Dependent Reflector Terminology and Analysis

[EvinZL]

A forum search for "dependent reflector" gives the follwing as the earliest usages:

• 2013: A post by Sokwe mentioning the "p26 dependent reflector"
• 2013: A thread by Sokwe about a p29 "dependent reflector"
• 2013: A post by codeholic about a "p30 dependent relfector"
• 2014: A post by Sokwe about a "p40 double dependent reflector" requiring two input streams
• 2015: A post by biggemac about the same "p29 dependent reflector"
• 2018: A post by dvgrn about the "p26 dependent reflector" (note: this was a reply to PHPBB12345's "What is p26 independent reflector?")
• 2018: A post by Sokwe about the possibility of a "dependent reflector"
• 2019: A post by Moosey giving a ak-47 based example with the comment "I believe these are called dependent reflectors"
• 2019: A post by Sokwe about the p26 and p31 examples, again referrring to them as "dependent reflectors"
• 2019: A post by Sokwe giving examples of reflectors that depend on multiple input streams of gliders, referring to them as "dependent reflector"s
• 2021: A post by goldenratio saying "I was actually searching for dependent reflectors"
• 2021: A post by iNoMed mentioning the "p31 dependent reflector"

Before Sokwe's 2018 post, I have no evidence that people searched specifically for "dependent reflector"s

[Sokwe]

Before Sokwe's 2018 post, I have no evidence that people searched specifically for "dependent reflector"s

In February 2012 I ran searches specifically for dependent reflectors (although back then the term wasn't in use). Here are two emails I sent to the LifeCA mailing list that I shamefully failed to cross-post to the forums:

While experimenting with a glider-releasing honey farm reaction using a catalyst discovered by Mike Playle (MikeP), I found that colliding a glider with the remaining debris at the right timing caused the honey farm to reappear in its original location, resulting in a period-26 reflector (unfortunately, the reflector requires a constant p26 glider stream):

Code: Select all

x = 121, y = 53, rule = B3/S23
87b2o$87bobo$90bo2b2o$88b2obo2bo$87bobob2o$88bo4$90b2o$o88bo2bo$b2o37b
o48bobo$2o38b2o47bobo$39bobo42b2o4bo$83bobo18bo$83bo20b3o$82b2o23bo$6b
obo97b2o$7b2o24b2o52bobo$7bo26b2o51b2o12b2o13bo2b2o$33bo54bo11b2o13bob
o2bo$102bo5b3o5b2obo$107bo3bo6bo$13bo94b2obo4b2o$14b2o11bo82bo5bo$13b
2o12b2o89bo$26bobo41b2o45b2o$70bo$32b2o38bo5bo$32bo38b2o4bob2o$30bobo
37bo6bo3bo$25bo4b2o37bob2o5b3o5bo$24bobo41bo2bobo13b2o11bo$24bobo41b2o
2bo13b2o12b2o$23bo2bo72bobo$24b2o55b2o$81bo23b2o$82b3o20bo$84bo18bobo$
27bo70bo4b2o$23b2obobo68bobo$21bo2bob2o69bobo$21b2o2bo70bo2bo$26bobo
68b2o$27b2o3$100bo$96b2obobo$94bo2bob2o$94b2o2bo$99bobo$100b2o!

It might be possible to tame this honey farm reaction with oscillators or still lifes to create new oscillators or guns. Also, I was not thorough in my glider collision search, so I may have missed something interesting.

The new period-26 reflector reaction prompted me to search for similar reactions based on the same honey farm + eater reaction. I initially ran ptbsearch to find different ways to modify the initial reaction. I have since been using gencols to search for this type of reflector at periods below 62. Surprisingly, it did not take long to find a new one at period-31 (it still requires an uninterrupted glider stream):

Code: Select all

x = 152, y = 72, rule = B3/S23
100b2o$100b2o$108bo$107bobo$106bo3bo$106bo3bo$106bo3bo$102b2o3bobo11bo
$101bobo4bo11b2o$101bo18bobo$100b2o4$103bobo$103b2o23b2o$104bo23bobo$
128bo3$141bo8b2o$96bo44b3o6b2o$95bo48bo$o94b3o38b2o5b2o$b2o132b2o$2o
38b3o94bo$42bo102b3o$41bo102bo3bo$143bo5bo$89bo54bo3bo$87b2o56b3o$9bo
78b2o$7bobo23bo$8b2o23b2o$32bobo4$36b2o$15bobo18bo$16b2o11bo4bobo105b
2o$16bo11bobo3b2o48b3o56b2o$27bo3bo51bo3bo54bo$27bo3bo50bo5bo$27bo3bo
51bo3bo$28bobo53b3o$29bo64bo$36b2o57b2o$36b2o49b2o5b2o38b3o$87bo48bo$
80b2o6b3o44bo$80b2o8bo3$103bo$101bobo23bo$102b2o23b2o$126bobo4$130b2o$
109bobo18bo$110b2o11bo4bobo$110bo11bobo3b2o$121bo3bo$121bo3bo$121bo3bo
$122bobo$123bo$130b2o$130b2o!

Of course, there is already a known period-31 oscillator capable of reflecting gliders, but considering that only two years ago there were no known period-31 oscillators, this new reflector seems somewhat significant.

So far, I have searched very few of the potential patterns given by ptbsearch, so it is possibile that more of these reactions exist (maybe at some new periods).

I don't know if anyone searched specifically for dependent reflectors before this.

a "p40 double dependent reflector" requiring two input streams

But also having two output streams. Otherwise I would not have called it a reflector.

[confocaloid]

In the p43 Snark loop (or any other oscillator made out of stable reflectors and segments of glider streams), the circulating gliders are perturbations moving within a stable pattern. So, we might as well call the gliders in a p43 Snark loop 'drifters', because that is consistent with the existing long-standing definition which can be found on LifeWiki and in Life Lexicon.

Life Lexicon (since at least 2002): https://web.archive.org/web/20020424051 ... /lex_d.htm
LifeWiki (since 2016): https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... did=120054

With periodic reflectors, things are more complicated. Since the reflectors are not stable, the background pattern in which the gliders move is not globally stable anymore. However, one could view a single glider moving between reflectors locally, and observe that its local behaviour is indistinguishable from the local behaviour of a glider moving within a stable pattern. Hence, it is still possible to view and describe a glider as a drifter locally.

Gliders moving through locally empty space, Herschels/B-heptominoes/R-pentominoes/etc. moving through locally-stable conduits, perturbations moving through wires, all can be described as drifters. This is convenient, because it does not imply (either explicitly or implicitly) anything about whether or not those perturbations carry signals.

----

Is the above convincing?
How the convincingness of the above argument compares to the convincingness of the below quoted argument?

In the p43 Snark loop, the local behaviour (around a single Snark) is indistinguishable from the local behaviour of some signal-processing circuitry involving Snark. So, we might as well call the gliders in a p43 Snark loop 'signals', as they are locally signals.
With dependent reflectors, things are slightly more complicated. I would view a single reflector as a signal-processing device (with the gliders being the signal in the same local sense as with the Snark example), albeit with very low information entropy. It can essentially either continue operating, or fail to recieve an input signal and destruct. Essentially, the only information it can process is 'when to destruct', and in closed oscillator loop, the answer might be 'never', but that will be, in essence, 'locally never'. An information in the form of almost any glider from outside will destroy the loop, in one way or another.

[dvgrn]

In the p43 Snark loop (or any other oscillator made out of stable reflectors and segments of glider streams), the circulating gliders are perturbations moving within a stable pattern. So, we might as well call the gliders in a p43 Snark loop 'drifters', because that is consistent with the existing long-standing definition which can be found on LifeWiki and in Life Lexicon.

Okay, I've left this statement for other people to comment on for a week and change, but no one seems to be showing up here. However, there was a detailed response from bubblegum to silversmith's original suggestion about using "drifter", on the poll thread.

Now seems like a good time to suggest a possible next step on this issue. Maybe this will encourage a few more comments from the community.

I'd say that we shouldn't ever try to call gliders "drifters", in any context -- any more than we could reasonably say that the empty space that gliders travel through is a "wire". Current usage does not support either of these ideas at all.

It's perfectly true, but also not at all relevant, that the current LifeWiki definitions of "drifter" and "wire" do not explicitly forbid that usage. However, if you read them in their entirety, both articles do imply that including empty space as a background doesn't make any sense in a historical context.

