rule, Rule:VarLife.

[Mathemagician314]

This is a kind of random idea, but how many spaceship speeds are known (more precisely, have been deliberately constructed) in Life? Because then you could have a DYK saying "...that as of February 2024, there are __ different spaceship speeds known in life, with the most recently discovered/constructed one being __ on [date], followed by __ discovered/constructed on [date]."

[Sokwe]

This is a kind of random idea, but how many spaceship speeds are known (more precisely, have been deliberately constructed) in Life? Because then you could have a DYK saying "...that as of February 2024, there are __ different spaceship speeds known in life, with the most recently discovered/constructed one being __ on [date], followed by __ discovered/constructed on [date]."

It's trivially easy to construct new speeds using one of the various engineered spaceship designs. Even if we counted all of the explicitly constructed speeds so far, somebody could make that list outdated in a few minutes if they so chose.

[dvgrn]

We used to have a DYK that mentioned the number of distinct speeds plus the number of different engineered-spaceship families.

Right around the invention of the camelship it started getting difficult to even count the families accurately -- so that DYK got simplified so that it would stop being constantly out of date.

That DYK is still out there, though I think it might be out of date again; maybe someone can double-check against the lists in Spaceship? I think the sixteen velocities in the first table all count, and so does everything except for the pufferfish spaceship in the third table, so 22 speeds in all.

Maybe the DYK didn't get updated after the completion of the Unnamed (34,7)c/156 spaceship. (?)

[Mathemagician314]

It's trivially easy to construct new speeds using one of the various engineered spaceship designs. Even if we counted all of the explicitly constructed speeds so far, somebody could make that list outdated in a few minutes if they so chose.

Okay, revision -- how about the two most recently discovered speeds, excluding adjustable spaceships? I think it could be an interesting one to have.

[Haycat2009]

…that the p171 pi hassler, despite being found in 2022 by Mitchell Riley, was not noticed to be complete until 2024 by period 1 glider gun?

[hotdogPi]

…that the p171 pi hassler, despite being found in 2022 by Mitchell Riley, was not noticed to be complete until 2024 by period 1 glider gun?

Not quite as written. It's not obvious to a newcomer that "period 1 glider gun" is a user and not, well, a glider gun with period 1.

[Haycat2009]

…that the p171 pi hassler, despite being found in 2022 by Mitchell Riley, was not noticed to be complete until 2024 by period 1 glider gun?

Not quite as written. It's not obvious to a newcomer that "period 1 glider gun" is a user and not, well, a glider gun with period 1.

Obviously I will put in relevant links and correct it. Do not forget that this is not as-is, but a rough guide. I will refine it if the answer is yes.

[dvgrn]

Obviously I will put in relevant links and correct it. Do not forget that this is not as-is, but a rough guide. I will refine it if the answer is yes.

Heh, as you've discovered, the answer might not be "yes" until there's a final form to look at and say "yes" to.

Okay, revision -- how about the two most recently discovered speeds, excluding adjustable spaceships? I think it could be an interesting one to have.

That could work. Maybe just say "... that the first X was discovered in {year20xx}, and the first Y was discovered in {year20yy}", and not even say that these were the two most recently discovered speeds? (It probably doesn't really matter either way, but if it's phrased right then it doesn't have to change when the next new speed shows up.)

Another fact that might be interesting is a DYK for some of the contiguous ranges of spaceships that Goldtiger997 and others have managed to synthesize -- like the 6 smallest c/4 diagonal spaceships, and whatever the current range of synthesizable c/2 spaceships with a continuous range of periods. -- Where is that documented, again? and/or is there already a DYK along those lines?

[Haycat2009]

…that the [[p171 pi hassler]], despite being found in [[2022]] by [[Mitchell Riley]], was not noticed to be complete until 2024 by [[period1glidergun]]?

EDIT by dvgrn: Ouch. That link won't work. It's [[Period1GliderGun]]. Capitalization matters just as much as spacing. Another improvement is to use the standard year template -- {{year|2022}}.

