Can we substantiate this claim?

[confocaloid]

I think if you're interested in spaceship guns, then at some point (sooner or later) you'll want to collect them in a form where they can be easily seen (e.g. on a page with embedded viewers, or in a stamp collection).
From that viewpoint, compact glider guns are more collectible. A pattern with small bounding box fits better in an embedded viewer without exceeding MAXGRIDSIZE 9 (so that can be added to the scripting commands, to kill gliders earlier and improve performance and allow running LifeViewer's Identify feature on the gun). Multiple compact guns could be put in a single stamp collection.

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=144090
The edit adds a claim "[...], and a much more difficult glider synthesis". That claim is incorrect, as the pattern does not have any known glider synthesis. In particular, xp3_gg39c842s0gzh895tl2w11zd54311tdrh84z36ar3g8oziij123z04b4 does not have any known glider synthesis.

[confocaloid]

I think the edit https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=144193 erroneously replaced the username of a discoverer:

p34 dependent reflector loop:

Code: Select all

x = 43, y = 43, rule = B3/S23
5bo$5b3o17bo$8bo14b3o$7b2o13bo$22b2o2$10bo$9bobo$8bo3bo2b2ob2o$9bobo4b
o2bo$10bo6b2o$b2o38b2o$2bo38bo$2bobo34bobo$3b2o34b2o$34bo$34b2o$26bo7b
o$6bo2b2o14b2o$7bo2bo14bobo$7bobo2$33bobo$15bobo14bo2bo$16b2o14b2o2bo$
8bo7bo$7b2o$8bo$2b2o34b2o$bobo34bobo$bo38bo$2o38b2o$24b2o6bo$23bo2bo4b
obo$23b2ob2o2bo3bo$31bobo$32bo2$19b2o$20bo13b2o$17b3o14bo$17bo17b3o$
37bo!

Previous unsolved issues:

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=144090
The edit adds a claim "[...], and a much more difficult glider synthesis". That claim is incorrect, as the pattern does not have any known glider synthesis. In particular, xp3_gg39c842s0gzh895tl2w11zd54311tdrh84z36ar3g8oziij123z04b4 does not have any known glider synthesis.

[dvgrn]

I think the edit https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=144193 erroneously replaced the username of a discoverer:

...

Aha, that's where that came from! The reference link goes to iNoMed's post, but it's the one above it that matters -- thanks for the correction.

Previous unsolved issues:

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=144090
The edit adds a claim "[...], and a much more difficult glider synthesis".

Yup, I thought about that one for a while, but then didn't figure out a fix. I've done a trial adjustment to that wording now.

[confocaloid]

Galumpher https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?oldid=144272
The claim "it has the smallest glider synthesis of all known reflectors, allowing for optimisation" is incorrect.
First, as of now xs56_y1ggs2sgy233zxgh226066zx1226z0ooyjoozyr66z0o4cz11zy8c453 does not have any completed synthesis (but of course that can be changed by submitting a synthesis).
Second, Bandersnatch (xs49_y933zy066yioge2zwooy22596zz8kkm0mmy6cczx343) is likely to be cheaper in terms of the glider synthesis cost.

Other corrections in the same entry:
* "spartan" -> "neo-Spartan"
* "and an Eater 2" -> "and an eater 2"
* "due to it's larger bounding box" -> "due to its larger bounding box"

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?oldid=144274 and https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=143237 also need copyedit.

---

(Added later)
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=144183
Removal of a relevant forum link. The forum post link should be added back.

[confocaloid]

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=144183
Removal of a relevant forum link. The forum post link should be added back.

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=114777
Claim "... even though this has been improved to 6 gliders" added without a supporting footnote link.

[Chris857]

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=144183
Removal of a relevant forum link. The forum post link should be added back.

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=114777
Claim "... even though this has been improved to 6 gliders" added without a supporting footnote link.

Looks like there's a pattern and footnote about that in https://conwaylife.com/wiki/Quadratic_growth#Synthesis - I'll leave to someone else to add that

EDIT by dvgrn: Done.