Premises
Here are my premises for my claimed "deep community consensus" on the meaning of the term "drifter" as exclusively "a perturbation moving within a non-empty stable pattern":

• Dean Hickerson's 'dr' program is designed to find perturbations moving through non-empty stable background patterns.
• None of the objects that are listed as having been found by Dean Hickerson's 'dr' program are spaceships.
• Prior to this discussion, no existing usage of "drifter" on the forums or elsewhere has ever referred to a spaceship.
• Multiple people have confidently claimed that drifters don't move through empty space.

These facts strongly suggest to me that the term "drifter" has never in the past been intended to include spaceships.

That being the case, using the term "drifter" in a context like "Here is a pattern with eight drifters circulating in a p43 oscillator..." would make many Lifenthusiasts believe that there's something new and very interesting in the pattern. We don't know of any drifters -- non-spaceship perturbations in non-empty stable backgrounds -- that can be circulated in a loop at p43.

If people open a pattern with a description like that and see, let's say, a p43 Snark loop... then I think a common response will be disappointment due to a clearly incorrect description: there are circulating gliders there, but no drifters.

This is why I think that using "drifter" as a synonym for "generalized perturbation that might or might not be carrying an information-theory signal, moving through circuitry" cannot possibly work. That suggested usage would be directly in conflict with a couple of decades of existing usage. This kind of sudden change in usage would inevitably cause confusion, even if it succeeded. And Lifenthusiasts can be an ornery bunch, anyway: it seems extraordinarily unlikely that the community would suddenly change their common usage of "drifter" in response to a suggestion like this.

Until this discussion, the non-spaceship connotation of "drifter" has never been a point of confusion as far as I know. Nobody bothered to add the extra specification "non-empty" to the Life Lexicon or LifeWiki definition, simply because "non-empty" has always been thought to be perfectly clear from context.

Suggested Next Step
Now that the topic has come up as a point of disagreement, there is a simple way to make the standard historical usage of "drifter" clear to any possible future reader. We can add the word "non-empty" to the current LifeWiki definition.

I'm planning to make that edit sometime this weekend -- October 7th or 8th, let's say.

I am giving several days' advance notice here. Anyone who agrees or disagrees with this course of action is welcome to make their opinions known.

Of course I'll be happy to change my plans if the community is clearly against making this adjustment. I don't at all mind being wrong about things like this -- I kind of like surprises. However, I will need to hear from several people before I'll be convinced that the community consensus is different from what I've stated. Arguments, no matter how perfectly logical, will not be in the least convincing if they're based on what I consider to be flawed premises.

Sample Usage
Here's one of many examples of the use of the word "drifter" in historical context, from over a quarter century ago. Other uses that I've found so far are all along these same lines.

Subject: Re: B3/S0123
...This rule is omniperiodic. The following is a drifter loop of length 104, which can be increased by multiples of 20:

Code: Select all

#C p104 oscillator, in which a drifter moves around a square
x = 55, y = 55, rule = B3/S0123
30b2o$28bo$28bob2o$24bobobo$24bobo3b2o$22bobob2o$24bo5b2o2b2o$22bo3b2o
$21bo7bob5o$21bobo2b2obobo$17bobobobo5bobo2b2o$17bobobob5obo$15bobo11b
o4b4o$15bobo4b4o3b2obo5bobo$13bobob3o10bobob3o$15bo5bobo4bo5bo4b4o$13b
o3b4o7bobobobo$12bo16bo4bobobob5o$12bobo2b2o15bobobobo$6bobobobobo23bo
bo2b2o$6bobobobob5o19bo$8bo30bo3b4o$8bo4b2obo24bo5bobo$obobobob3o28bob
ob3o$obobobo6b2obo24bobo4b4o$8b6o3bo23bobo$b3o11b2o26bobobob3o$5bobobo
bo31bobobobo$3b3obobobo26b2o11b3o$11bobo23bo3b6o$3b4o4bobo24bob2o6bobo
bobo$9b3obobo28b3obobobobo$5bobo5bo24bob2o4bo$8b4o3bo30bo$16bo19b5obob
obobo$10b2o2bobo23bobobobobo$16bobobo15b2o2bobo$10b5obobobo4bo16bo$20b
obobobo7b4o3bo$12b4o4bo5bo4bobo5bo$18b3obobo10b3obobo$14bobo5bob2o3b4o
4bobo$17b4o4bo11bobo$25bob5obobobo$19b2o2bobo5bobobobo$23bobob2o2bobo$
19b5obo7bo$27b2o3bo$19b2o2b2o5bo$27b2obobo$23b2o3bobo$26bobobo$23b2obo
$26bo$23b2o!

Successive drifters can be as close as 7 gens apart, so we can get all nonmultiples of 5 from 7 on. To get multiples of 5 we need to use more than 4 corners in the loop. Fortunately, the diagonal track is glide- symmetric, so successive turns can go in opposite directions as well as in the same direction. A symmetric loop with 20 corners works; I haven't checked to see if an asymmetric 10 would do the job. For example:

Code: Select all

#C p25 oscillator, in which 12 drifters moves around a path of length
#C 300 gens with 20 corners
x = 128, y = 64, rule = B3/S0123
21b2o14b2o14b2o14b2o14b2o$19bo15bo15bo15bo15bo$19bob2o12bob2o12bob2o
12bob2o12bob2o$15bobobo11bobobo11bobobo11bobobo11bobobo$15bobo3b2o4bo
3bobo3b2o4bo3bobo3b2o4bo3bobo3b2o4bo3bobo3b2o$13bobob2o10bobob2o10bobo
bo11bobob2o10bobob2o$15bo5b4o3b2obo5b4o3b2obo3b6o3b2obo3bob4o3b2obo5b
2o2b2o$13bo3b2o9bo3b3o9bo4b4o7bo4b4o7bo4b2o$12bo7bob5obo3bo3bob5obo7bo
b5obo7bob5obo7bob5o$12bobo2b2obobo5bobo2b2obobo5bobo2b2obobo5bobo2b2ob
obo5bobo2b2obo$6bobobobobo5bobo2b2obobo5bobo2b2obobo5bobo2b2obobo5bobo
2b2obobo5bobo2b2o$6bobobob7obo7bob5obo7bob5obo7bob5obo7bob5obo$8bo11bo
4b2o9bo4b2o9bo4b2o9bo4b2o9bo4b4o$8bo4b2obo3b2obo5b4o3b2obo5b4o3b2obo5b
4o3b2obo5b4o3b2obo5bobo$obobobob3o10bobob2o10bobob2o10bobob2o10bobob2o
10bobob3o$obobobo6b2obo2bo3bobo3b2o4bo3bobo3b2o4bo3bobo3b2o4bo3bobo3b
2o4bo5bo4b4o$8b6o3bo5bobobo11bobobo11bobobo11bobobo7bobobobo$b3o11b2o
10bob2o12bob2o12bob2o12bob2o5bo4bobobob5o$5bobobobo15bo15bo15bo15bo13b
obobobo$3b3obobobo17b2o14b2o14b2o14b2o14bobo2b2o$11bobo79bo$3b4o4bobo
80bo3b4o$9b3obobo80bo5bobo$5bobo5bo80bobob3o$8b4o3bo80bobo4b4o$16bo79b
obo$10b2o2bobo81bobobob5o$14bobobobo77bobobobo$10b5obobobo81bobo2b2o$
20bobo79bo$12b4o4bobo80bo3b4o$18bobobobo80bo5bobo$14bobo5bo80bobobobo$
17b4o3bo80bobo4b4o$25bo79bobo$19b2o2bobo81bobobob5o$23bobobobo77bobobo
bo$19b5obobobo81bobo2b2o$29bobo79bo$21b4o4bobo80bo3b4o$27b3obobo80bo5b
obo$23bobo5bo80bobob3o$26b4o3bo80bobo4b4o$34bo79bobo$28b2o2bobo14b2o
14b2o14b2o14b2o17bobobob3o$32bobobobo13bo15bo15bo15bo15bobobobo$28b5ob
obobo4bo5b2obo12b2obo12b2obo12b2obo10b2o11b3o$38bobobobo7bobobo11bobob
o11bobobo11bobobo5bo3b6o$30b4o4bo5bo4b2o3bobo3bo4b2o3bobo3bo4b2o3bobo
3bo4b2o3bobo3bo2bob2o6bobobobo$36b3obobo10b2obobo10b2obobo10b2obobo10b
2obobo10b3obobobobo$32bobo5bob2o3b4o5bob2o3b4o5bob2o3b4o5bob2o3b4o5bob
2o3bob2o4bo$35b4o4bo9b2o4bo9b2o4bo9b2o4bo9b2o4bo11bo$43bob5obo7bob5obo
7bob5obo7bob5obo7bob7obobobo$37b2o2bobo5bobob2o2bobo5bobob2o2bobo5bobo
b2o2bobo5bobob2o2bobo5bobobobobo$43bob2o2bobo5bobob2o2bobo5bobob2o2bob
o5bobob2o2bobo5bobob2o2bobo$37b5obo7bob5obo7bob5obo7bob5obo3bo3bob5obo
7bo$45b2o4bo7b4o4bo7b4o4bo9b3o3bo9b2o3bo$37b2o2b2o5bob2o3b4obo3bob2o3b
6o3bob2o3b4o5bob2o3b4o5bo$45b2obobo10b2obobo11bobobo10b2obobo10b2obobo
$41b2o3bobo3bo4b2o3bobo3bo4b2o3bobo3bo4b2o3bobo3bo4b2o3bobo$44bobobo
11bobobo11bobobo11bobobo11bobobo$41b2obo12b2obo12b2obo12b2obo12b2obo$
44bo15bo15bo15bo15bo$41b2o14b2o14b2o14b2o14b2o!