[confocaloid]

^^ "p171 pi hassler"

In addition to issues already mentioned, there is at least one broken link.
In addition, given that the p171 pi-heptomino hassler is presumed notable enough to warrant a dedicated page (LW:NB), the discovery information also goes into that page. Hence I think that names of discoverers should not be repeated in the DYK item.

I think "Did you know?" entries are mostly for interesting facts about Life that can be stated in a brief, immediately understandable form. (Any extended discussion of the involved topics, including discovery information, goes into linked pages.)

[Haycat2009]

^^ "p171 pi hassler"

In addition to issues already mentioned, there is at least one broken link.
In addition, given that the p171 pi-heptomino hassler is presumed notable enough to warrant a dedicated page (LW:NB), the discovery information also goes into that page. Hence I think that names of discoverers should not be repeated in the DYK item.

I think "Did you know?" entries are mostly for interesting facts about Life that can be stated in a brief, immediately understandable form. (Any extended discussion of the involved topics, including discovery information, goes into linked pages.)

Ok, I will fix then add it after a day

[confocaloid]

Obviously I will put in relevant links and correct it. Do not forget that this is not as-is, but a rough guide. I will refine it if the answer is yes.

Heh, as you've discovered, the answer might not be "yes" until there's a final form to look at and say "yes" to.

Ok, I will fix then add it.

I think you should post the intended "final" form, with all corrections applied, here in this thread, and wait at least a week (so that any interested people can review the suggestion before it is implemented, not after).

Added later

Ok, I will fix then add it after a day

That turned out to be a false claim. The user immediately proceeded to add a new DYK https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?oldid=146069

[Haycat2009]

...that the [[period-20 glider gun]] was the lowest-true-period gun for more than a decade, yet the [[period-16 glider gun]] that superseded it was the lowest-true-period gun for only 5 hours before the discovery of the [[period-15 glider gun]]?

[Haycat2009]

...that there are only three {{period|3}} {{cells|3|text=three-cell}} rotors, namely those of [[cuphook]], [[1-2-3]] and [[stillater]]?

(Notice the three 3s, that is why it is amusing)

[confocaloid]

...that there are only three {{period|3}} {{cells|3|three-cell}} rotors, namely those of [[cuphook]], [[1-2-3]] and [[stillater]]?

(Notice the three 3s, that is why it is amusing)

That markup will not work correctly. It should be instead

Code: Select all

...that there are only three {{period|3}} {{cells|3|text=three-cell}} rotors, namely those of [[cuphook]], [[1-2-3]] and [[stillater]]?

[Haycat2009]

…that there are four [[statorless]] {{cells|12|text=12-cell}} [[oscillators]], namely [[mazing]], [[pentadecathlon]], [[phoenix 1]] and [[figure eight]], yet there are none with 11 cells or below?

[eRroR_6o6]

...that patterns with no predecessors were known to exist right when CGOL was first conceived?

("patterns with no predecessors" should link to Garden of Eden)

[Sokwe]

…that there are four [[statorless]] {{cells|12|text=12-cell}} [[oscillators]], namely [[mazing]], [[pentadecathlon]], [[phoenix 1]] and [[figure eight]], yet there are none with 11 cells or below?

The only cell count up to which all objects have been enumerated is 8. All objects that are not p6 or p12 have been enumerated up to 9 cells. All objects that evolve from a "single cluster" and are not p6 or p12 have been enumerated. It's technically still possible that a statorless oscillator of population between 9 and 11 exists, although the chance is vanishingly small.

Haycat2009, please do not add any more DYKs to the wiki for now.

I suggest that a proposed Did-You-Know should be added to the wiki by someone other than the person who proposed it, and only if it has substantial support on the forums (for some as yet unspecified definition of "substantial").

[otismo]

are the main hook into this mess so make sure you do a good job