[confocaloid]

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... did=144638
The infobox claims that the Snark works in isotropic rules B3/S23 – B34c8/S234c5e6n8 (2^6 = 64 rules). However, that is correct only for the variant on the top. Each of the other three variants shown in the article works in 2^7 = 128 rules (optional Hensel conditions: B4c B4q B8 S4c S5e S6n S8). I think the article should somehow acknowledge that the reflector works in more rules, depending on the variant.
The base reaction works in much more rules. There might be other variants (completions) that work in more rules and/or in rules not covered by those four Snark variants (see for example viewtopic.php?p=1960#p1960 ).

Code: Select all

x = 51, y = 52, rule = B3/S23
20b2o$20bobo$22bo4b2o$18b4ob2o2bo2bo$18bo2bobobobob2o$21bobobobo$22b2o
bobo$26bo2$12b2o$13bo7b2o$13bobo5b2o$14b2o25bo$39b3o$38bo$38b2o3$46b2o
$24b2o21bo$24bo22bob2o$14b3o8b3o11b2o4b3o2bo$4bo11bo10bo11b2o3bo3b2o$
2b5o8bo5b2o21b4o$bo5bo13bo8b2o15bo$bo2b3o12bobo7bobo12b3o$2obo15b2o8bo
13bo$o2b4o21b2o14b5o$b2o3bo3b2o11bo22bo2bo$3b3o4b2o11b3o22b2o$3bo22bo$
2obo21b2o$2ob2o3$11b2o$12bo$9b3o$9bo25b2o$28b2o5bobo$28b2o7bo$37b2o2$
24bo$23bobob2o4b2o$23bobobobo2bo2bo$22b2obobobo3b2o$23bo2b2ob4o$23bo4b
o3bo$24b3obo2bo$26bobobo$29bo!

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=141218
The edit summary claims "standardisation". But the changes of the rulestrings appear to be in the wrong direction. Golly converts rulestrings "R4,C2,..." to "R4,C0,..." (and likewise for other ranges), rather than the other way round.

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=143417
The changes to the embedded viewer erroneously replaced apgcode instead of pname. I think RLE:schumann should be rotated instead, and the embedded viewer in the article changed to use pname instead of rle (and restore the apgcode link).

Previous issues:

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=144183
Removal of a relevant forum link. The forum post link should be added back.

[confocaloid]

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=144985
Text before the edit: "... but this uses a reaction that becomes eightfold symmetrical from rotational symmetry, so is not considered equivalent to a C1 occurrence."
Text after the edit: "... but this uses a reaction that becomes eightfold symmetry from rotational symmetry, so is not considered equivalent to a C1 occurrence."
The change is incorrect, and resulted in a meaningless claim (a reaction cannot become a symmetry).

Previous unresolved issues:

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=141218
The edit summary claims "standardisation". But the changes of the rulestrings appear to be in the wrong direction. Golly converts rulestrings "R4,C2,..." to "R4,C0,..." (and likewise for other ranges), rather than the other way round.

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=143417
The changes to the embedded viewer erroneously replaced apgcode instead of pname. I think RLE:schumann should be rotated instead, and the embedded viewer in the article changed to use pname instead of rle (and restore the apgcode link).

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=144183
Removal of a relevant forum link. The forum post link should be added back.

[Haycat2009]

The change is incorrect, and resulted in a meaningless claim (a reaction cannot become a symmetry).

"becomes eightfold symmetry from rotational symmetry, so is not considered equivalent to a C1 occurrence."
You are reading it wrongly, it is supposed to be "becomes eightfold symmetry from rotational symmetry", which is valid.

2 states (CA) is more correct than 0 states (aka nothing, zilch, nada, might as well do something else), Lifeviewer converts to C2.

Done the last 2 edits (no comment)

By the way, this is the wrong thread, it should be posted in Suggested Lifewiki edits.

[confocaloid]

"becomes eightfold symmetry from rotational symmetry"

After your edit, the article talks about "... a reaction that becomes eightfold symmetry ..." That is meaningless. A reaction cannot be or become a symmetry. OTOH a reaction can be symmetric, or can become symmetric.

Hence the edit should be reverted to the old wording ("... this uses a reaction that becomes eightfold symmetrical ...")

2 states (CA) is more correct than 0 states (aka nothing, might as well do something else), Lifeviewer converts to C2.