Finally, we need examples of oscillators with periods <7. Mark gave periods 2, 3, and 5; here are 4 and 6:

Code: Select all

#C [converted from ASCII picture format to LifeViewer RLE for clarity]
x = 21, y = 10, rule = B3/S0123
14bo$16bobo$7bo6bobobo$bobobo8bo$bobob2o5bobo5bo$2o10bo5bo$3bobobo6bo
bobobo$2o3bobo4bobo3bo$2b3o9bo3bo$2bo10bo!
#C [[ LABEL 3 12 20 "p4" LABEL 16 12 20 "p6" ]]

[Jormungant]

Well, I would still use "signal" for confocaloid-signal, but sure drifter might work for dvgrn-signals, right now it feels like a pattern name, but given time it might catch on. I guess I prefer that name too, since "signals" imply no motion in our real world, there are merely observed at a distance I guess (or at a later time), also R-morph into B then into H, it from changes through-out as it interacts with the "non-empty" pattern, a bit like ripples from a floating object in a stream. Well, anyways, it feels like the term, it being drifter or signal, wont be used that frequently, and that corollary "drifter loop/circuit" even less ^^, so I would believe it will take time to settle on that one, every language evolves over time even if some insists it should be codified and immutable. Well, some balance is found in the end I would believe.

yes, and wire should only be nonempty, I think there was a ruleset called "wire world" and it pretty much looked like confocaloid-signals on pipes (aka wires), with logic gates and all, a stream of gliders in empty space might be a "lane", but not a wire I would think.

addendum: found a random wiki on that thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireworld

[confocaloid]

Prior to this discussion, no existing usage of "drifter" on the forums or elsewhere has ever referred to a spaceship.

I think this premise is technically flawed, even here on the forum (I do not know whether there were relevant uses of the word on Discord, and ignoring any uses elsewhere in the community): viewtopic.php?p=164022#p164022

That being the case, using the term "drifter" in a context like "Here is a pattern with eight drifters circulating in a p43 oscillator..." would make many Lifenthusiasts believe that there's something new and very interesting in the pattern. We don't know of any drifters -- non-spaceship perturbations in non-empty stable backgrounds -- that can be circulated in a loop at p43.

If people open a pattern with a description like that and see, let's say, a p43 Snark loop... then I think a common response will be disappointment due to a clearly incorrect description: there are circulating gliders there, but no drifters.

I think the example of p43 Snark loop is irrelevant to the issue.
It is unlikely that that particular article will be rewritten to contain your phrase "Here is a pattern with eight drifters circulating in a p43 oscillator" -- even though I think that would be technically correct (it agrees with the definitions), it would be a bad way to explain that pattern. It is known that that pattern contains circulating gliders specifically; as long as it is the p43 Snark loop, it cannot contain any other type of circulating objects or perturbations. Hence it is strictly better to write 'gliders' in that particular case.

We can add the word "non-empty" to the current LifeWiki definition.

More to the point, adding "non-empty" to the existing definition will not solve the issue. I expect that it will resurface again and again, in other forms.

First, it will still be possible to do black-white reversal and describe "glider-shaped" perturbations consisting of dead cells moving through sea of alive cells as drifters (because that will still be technically correct, even after the proposed redefinition).
Then one could gradually complicate things, by changing to another periodic (but relatively simple) 2D background pattern, and describing perturbations moving through that pattern as drifters -- again, because that is correct, and will remain correct even if 'drifter' is redefined.

I guess you could say "I know it when I see it", but of course that will fail to be helpful for a large fraction of the target audience (i.e. those readers who do not yet know what a "typical drifter" is going to look and feel like).

Personally, I do not see any potential harm in keeping the existing definition, and allowing the word 'drifter' to refer to reactions that do not feel like "typical drifters". This is convenient, and this avoids need to invent a complicated artificial redefinition of 'drifter' that will inevitably fail to define what exactly "typical drifter" is.

Here is an example of two colliding drifters. Even though I did not call them 'drifters' in that post, I could do that, and I believe that would be technically correct:

Two moving objects collide on a knights move dot background

Code: Select all

x = 100, y = 100, rule = B2an3ik4a5n/S02k3ejqr5ijr:T100,100
o4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$3bo4bo4bo4b
o4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo
4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo
4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$2bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo
4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$o4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4b
o4bo4bo4bo$3bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4b
o$bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$4bo4bo4b
o4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$2bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4b
o4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$o4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo
4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$3bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo
4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo
4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo
4bo4bo$2bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$o
4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$3bo4bo4bo4bo
4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo
4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo
4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$2bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo
4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$o4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4b
o4bo4bo4bo$3bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4b
o$bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$4bo4bo4b
o4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$2bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4b
o4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$o4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo
4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$3bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo3bo5bo4bo4bo4bo4bo
4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo5b3obo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo
4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bob4o4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo
4bo4bo$2bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo3b4o2bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$o
4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo5bobobo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$3bo4bo4bo4b
o4bo4bo3b2o4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo6b
o2bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo9bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4b
o4bo6b3o5bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$2bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo2bob
4obo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$o4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo3b6o5bo4bo4bo
4bo4bo$3bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo3b3o3bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$b
o4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$4bo4bo4bo4b
o4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$2bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4b
o4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$o4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo
4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$3bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo
4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo
4bo4bo4bo4bo$4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo
4bo$2bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$o4bo
4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$3bo4bo4bo4bo4bo
4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo
4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo
4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$2bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo
4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$o4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4b
o4bo4bo$3bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$b
o4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$4bo4bo4bo4b
o4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$2bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4b
o4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$o4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo
4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$3bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo
4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo
4bo4bo4bo4bo$4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo
4bo$2bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$o4bo
4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$3bo4bo4bo4bo4bo
4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo
4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo
4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$2bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo
4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$o4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4b
o4bo4bo$3bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$b
o4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$4bo4bo4bo4b
o4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$2bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4b
o4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$o4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo
4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$3bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo
4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo
4bo4bo4bo4bo$4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo
4bo$2bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$o4bo
4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$3bo4bo4bo4bo4bo
4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo
4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo
4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$2bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo
4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$o4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4b
o4bo4bo$3bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$b
o4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$4bo4bo4bo4b
o4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$2bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4b
o4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$o4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo
4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$3bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo
4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo
4bo4bo4bo4bo$4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo
4bo$2bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$o4bo
4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$3bo4bo4bo4bo4bo
4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo
4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo
4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$2bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo
4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$o4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4b
o4bo4bo$3bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$b
o4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$4bo4bo4bo4b
o4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo$2bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4b
o4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo4bo!

[confocaloid]

However, there was a detailed response from bubblegum to silversmith's original suggestion about using "drifter", on the poll thread.

For some reason, you do not mention that there were further responses to that post, by silversmith and myself.

Multiple people have confidently claimed that drifters don't move through empty space.
[...]
However, I will need to hear from several people before I'll be convinced that the community consensus is different from what I've stated.

I do not know what exactly you mean by "multiple" and "several". However, if you accept four as "multiple" [1] (even though not all of those contain any explanations or specific arguments; e.g. there is a single-sentence assertion, and there is a single-word post "seconded!"), then I guess you would accept three responses as "several" [2].
[1]: (one two three four)
[2]: (one two three)
Either way, the actual numbers are going to be higher, since most CA enthusiasts who have some opinion on some of these questions will not participate in this discussion.

We can add the word "non-empty" to the current LifeWiki definition.

Just to make my position clear, I disagree. I prefer to keep the existing definitions (both drifter and signal).

I think your proposed change would create a larger actual problem, instead of solving a perceived issue. "Non-empty" fails to explain what a "typical drifter example" is, and introduces an irrelevant distinction between the background of "off" cells and the background of "on" cells. An "anti-glider" drifter moving through non-empty background of alive cells behaves in essentially the same way, but the proposed redefinition would make it somehow different.

[dvgrn]

I think your proposed change would create a larger actual problem, instead of solving a perceived issue. "Non-empty" fails to explain what a "typical drifter example" is, and introduces an irrelevant distinction between the background of "off" cells and the background of "on" cells. An "anti-glider" drifter moving through non-empty background of alive cells behaves in essentially the same way, but the proposed redefinition would make it somehow different.

The proposed change will correct the definition so that it matches twenty-five years of existing usage. It won't create any new problems that weren't there already.

If by "larger actual problem" you're referring to the problem of drifters in anti-rules, I'm afraid I can't see how that's anything but an irrelevant edge case. It seems you're choosing to call the suspiciously glider-like things in glider-supporting anti-rules "anti-gliders". For consistency, you should probably also use the term "anti-drifter", and then the definition of "drifter" will still be just fine. Anti-gliders aren't anti-drifters -- and they may technically be drifters, but only in the same pointless way that oscillators could be said to be speed-0 spaceships. It's not the best way to refer to them... exactly as you explained a few posts back for using "drifter" to refer to gliders in a p43 Snark loop.

Can you please step back and do some fresh thinking about this proposal? From my point of view, you're trying to solve a useful ambiguity in the usage of the term "signal", by doing completely unnecessary damage to the equally useful term "drifter". None of this looks like a good idea to me at all. And whether it's a good idea or not, I can guarantee that "drifter" is not in fact going to be successfully repurposed in this way. A good course of action at this point would be to notice that this is a lost cause, and to try to think of another proposal that might actually work.

Why Is It A Lost Cause?
It's enormously unrealistic to even hope that the community might adopt the new usage of "drifter" that you, silversmith, and Jormungant are suggesting. The new usage directly contradicts existing common usage. Even if opinion is evenly split in the community -- half of the community in favor of making the change to start using "drifter" for the "dvgrn-signal" meaning of "signal", and half in favor of keeping the "drifters don't travel through empty space" usage -- that's not nearly good enough to allow for a successful change. For success, you'd need something very close to unanimity -- because everyone would have to agree to change the usage, and there will be far too many people who are not going to agree to do that because they like the existing-common-usage "drifter" the way it is now.

Getting community agreement to change existing usage is much more difficult than making small incremental changes to LifeWiki definitions.

These kinds of proposed changes aren't usually the way these things happen, anyway. What actually works is for people to start using new terms in actual conversations. Once enough people pick up the new usage and there are no disagreements about it, then after a year or two it might be time to document the new usage in the LifeWiki.

What I'm planning on doing this weekend is adding one word to the "drifter" definition to clarify a quarter century of existing usage.

[confocaloid]

I think your proposed change would create a larger actual problem, instead of solving a perceived issue. "Non-empty" fails to explain what a "typical drifter example" is, and introduces an irrelevant distinction between the background of "off" cells and the background of "on" cells. An "anti-glider" drifter moving through non-empty background of alive cells behaves in essentially the same way, but the proposed redefinition would make it somehow different.

The proposed change will correct the definition so that it matches twenty-five years of existing usage. It won't create any new problems that weren't there already.

Contrary to your assertions, existing usage does not require every drifter to travel through non-empty background. Just because drifters previously found using known approaches have a particular look-and-feel, does not mean every single drifter in existence must have the same look-and-feel.

It seems you're choosing to call the suspiciously glider-like things in glider-supporting anti-rules "anti-gliders". For consistency, you should probably also use the term "anti-drifter", and then the definition of "drifter" will still be just fine.

An anti-glider is not a glider. A glider is a five-cell spaceship; it can be also described as a perturbation (a drifter) made out of alive cells, moving through a background consisting of dead cells. An anti-glider is a drifter made out of five dead cells, moving through a background consisting of alive cells.

"Anti-drifter" does not exist as a term, and would be unnecessary. Regardless of whether the background is "mostly off", "mostly on", or "roughly equally balanced", the moving perturbation is a drifter, which matches the existing definition.

Your proposed redefinition of 'drifter' would break that, by introducing an artificial distinction between the "all off" background pattern and every other possible background pattern.

Even if opinion is evenly split in the community -- half of the community in favor of making the change, and half in favor of keeping the "drifters don't travel through empty space" usage -- that's not nearly good enough to allow for a successful change. For success, you'd need something very close to unanimity -- because everyone would have to agree to change the usage, and there will be far too many people who are not going to agree to do that because they like the existing-common-usage "drifter" the way it is now.
[...]
What I'm planning on doing this weekend is adding one word to the "drifter" definition to clarify a quarter century of existing usage.

Your suggested redefinitions of 'drifter' and 'signal' certainly fail to have "unanimous support". There were several people who disagreed with you on the issue of signals, and there are several people who disagree with you on the issue of drifters.

The existing definitions already clarify what is a drifter and what is a signal. There is no need to change those definitions, and there is no "unanimous support" for the changes you are proposing.

[confocaloid]

I do not know what exactly you mean by "multiple" and "several". However, if you accept four as "multiple" [1] (even though not all of those contain any explanations or specific arguments; e.g. there is a single-sentence assertion, and there is a single-word post "seconded!"), then I guess you would accept three responses as "several" [2].
[1]: (one two three four)
[2]: (one two three)
Either way, the actual numbers are going to be higher, since most CA enthusiasts who have some opinion on some of these questions will not participate in this discussion.

Here is another relevant example of existing usage of 'drifter', 'glider', 'anti-glider' --

As a demonstration of how this table can be used for guidance, here is a rule containing a checkerboard drifter equivalent to a glider.