Changing to C2 with edit summary "Standardisation" (as you did in https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=141218 ) is misleading at best. There's no actual "standard" of any kind on this.

However, both Golly and Catagolue return rulestrings with C0. So if there is anything close to a "standard", then it is C0, not C2.
Catagolue example: https://catagolue.hatsya.com/object/xp1 ... 4t45s34t58

[Haycat2009]

Hence the edit should be reverted to the old wording ("... this uses a reaction that becomes eightfold symmetrical ...")

That's not grammatically correct (Subject-verb agreement.) I just modified it though. Catagolue DOES NOT return rulestrings with C0, though.

[confocaloid]

I just linked an example where it does

Catagolue DOES NOT return rulestrings with C0, though.

However, both Golly and Catagolue return rulestrings with C0. So if there is anything close to a "standard", then it is C0, not C2.
Catagolue example: https://catagolue.hatsya.com/object/xp1 ... 4t45s34t58

[confocaloid]

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=143307

The linked edit adds the following claim (unfortunately without adding any links that could enable verification):

Due to this property, every pattern has a single n-generation predecessor as well as successor for all n (ie. Gardens of Eden don't exist), and it can be simulated in reverse as efficiently as forwards.

(1) How the claim "and it can be simulated in reverse as efficiently as forwards" can be substantiated?
(2) Why "...as well as successor..." is even relevant here? In every cellular automaton (reversible or not), every pattern has a successor.
(3) How (and whether) the claim correlates with the posts viewtopic.php?p=171849#p171849 viewtopic.php?p=150683#p150683 ?

EDIT by dvgrn: linked edit corrected by hotdogPi.

[confocaloid]

On the page G-to-X (January 2024), at least five viewers show (apparently) glider-accepting devices, but without the input glider shown. That unnecessarily makes them puzzles in the style of an old loafer seed. The wiki reader should not have to guess where to send the input glider.

Also, I think the viewer theme should be changed to the default theme for all viewers there (static two-colour patterns work better in this use case).

Further, specific patterns shown in viewers on that page lack discovery information / links to forum posts where the shown component was posted.

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?oldid=144903
I think all the viewers should be changed to plain black-and-white formatting, and the RLEs should be changed to two-state B3/S23 formatting instead of multistate formatting. (There are also missing input gliders and other copyediting issues)

[Haycat2009]

On the page G-to-X (January 2024), at least five viewers show (apparently) glider-accepting devices, but without the input glider shown. That unnecessarily makes them puzzles in the style of an old loafer seed. The wiki reader should not have to guess where to send the input glider.

Also, I think the viewer theme should be changed to the default theme for all viewers there (static two-colour patterns work better in this use case).

Further, specific patterns shown in viewers on that page lack discovery information / links to forum posts where the shown component was posted.

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?oldid=144903
I think all the viewers should be changed to plain black-and-white formatting, and the RLEs should be changed to two-state B3/S23 formatting instead of multistate formatting. (There are also missing input gliders and other copyediting issues)

My bad, I would love to add the gliders but on mobile it is impossible. That is also why I could not add them.

[dvgrn]

My bad, I would love to add the gliders but on mobile it is impossible.

Good to know -- I was kind of waiting around on that one, to see if you would be able to get back to it and put the gliders in. I'll try patching in a few of the gliders now, at least; might not get to digging up the links right away.

EDIT: done with first round of fixes: rotate patterns to all the same orientation, add gliders as needed, fix the pond location in one case, remove Book theme, speed up slightly to GPS 30 from GPS 20, change RLEs that were actually LifeHistory but with rule name given as just "Life" so that Golly wouldn't load them.

... That was a lot. Editing on mobile may just plain not be a good way to do this kind of documentation, if someone else ends up having to do this much cleaning up afterwards. Not that _all_ of those things necessarily needed doing, of course.

[confocaloid]

Pre-pulsar https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?oldid=145141

Pre-pulsars and thus pulsars require at least 7 cells to form.

The first issue is that links for verification are missing. The article does not give any details either.

Second issue is that the "thus" is in the wrong direction. Just because the pre-pulsar (a specific predecessor of the pulsar) does not have predecessors smaller than 7 alive cells, does not mean that no other predecessor of the pulsar has a predecessor below 7 bits. Thus the edit https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=145138 is misleading.