Code: Select all

x = 128, y = 128, rule = B1c2c3cjk4ac5eny/S02ce3cjr4cjy5en6ek:T128,128
4o2bobo2b4obo3b2o2bob4o2b2ob2o2b3o2b3ob2o6bob5obobo2b2ob4o4bo2b4obobo
2bo2bobo2bob3o4b2o2b2o4b2obo2b2o$3o3b7ob2o2bo4bo3b2obobobo3b4o2b5ob2ob
3o2bobo2b3o3bo5bo2bo2b2o3b2ob2o3b2o9b3o3bob2obobob3o2bo$3b2o5bob2o3b4o
bobobob2o7bo3b3o3b3o2b2o4b2o2b3ob4o5bob3obo10bo4b5o2b2o3bo6b5o4bo$2obo
b7ob2obo3b2ob3ob2o2bobob3o2bob12obob2obo3bob6obo2b4o3bobo4bobobo4b2o2b
obo4bo3bo3bo2b4o2bo$o4b9ob2obob3o2b3o2bobo2bo7bob2o10bo2b2obob6ob2o3b
2ob3ob3o2bobob4o2bob2o2bo4bob3ob2ob2ob2o2b2o$3o3b2o7bo2bob6o5bobobobob
5o2b2o6bo2b2o3bobo2bo2bo2b2o3b10o3bob3o2bobobo3b4obo2bobo2bobob2obo$3o
b2o2bobobo5bob2o7bobo3bo5b4obob3o5bob4ob3o2bo3b2obob3ob4ob2ob5ob4o3bo
2bob2obob2o2b2o2b3obo2bo$bo3b4o4b2o2b2o5b3o2bobo2bo2b2ob2ob5obo2bobobo
3bo4bobobobobobob3o3b2ob3ob12obob2obo2bobob2o5b2obo$o3b6o2bobob3ob3o2b
o5bo2bobo2bo9b2ob3obobobobo2b3obobo3b2ob5obob2o4bo2bob2ob2obob5obo3bob
o3b3o$4b2o2bo2b2ob3obo2bo4bo3b3obobo2bobobobo2b2o3bob7ob3obobo2b4ob4ob
2obob5ob4o6bob3obo4b4o2b2o2bo$5ob3o10bobobob3o3bob4o2b2ob2obob5o3b5o2b
3o2b4o4bobo2bo2b2obo3b2o2bob3o6bobo2bob2o3b2o3b2o$3obobob6o2b5o3b2ob2o
bobobo2b10o3bob3ob4obobob6obobobo3bo4b6ob2o5b2o4bo2bobobo2bo4b2ob2o$ob
o3bo3b4obo2b8o3b3o2b3ob11o3b4obob2o3b3ob5ob2o4b5o2bobob3o5b3o3bo3b2obo
bo7b2o2b2o$bo2b2ob2obob2o2b3o4b2o5b5ob2ob3o4bobobo5b2o2bob2ob3ob2ob4o
2b3o2bo3bo2bobo5bo5bobob3o2bo4b2o2bob4o$2obobo4b2obobobo2bobo2bobob4o
9b3obo3b3ob3obo2bo4bo2bo3b4ob2o3bo4b2ob7ob3obob2o2b2obobobo3b3ob2o$b5o
2b2obobo3b2obo3bob2o4bo2b2obo2bo2bob5o2b2o3bo5b2o2b3o3b3o8bob2obo3bob
2ob2o2b5o6bo2b2ob3obo2bo$bob4obo4b3obo2bo3b3obo2b2o3bo2b3o2bo5bo2b6obo
b3ob2ob2obo4bob2o3bo2bobo3b4obobob6o3bo2b2o2b2ob2o4bo$obob3obobobobo3b
obo3b3obobo3bobob2o2b2o3b2o3bo4bob4o3bo2bo2b3o2b2obo3b3o2b3obo2b4ob2ob
2obobobob3obo4bob2o$bob3o4b2o3b3ob2o2bo3bo3b6o2b2o6bo3bob2o3b3ob2o3b2o
b2ob3o3bo2b2obob2obo3bo2bob2o3b2obo3b2o6bob3o2bo$3bobob2o4bo2b3o2bo2b
5ob2ob2o2bob3o2bo3b2obo4b2obo6b4o2b2ob2o2b2o6bo3bob2o2bob3obo2bo2bo5bo
b4o2bo2b2o$bo2b5obo2b2ob3o3b2o3b2o3b2o2b2ob2o3bo7b2obo2b2o3b5o2bob5o2b
o9bob3ob9obo7bobob2ob5ob2o$b2obo4b2obo2bo2bo4bobobo3b2o3bob5ob2o2bo8b
2o3bobob4o2b2o6bo2b5ob8obo8b3o2b2ob2o2bobo3b3o$obob3o3bo3b2o2b3o3b3o3b
3o3b2obobobobo2b4obob4o4bo3b2o2b2ob3o2b2o2b5ob4o2bobo2bo2bo5bob3o2b3o
2b2o2bo$2b2obo2bobo4bob3ob10obo2b6obo2bo4bobo2b5o3b2ob2o2b2ob3ob2o2b2o
bobob2o3bo2bo4bobob2o4bobob4obobo2b3o$5bo2b3o4b2o2bo4bobobo5b4ob2o2b2o
2bob2ob2obo4bo3bob5o5b4o4b2o3b3obo5bo12b4o2b3o2bobo$2b3obo9b3obo7bob3o
2bo2bo4b3o2b6obob2o2bo2b2o3b2obo4b2ob2obo2b2ob3obobo4bobo3bo2b3ob8o5b
2o$o3b2ob3obo2b2o2b4o6b3o2b2obob4ob2ob2o4bob3o3b4o2bobobo3b4ob3obobo2b
2o2bo2bobo2bob4o3bobob3ob4o3b3o$obobobo3b4o3b3o3b3ob2o2bo3b5o2bobo2b2o
bo2bo4b2ob3o2b3obob6o3b2o2bobo4bo2bob2ob3obob2ob2obo2bo2bo7bo$2bo3bobo
2bob2o2b3o2bo2b3obo2bob2obob3obob2ob2o2b3ob2obo2bo4bo2b3obo4b3o2bob2o
2bo3bobob3o7bobo4bo5bob3obo$o4bo2b2o3bobob4ob2o6bo3bo3b2ob2ob4ob3o2bo
2b2ob2obobo2bobo2b4o2bo5bob4obo3bob3obo3b2obobobo3bob3ob4o$3b2o6bo3b2o
b3obob3ob2o4bo2bob2ob2o8bob2obo2b2o9bo2bob3o2bobo4bo2bo4bo3b3o3b3o3bo
2b2o4b3obobo$b5ob5o4b3o3b2o2bo2bo2bo5b3o6bobobo3b2o4bob3ob2o4b2ob2ob2o
5b2o2bo2bo3b9o2bob2obob3ob2obo2b2o$o2b3o2bo2b2ob3o3bo4b7ob4ob3o3bob6ob
o2bobo2bobo3b2o2b6o3b2obob4ob2obo2b2o4b2o2b2ob2ob2obob2o2bobob2o$3b3o
4b3o2bob5o2b2obobob2o2b3o3bob2ob2obobobo5bo2bob4ob2obo2bobo2bo2bo2bob
7o3b2ob3ob3o4bo4b6o3b2o$4b10obo3bo3b2o2bo5bob3obo2bob2ob9obo2b2o3bobob
obo2bo3b3obob2obobobob2obo2bo4bo2bo2bo3bob4o2b3o2bo$3bo4b2ob2ob2o4bo2b
o5bo3bo3bob2ob2o3b3o3bob2obo2bob5o2bobo2bo3b2o2bo2bob2o2b2ob2o2bo2b2o
2b2ob2o3b3ob2ob5obo$5obob2obo5b2o2bo2b2o4b2ob5obob3o2bobo3b3o4b2ob2o2b
o3b2ob5o3bobob2o3bob2obo3b7o4b4ob3obo2b2o3bo$2b2o2bobo2b5ob2o2bo2b2obo
3b3ob4o5bobo2b2o2bob4o2b3o2b2obob4obo7bob5o3bobob3ob3o2b4o3b7obo2bobo$
bo2b3o6b3obob3o5bobobo2bo3b3ob2o2bo2bo5bob6o3bob2o2b2o2b3o2b2obo3b2ob
2ob3obo2bo4b4obo2b2o2bob8o$ob3o2b3o2bo3bo2bobo2bobo2bo3b4o2bobo4bo2bob
ob3ob2obobobobobo2b2o3b2o2bob3ob2ob9o4bo2b4o2b3ob2ob10o$5b2o5bob5ob5o
2b2o4bob2o2b2o2bo3b4obo3bob2obo2b6o2bobob3obob3o3b7o6bo2b2obo4bob2ob3o
b2obobo$obo2b2o2b3o3bobob3o4bob2o5bob4ob5ob2obob2o3b2o2bo2bob2obobob2o
b3o2bo3b2obo4b4ob5obo4bobo4b2obob3obo$2obob4o2b2o2bob2ob2obob3o2bob4ob