EDIT by dvgrn: Reworded, added link.

[hotdogPi]

Lifeline Volume 4 contains a comprehensive count of all 6-cell patterns and what they evolve into. The pulsar is not there, so requiring 7 is accurate.

[confocaloid]

Edit diff: https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=145162
Text before the edit: "... and a slightly smaller version was posted on December 8."
Text after the edit: "... and a slightly smaller version was found on December 8."
Edit summary: "Change terminology"

The edit summary is misleading (change from "posted" to "found" is obviously a change in meaning, not just a rewording).
Is there a support for the new claim? Is it even true? Is it verifiable? The pattern was posted either on December 8, 2020 or December 9, 2020 (depending on your time zone), but it could be completed earlier than that.

Without any support for the new claim, I suggest to revert the linked edit to the old revision ( https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... did=145162 ).

[confocaloid]

[...] Without any support for the new claim, I suggest to revert the linked edit to the old revision ( https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... did=145162 ).

Still unresolved, and new issues from the same user:

• The claim added in https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=145335 is neither true (no, it was not 49 years) nor notable for mention in the LifeWiki article. The difference between two dates is an easily computable random factoid. I suggest to revert to the previous version.
• The claim added in https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=145331 is incorrect and should be reverted. Part of the rotor of the oscillator is a p7 rotor which is rephased. Here is the p7 part isolated:

  Code: Select all

  x = 11, y = 14, rule = B3/S23
  6b2o$b2o3b2o$bobo6bo$3bo2b5o$2b2obo$5bo2b3o$5bo4bo$3bobob2o$b3obobo$o
  4bobo$b5ob2o$6bo2bo$ob4o2b2o$2obo!
  

EDIT by dvgrn 9 Feb 2024: I think all three of these were addressed a while back.

[Haycat2009]

Still unresolved, and new issues from the same user:

Done. This is the third time that I have pointed this out to you, but THIS IS THE WRONG THREAD! This thread is for verifying things like "RCT has 15 gliders", "Goucher proves phonices can be p2 only" and the lot.

[confocaloid]

thread

This thread is for verifying claims. Both edits linked from my previous post are to claims added to wiki pages. Hence on-topic. Either those claims have to be substantiated somehow (which seems unlikely), or those claims have to be removed.

[dvgrn]

This thread is for verifying claims. Both edits linked from my previous post are to claims added to wiki pages. Hence on-topic. Either those claims have to be substantiated somehow (which seems unlikely), or those claims have to be removed.

This does seem like a reasonably good thread for this kind of thing -- the "Suggested LifeWiki edits" thread is more for new information that someone thinks should be added. It would be good if that thread didn't have to get too filled up with negotiations about edits that were just completed that appear to be wrong, so they will have to be adjusted or rolled back.

The first post of this thread explains its purpose: it's more for damage control for edits that don't have adequate references. It seems okay to extend that purpose to include edits that are most likely wrong and will need to be reverted; if someone can come up with a valid reference, then that will certainly fix the problem!

We could try starting a new separate thread for that "probably no substantiation is possible" category, but it also seems okay to keep using this one.

Along these lines: @Haycat2009, unfortunately your latest adjustment to the 123P27.1 article is still incorrect; I've sent you a private message about it, in hopes that you'll take responsibility for fixing it.

Warning
I'm sorry to put you in the spotlight like this, but it has been very difficult to convince you to slow down and edit more carefully. After several private messages, a public warning like this is unfortunately the next step: I will have to remove your trusted flag for some period of time, if you keep adding such a high proportion of errors to LifeWiki articles.

It's absolutely clear that you have the best of intentions, and you make a lot of good contributions to the LifeWiki. But you're just not being quite careful enough about adding new information only when it is verifiably true.

[confocaloid]

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=145440
The linked edit is misleading. An earlier solution by JP21 also uses a heavyweight emulator, so that is not what was changed.
EDIT by dvgrn: I fixed this one (I think).

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=144814
Despite the rulestring "B3/S23", the RLE is multistate-syntax. Here is the two-state replacement RLE:

Code: Select all

x = 12, y = 14, rule = B3/S23
3bo2bo$3b4o$b2o4b2o$bo2b2o3bo$3b2ob3o$6bo$3b3o$3bo$8b2o$8bobo$2b3o5bo$
2bobo5b2o$2o2bo$o!