2obo3b2ob4ob4ob2ob2o3bob2o3bobo3b3o2bob5ob2ob2obobob3obobob2o2bo9b2ob
2o$bobo2b5ob3ob2o2b3o3bobo2bo9b2ob2o2b2obob2obo3b2ob3o4b3ob4o2b3o2b2o
2bob3o3bobo2b5obo2b2obo4b2o2b2obo$2ob2o2b2o2bob3o2b2o3b4obobo2bob2obo
2b2o2b4ob2obo7bo3bo6bobobo2bobo5b3ob5obo7bo2bobo3b5o2bobob3o$2obo2bo5b
ob3ob3o2bobobo4bo4b3o9bo2b4o3b3o3bobo3b3o2b4ob5ob4ob7o3bo4bo2b2o2bobob
2obo2b2o$2bobo2bo4b2o3bo2bobo5b3o3bo2b3ob3o3b6o3b8o2bo3b3ob3o2bo2bo2b
6ob3o3b3o2b3obo5bo3bo2b8o$bobo3bo3b5o2bob2o2bob2ob2obo2bobo2b4o2b2obob
o3bo5bo3b2ob3ob3o4bobob3obob4o2b2obob3o3bo3b2ob3o3b2o6bo$obobo3b5o7bob
obo2bob2o3b2o2bo3bo2b3ob2ob2ob10o2bobo2b3o2b4ob2ob2ob2o4b2obob2obo5b3o
b2ob2ob4o4b2o$b2obobo2bo4bo3b4obob3obo2bob3ob3ob2o2bo3bobo4b4obob2o9b
5obobob5o4b4o6b2obob2o3b3obob6o$ob2ob4ob3o2bo2b2ob2ob3o4bo5bo2b2o2bobo
4bobo2bob2o2bob2ob4o2b5o2bobo4bo7b2o4b3ob2o2bob6obob3o4bo$2bob4o2bo2bo
2b2obo2b2o4b2obob2o2b4o2bobobo2bo3b6o2bobob2ob3o2bo2bo6bo2b2o4b3obo2bo
b2obo2b3o2b2obobo3b3obo$5o6b4obo2bob4o2bo3bo4b5ob2obob2ob2obob2o4b2o3b
5obo4bobobobo2b3o2bobobo2b2o2bobo2b3o2bo2bo2b2o2bo4bo$b2ob3o6bob4ob3o
2b2obo6bobob5o2b2o4bobo2b4o2b5o2b4o4bo11b5obobo3b2ob2obobobobo3bo2bobo
2bo$o3bobobob2o3bob9ob2o4b4obo6b5o4bo4bobo3bobob2o2bobob2o2b2obo2bob2o
4bob4o2bobobobob2o6b5o2b2o$b3o2bob5o2b2obob2o5bo2b4obob2ob2o2bob3o2b3o
b2o3b3ob5o3b4o2bobo2b2o2b3o2b4ob4obo4bo2bobo8bo$2obo2bo2bo5b2o3b4ob3ob
2ob2obobob4obobob4o4bo3bobo3b4ob3ob2o3bo2bo2b3ob2obobob2ob2o3bobo2b2o
3b2obo3bo3bo$2ob3obobo2b2ob5obo3b6o6b4o2b5obo5bo2b2o3bob4o4b3ob3o4bo2b
o2b4ob5ob2obo2bo3b2ob4obo3bobobo$ob2obobo2bo3b2o7b3o2bo2bo3bo2b4o2bobo
b3ob2o4b5o2bo6b2ob3o2bobob2o3b2o2b3obo3bo4b3o2bob2o3bo2bobobobo$3bobob
2o2b3obob6o3b4o3bob3o2b2obo2b10o3bo2bobobo2b2obob5o2b2o3bo4bob3ob4obob
o2b3o3b2ob3o3b6o$obo4b3o4b2ob2ob4o5b7o2b2ob4obob4ob2obo2b4obobo2b2o3bo
bo4b4o2bo3bob4o2b7o2bobobob6obob4o$b2ob2o2bo3bo4b6o2bo2bo3b2obo5b2o3b
3o5b2obo2bob2ob5o4bob4o2b2obo7b5o4b3ob2o3bobo2bo5bobo2bo$2o3b5o4b2o2b
2o2bo2b4ob2o3bo3bo2bo4bo2bobo5bobob4o2b3ob3o2b2o3bo2bo3b6ob2obo3b2ob2o
bo3b2obobob3obob2o$bobo4b2obob4o4b5ob3o2b5o2b3obob6ob2obo2b2ob2o3bo3bo
4b2obo2bobobob9o9bobo2bo3b3o2bo2bobob2o$4bo4bobob2o3bo2bob5ob3o4bobobo
b2o5b2obob2ob4o3b3ob10o2bo2b2obobo2b2obobobobo2b4ob2o5b12o$bo5b2o2b2o
2b6o6b4ob4ob2o2bo2bob2o2bo3b2obo4b2o2bobo5bo2b4ob14o2b3obob3ob3o2bobob
obobo2b3o$ob3obobo2b3ob2obobo2bo2b4o6b3o2bo2b4obob2obo6bo2bo2b5o2bo2bo
bo4b5o5bo3bo3b4obo2b4ob2o2bobobob3o$obo3bob7ob2obobo2b3obobo3b5o3bo3b
3ob2obobob2o2b3ob3ob2obob2o4bo5bobob2o5bo2b3obo7bobo2b2obobob2obo$2bo
4b2o4b2ob4ob2o2bob3obobo2bob2o8b3o3b5o3b4o8bobobo3b2o5b4obo2bobo3bo3bo
b2obo2bobo6b4o$o4b4ob2obo2b2ob3o2bob5o2b7o5bob3o4b2o4b2obo4bob3o4b3o2b
2ob3o4b2o2b4o2b2o3bo2b2o3bobo2b4o2b2o$2o4b2o4bo3b4o3bo3bo5b5o3b2o4b3ob
2obo2bobobo4b3o4b2o4bo2bo2bob3o3bob4o5bob2ob2o2b4ob2obob2o$4bob2obo2bo
bob2ob4ob3obo4b5obo2bo2b3ob2obob9o2b3o4b2ob3o2bobo4bo2bo2bobo8b4ob3o2b
2ob3o5bo$o2bob2o3bo3bo3b5o3bo2b2ob5ob6o2bob3obo2b3obo3bo2b3o6b3obobo2b
2o2b4obo7bo4b5o3bob2obo3b5o$4bo2bo2b4obobo2b2ob7o3bo3bo4bob2o2bo3bob4o
bob2obo2bob2o3b2o2b2ob2o2bobob2obo2b2obob2o4b2o6bob2obo2bob3o$ob3ob4ob
7ob2ob4obobo4bo2bo3bobobob3o2bob2o3bo2b3obobo5b3obob2o5bob4ob4ob6ob2ob
2o2b3o2bobo3b4o$obo7b4obobo5bob3obo7bob2o2b2o2b2obo2b5o2b2o2b2o4b3ob3o
4bob4o3b2ob3o2b4o4bobo5b2ob2o4bo$2obob2o2b2o2bo2bo3bobo2bobo2b3o5b2ob
2obob2o2bo5bo2b2o4b2obo2bobo4bobob5obobob3o4bobo2bobo3bo3b3o3b2ob3o$4o
5b3o2b2obo6bo2bo2b3o3bo2bobo3bo2b3obob2o3bo3b6obobob10obo2b2o3b3o4b4ob
ob2o2bo4b2o3b3obobo$o2bob3o2bobobo6bo4bo3bob4ob4ob2obob3o2b2ob2obobo2b
ob2o2bob7ob4ob2o2bob2o2b4o3bobobob2o2bo3b2o2bo2bo2b2o$2obo2bo2bo2b2ob
2ob3ob5ob2ob2o2bobob2o4bo2bob2o2bo2b2ob2o2bo2b5o3bo2bo2bobobob2obo2b2o
2bo3b2o3bo2b3obo3b3o2bo2bo$obobo2b2ob2ob3o2b2ob2obobobo2bobob3o2b3ob2o
bo6bo3b4obo6b3ob2obo3bo2b6obo2b3ob3obo7bo2bo2b4obob3obo$3b3o4bo2b2o3b
2o2b2o2bobobo2b2o2bo4bobo4b2o2b2ob2o3b4obo2b3o2b2o4bo2b3o2b2o2bob2ob2o
bo2bob6obobob3o2bo3bobo$3ob2obo2b2obo2b2o5b2obo2bobobobo2bobo4b2o2bobo
2b3ob3o2b2ob3o4bobo2b2ob2o4bob2o2bo4b4ob2obobo3b2ob2o5bob4o$b2o3b5o2bo
b3obob3o2bo4bob2o2b2ob5o4bob2o2bo2bo3b2obob2obobo3bobo3b3obobob2ob2obo
bobo2b2obo2bobo2b2o4b3o2bobo$2obobo2b2ob3obob2obobo4bo3b3ob3o2bobob2ob
o4bobobob2obo3bo2bob2o2b2o2bo3b6obo3bob2obobobobob2obob2o2bo6b3o2bo$bo