EDIT by dvgrn: TYCF fixed this one

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=145442
I think should be reverted. Singling out a specific newcomer like that is a bad idea.

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?oldid=145448
Links should be moved from section headings into section content.

EDIT by dvgrn: for these last two items, I'm not aware of any general community consensus on these points, so it doesn't seem to me that any changes are needed.

It's quite common that people like being mentioned on the LifeWiki in the context of their discoveries. So we should certainly remove that mention if DAvilla speaks up to say that it's unwanted... but until that happens, the mention was intended as a minor compliment, and it seems okay to guess that it will probably be understood by everyone in that way.

There are quite a lot of section headings with links scattered around various LifeWiki articles, including another heading in this article ("Commonness") that Haycat2009 didn't change. It doesn't seem particularly easy to move the "Commonness" link into section content, since that content is provided by a template.

But I'm not sure where that general rule is coming from about headers not havng links, anyway. I don't think I've ever heard of it before.

Now, it does seem a little odd to me that only the "LCM" part of the header is linked, rather than the full term "LCM oscillator"(s) which is what "LCM" redirects to anyway! Being half-linked makes the header look kind of strange. Maybe it makes sense to link the full header text instead?

[confocaloid]

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=145442
I think should be reverted. Singling out a specific newcomer like that is a bad idea.
[...]
EDIT by dvgrn: [...]
It's quite common that people like being mentioned on the LifeWiki in the context of their discoveries. [...] the mention was intended as a minor compliment, and it seems okay to guess that it will probably be understood by everyone in that way.
[...]

The oscillator in question was not originally discovered by that person. It might be their first discovery, but it is not their discovery.
Singling out newcomers who rediscovered already-known patterns is not really appropriate in an encyclopedic-style wiki article. Rediscovering known things is fine, it can be fun, but it does not make a notable fact.

If anything, I would feel offended if I happened to rediscover a known pattern and got mentioned by name in an article for such a rediscovery. I think it's a terrible idea to make "compliments" like this. Instead, let people make real discoveries, and then mention those.

Further, the claim "One newcomer found this oscillator as their first discovery, which is unusual compared to most newcomers' first discoveries." was already dubious by itself, even without mentioning a specific name. How do you substantiate the claim "one newcomer found..."? (It could be rediscovered by many people.) How to substantiate "unusual compared to..."? So perhaps the entire sentence should be removed, as a dubious claim which does not add anything relevant to the knowledge about the article topic.

[...]
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?oldid=145448
Links should be moved from section headings into section content.

EDIT by dvgrn: [...]
There are quite a lot of section headings with links scattered around various LifeWiki articles, including another heading in this article ("Commonness") that Haycat2009 didn't change. It doesn't seem particularly easy to move the "Commonness" link into section content, since that content is provided by a template.

But I'm not sure where that general rule is coming from about headers not havng links, anyway. I don't think I've ever heard of it before.
[...]

See for example MOS:NOSECTIONLINKS on Wikipedia: (I highlighted the directly-relevant part)

For technical reasons, section headings should:
* Be unique within a page, so that section links lead to the right place.
* Not contain links, especially where only part of a heading is linked.
* Not contain images or icons.
* Not contain <math> markup.
* Not contain citations or footnotes.
* Not misuse description list markup (";") to create pseudo-headings.
* Not contain template transclusions.
These technical restrictions are necessary to avoid technical complications and are not subject to override by local consensus.

See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout:

[...] When a section is a summary of another article that provides a full exposition of the section, a link to that article should appear immediately under the section heading. You can use the {{Main}} template to generate a "Main article" link, in Wikipedia's "hatnote" style.

If one or more articles provide further information or additional details (rather than a full exposition, see above), references to such articles may be placed immediately after the section heading for that section, provided this does not duplicate a wikilink in the text. These additional references should be grouped along with the {{Main}} template (if there is one), or at the foot of the section that introduces the material for which these templates provide additional information. [...]

I think the existing guidelines can be restated in a simplified form as "there should be no markup in section headings". Any links/formatted text should go in the content of the section, and section headings should be left plain text.