bo3bo5bob3o3b2o2bo2b3ob3o2bob2o2b2o6bo2bob3ob3o2bo2b2ob2o2bo2b2o3b5ob
4o2b3o2bobobob2ob3o2bo2bobobo3bobo$6o3bobob2ob2o3bobob2o5bobo2bobob2o
8b3o5b2o2b2obo2bob4o2bob6obo9b5o2bobo4bobo3b3obobobo2bo$2obo2b2ob6o2bo
2b2obobo4b2obob2ob2ob2o2bo2b2o3b2o5b2o4bo2bobo2bo2b2obobo2bo2b3o5bo2b
4obob3o6bob4o3bob2o$ob3o2bo2bo2b7o3bobob2o2b8o2bobobob2obo3bo4b3o5b2o
2b2obo3bo2bob2obob4o3bobo2b4obo2bob2obob3obo3bobobo$o2bo2bobob4ob2ob2o
bobob3o2b3ob2ob3ob2o2b3ob3obob4o5b2o3bo3b2ob2o7b2o2bo2bo2bobob2o2bo3bo
2bob3o7bob4o$b5o4bob4o5b4obobo2b4ob3o2b2ob3o3bo5b2o6bo2b2obobob3o2bobo
b2obo5bob3obo3b2o2b5ob2o2b4ob2obobo$b2o2b2obo3b2obo2b2o3bob3obob2ob3o
2bo3bo2bo2b3ob5obob5ob2ob2ob2o3bob3o2b5o3bo2bo4bob2obo2b2ob3o2bo8b2o$b
4ob2ob4o5bob5o3bo3b2o3b2ob2ob2obobo2b2o3b2o2b2ob2o2bobo2bobob2obob2o2b
obob2o2b5obo2b2o4bo2b3ob4obob3obo$o4bobob2o3bo3b2o2bo5bobob3obobobob2o
2bo2b4o2bo4bob2obo2bob2o2bo2bo5b2obob2o2bo4bobo2bobobo3b9o2b5o$4bo3bob
4o2bo2bob2ob2ob3o2b6o3bo4bob9o2b4o3b2o2bo2bobobo2b3o5b2o2b2o5bo2b4ob2o
5bo2b3o2bobob2o$obo3bo2b2o9b3o2bo4b2obo2b2ob2o5b2o3b4o2b2o7bo2bob2obo
2bo8bo7bobo4bo4bo3b3ob2ob2o2bob2obo$ob3o3b2ob2obo2bo3b2obob3ob4obob3ob
obo5bo5b2o2bobo2bobo3bo2b4obobo2b4o2bo11b2ob2obo3bobob6obob2obo$bo2b3o
3bo4b4o4bo3b2o2b2o2b3ob6obo2b2o3bob2o3b3o3b2obobob4ob2o5b4obo3bo3bo3bo
b4o3bo5bobo2b2obo$bob5obobob2o2b2ob2ob3obo2b2o2bobo2bob3o2b11ob2o2bob
2ob3o2b3obo2bo5bo5b4obobob2o2b4ob2obob2ob2o2b3o3bo$2bob2o3bobob2obob2o
2bobob3obob2ob5o2bo4bo4b2ob2obobo3bo2b2obo4b4ob2o3b2o2bo3bo3bo4bobob3o
4bo4b2obo3bo$ob4o4b2ob2obobo2bo3b2ob2o4b3o4b2o3bo6bob2ob8obob5o5b3ob2o
b7o7b2obo2b3o2bo2bo5b2o3b2o$o4bo3bob2o2bob2o4bo2bob2obob3o3b3obo2bo3bo
2bob4ob2o2b3ob6ob3obo4b3o4bobo3bo2bob3o2b3obobob5o2b3obo$obo3b3o2b2o4b
obob2o3bo2b2o4b2ob2ob3o2bo2bo2b3ob2o2bo2bo5b2ob2o4b2obobobo2bobobob7o
5b2ob5ob3o2bo3b3o$2obobo2bobob6ob2obobobob3obobo4b3o2b2o2b2ob2obo3bobo
2b2o6bo3bob3ob2ob2ob3obob2o5bob2o2bob3obob3ob2ob3o2bo$2b6obo6b4o2b3o5b
2ob3o5b6obob3o3bobobo2bo2bobobo2bo6bo4b2o2b2ob4o3bobob3ob2obo2b3ob6o4b
o$obobo3b3o2b5obobo3b2ob3o3b2o3bo6b2o3b3ob5ob2obo2bo2b2obo6bob2o2bobo
3bobob3o2bo4bo3bob3o4bo4bo2bo$4bob3o2b3o2bob5obobob3ob3ob8obo4b4ob2ob
2ob2obob2obo3b4obo2b3obob2o2bo2b3obo2b4o4b2ob2o2b2ob2o$obo3bobo2bob2o
3b4ob3ob3ob5o2b2obo2bob2obobobo2b3o3bobobo5b2obo2b2o3bo2bo2b3ob3o2bobo
2bo2b2o2b3ob2ob2ob4o$3ob4o4bob4obobob2o2bob3ob2obo2b3ob3obo2bo4bo2b2o
4bo3b3o4b4ob5o3bo2b7o4b3ob2o2bo4b2o2b3o2b2obo$b2ob8o2b9o2bob4ob2o3b2o
4b7ob2ob3o2b2o3bobobobob3o4b2obob2obobo4b4ob2obo3bob2o2b3o4bo2b4o$o2bo
bobo2b3obob4o2b3ob2obo2bo3bo2b2o4bo4b3o3bo2bo8bo4b4ob4o3bob2o2bo6b2o2b
o6b2ob2obo2bo2b4ob2o$2obob2obo3bo6bobob2ob3o6b2o3b2ob3ob3o2bo2bo4b4obo
b2obo2bob2o2bo3bobo4bo4b2o3bo2bob4obo2b2ob2ob7o$bo4b3o5bo2b3o4b2ob6o5b
2ob2o2bo2bob2o2bo2b2obob4ob4ob5o4b2o2b3o3b2o4bo2bo3bobobo4b2o3bo2bo3bo
bo$bo2b2ob2o2b3o2b3obob2obob3o2b4ob3ob5ob6obo3b3obob4o2bo3b2o5bob4o6bo
b3ob2o3b2ob9ob2ob5o$4bo3bo2bo3b5o5b3obo4b3o3b6o2b5o4b2o5b3o2bo3b2o2b2o
2bob5ob3o2bo3bobobo4b2o2bo2b2o3bo2b2o$ob3o4b2ob2o2b2ob4ob2ob3o5b2o5b2o
b2obobo3bo2b4obo2b3o2b2o5b3o2bobo2bob4o4b2o6b3ob3o2b2o3b2o6bo$2b2o5bo
2bo3bob5o4bob2o2bo2b5o2bob2ob2obobo5bob4ob8ob2obo4b3o2bo2b2ob3obob5o3b
ob2o5bobo2b3o2bo$4b2obobobo2b2o2bo3b4ob2o3b3ob2ob2obobo2b2obo2bo2bob2o
b2o2b4ob4o2bo2b4o5b2o2b3o3b2ob2ob3obob3o2bob3ob2obo$bobob2obo3bob3o2b
2ob2o7bob2obobo2bobo2bob3o4bo3b2o2bo2b4ob2ob2o5bo3bo2bo2bobobo2bobob2o
b4obobob2o3bob3o$2o2bo2b2o2bo3b2ob2obobob2ob2obob2o3b6ob4obo2bo2bobobo
5bob2ob2ob3obo4b2obob5obobo3bob3o4b3obo2bo3bob3o2bo$2ob4obobobobob3o2b
3o2b8o3b2ob3ob5o3bob2o9bobob3ob2obo3bo2b2o3b2ob4obo2b3obobo4b2o4bo2bob
obob3o$5o2b2obobobo8b5obobo2b3ob5obobob2o3bo4b4ob2obob4ob3o7b3obo2b4ob
o8bob3o3bo2bobo2bobo3b2o$16o2b2ob2obo2bo3b2obobo3bobo2b3ob2o2b4o2bob2o
bob2obo2b3o2bo2bo4b2o3b3obobobo2bob2ob2o2b3ob2ob5ob3obo$2b4ob2o9bobo6b
o2bobobo3b3ob2ob2ob2obo2bo2b9ob6o2bo2b2ob4o2bob2ob4o3bobo2bob2obo5bobo
3bobobo$bob2o2bob4o2bo3b3o2b3o2bob2ob4ob2o2b6o6bo2b2obo3bobo2bo6bo2bob
2obob3o6b2ob2o5b2o2b3o4bobo2b3o2bo$6o6bobob2ob2obo2bo4bo3b4o2b3ob2obob
2obobobo3bo2bob2o4bo2b2ob3ob2o2b7ob2o2b3o3bo2bo3b8ob2obobo2bo$2o4bobo
3bobob4o2b3obo4bo3bobobo3bo2bo3bo2b2o2b4o2b4o2bob5o2b3o2bob3ob3o2b4ob
4o2bob2obo3bo5b2obobobo$obobo2bo8b2ob2o4b7o2b4obobo2b3obobobo2b2o2b4ob
o2b2obo2b2obob2obobob5obo2bob5o4b2obo3b2o4bo2b3o2bo!

The rule emulated at a white square is B3aijn4k5c6c78/S2ae3jnr4en6ace78, which, as you can verify for yourself, includes both gliders and anti-gliders.

[dvgrn]

Prior to this discussion, no existing usage of "drifter" on the forums or elsewhere has ever referred to a spaceship.

I think this premise is technically flawed, even here on the forum (I do not know whether there were relevant uses of the word on Discord, and ignoring any uses elsewhere in the community): viewtopic.php?p=164022#p164022
...

Is that link supposed to be an example of an existing usage of "drifter" referring to a spaceship? I'm not reading it that way at all. It sounds like the drifters being described -- which are only hypothetical in that post, in any case, so this is a very questionable example! -- would be traveling through the large complex emergent still lifes that are ubiquitous in soups in that rule.

Maybe AlbertArmstain can confirm or deny my theory. But in any case this is not an existing usage of "drifter" to refer to a spaceship. ZackBuildit777 seemed to deliberately differentiate "drifter" from "otherwise moving object", which is very much in keeping with current usage of the term "drifter".

Your suggested redefinitions of 'drifter' and 'signal' certainly fail to have "unanimous support". There were several people who disagreed with you on the issue of signals, and there are several people who disagree with you on the issue of drifters.

The existing definitions already clarify what is a drifter and what is a signal. There is no need to change those definitions, and there is no "unanimous support" for the changes you are proposing.

I'm not claiming unanimous support. You strongly disagree with a number of my suggested changes, which means that support is definitely not unanimous.

What I am claiming, for the "dependent reflector" and "signal" polls and also this "drifter" proposal, is that there's good evidence of an existing community consensus -- in the Wikipedia sense. Key quotes from that Wikipedia page include

"Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), ..."

and

"A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached."

Here is another relevant example of existing usage of 'drifter', 'glider', 'anti-glider' --

How is this relevant? The drifter referred to here is a moving object "equivalent to a glider", moving through a non-empty background exactly as required by current standard usage.

To find a counterexample to the premise of mine that you quoted, you would have to find an example of someone on the forums referring to a spaceship -- something moving through empty space -- as a "drifter". Why are you linking to these examples that support my claim?

[confocaloid]

I am linking to those examples, because those examples conflict with your stated premises:

• Dean Hickerson's 'dr' program is designed to find perturbations moving through non-empty stable background patterns.
• None of the objects that are listed as having been found by Dean Hickerson's 'dr' program are spaceships.
• Prior to this discussion, no existing usage of "drifter" on the forums or elsewhere has ever referred to a spaceship.
• Multiple people have confidently claimed that drifters don't move through empty space.

These facts strongly suggest to me that the term "drifter" has never in the past been intended to include spaceships.

Just because some drifters were found using the 'dr' program, does not mean every drifter has to be found with that program, or be 'similar' in any sense to a drifter that could be fond with that program.
There are existing uses of the word 'drifter' to refer to moving perturbations that were not, in fact, found with 'dr' program, and do not look like drifters that would be found with that program.

That makes half of your premises irrelevant; being found with 'dr' is not what makes a drifter a drifter.
Third premise might be considered "technically correct" - until someone finds example usage that was somewhere else and not on the forum - but in a misleading way. There are existing uses of the word 'drifter' to refer to moving perturbations that are equivalent to a spaceship (see the example quoted above).
Regarding fourth premise, personally I would not describe four as "multiple", and would not describe a single-word reply as "confident claim".

These facts strongly suggest to me, that the word 'drifter' has never been intended to exclude spaceships. I think it would be artificial to exclude empty background explicitly in a way you are proposing.

[confocaloid]

[...] -- and the LifeWiki is supposed to document existing usage.

To me that means you are continuing to confuse LifeWiki with Life Lexicon.
LifeWiki is supposed to document existing knowledge about Life and other cellular automata. It is supposed to be an encyclopedia explaining what is known in the area, rather than a dictionary listing common phrases.
The current definitions in drifter and signal already explain what is a drifter and what is a signal.

[...] According to a supermajority of voters in the poll, [/...]

There is no "supermajority of voters in the poll" (even ignoring the fact that the "poll" was misleading to begin with, and it does not make much sense to attempt to interpret results).

[dvgrn]

The current definitions in drifter and signal already explain what is a drifter and what is a signal.

No. They clearly do not.

The current definitions still appear to be failing to explain to you what "drifter" has always meant for the last quarter century, and what "signal" has evolved to mean in a CA context over the last two decades.

Hopefully the two small changes that I'm currently considering making will fix that difficult problem, which we have both now spent dozens of pages' worth of argumentation trying to resolve.

[...] According to a supermajority of voters in the poll, [/...]

There is no "supermajority of voters in the poll" (even ignoring the fact that the "poll" was misleading to begin with, and it does not make much sense to attempt to interpret results).

I'm still looking for even a single other person who agrees with you on these points (i.e., the summary judgments about the validity of the two polls). I'm having a really hard time understanding how you can be so confident about this.

A "supermajority" is quite often two-thirds, sometimes three-fifths, sometimes three-quarters. The ratio of voters on both the dependent-reflector poll and the signal poll is well above the 60% threshold. For the signal poll it is above the 75% threshold.

What alternate premises are you starting from, that allow you to conclude that there is no supermajority of voters in the two polls -- especially in the signal poll?

[confocaloid]

The current definitions still appear to be failing to explain to you what "drifter" has always meant for the last quarter century, and what "signal" has evolved to mean in a CA context over the last two decades.

Hopefully the two small changes that I'm currently considering making will fix that difficult problem, which we have both now spent dozens of pages' worth of argumentation trying to resolve.

You are confusing explanation of usage of words/phrases, vs. definitions of concepts.

I think I understand what the word 'drifter' usually meant in the past. But the underlying concept is already defined correctly:

A drifter is a perturbation moving within a stable pattern.

As I already explained, your suggested redefinition would be detrimental, by artificially distinguishing gliders moving through empty space from anti-gliders moving through all-on background, and from other moving perturbations equivalent to the same gliders. That will be confusing for everyone who tries to understand the idea behind drifters.
Likewise, it would introduce an irrelevant distraction regarding the local-vs-global issue. Is there a difference between a glider moving through empty space and a glider moving on a track between two dense still lives?

Likewise, I think I understand what the word 'signal' meant and means in various contexts. But the underlying concept -- communication of choices via some mechanism or another -- is already explained on the page signal. You are suggesting to replace the entire underlying concept.

In my opinion your proposed changes would do significant damage to LifeWiki. And there is no need for those specific changes to begin with. I think both concepts are already defined in a fairly clear and concise way.

What alternate premises are you starting from, that allow you to conclude that there is no supermajority of voters in the poll?

The basic point is that there is no "general agreement" for your changes. Several people disagreed on each of the two poll threads (and both were confusing to begin with).

[dvgrn]

@Jormungant, I apologize for the way these discussions tend to get off track. Confocaloid and I are both capable of generating endless walls of text, but that doesn't really do a good job at all of welcoming other people into these discussions.

I'm glad you agree that "wire" should only be non-empty even though the definition doesn't specifically say that. I'm not quite clear from the rest of your post what you think about my plan to edit the "drifter" article so that it specifically says "non-empty". Do you still think it's possible for "drifter" to catch on as a substitute for "dvgrn-signal", and if so, would you prefer that I not add that clarifying word?

Well, I would still use "signal" for confocaloid-signal, but sure drifter might work for dvgrn-signals, right now it feels like a pattern name, but given time it might catch on. I guess I prefer that name too...

Like I said, Lifenthusiasts are an ornery bunch.  I'm having a really hard time imagining this proposal working out.

It looks to me like a proposal perfectly designed to start an unnecessary new "holy war".  The Life community has had these kinds of disagreements in the past about the most trivial things... there was a whole long email thread with the subject "RLE Holy Wars" started by Dave Buckingham back in the late 1990s, for example.  The conflict was already well established then, and it didn't end until the next millennium, around 2005 -- kind of a Lifenthusiasts' War of the Roses.

I've learned a lot from the ongoing discussion with confocaloid, but I'd really rather not continue this argument indefinitely. It would be good if we could learn as a community how to move toward a consensus in cases like this -- not necessarily a unanimous consensus, just a best-guess way to move forward and try something constructive, and not worry too much about making an occasional mistake along the way.

I think existing usage really counts for a lot, even when it's subtle
As far as the "drifter" proposal goes: it seems like I'm seeing a repeating pattern here, of a few people who seem either to be unaware of the multiple decades of existing usage of various terms -- "drifter", "signal", "shuttle" -- or else they have other reasons to be willing to ignore all of that historical context.

The message that I've been trying to get across is that ignoring existing usage in this way is ultimately a lost cause -- it's just plain not workable.  Even if by some miracle you successfully got everyone to change all their future usage of a term, you'd still have those multiple decades of conflicting past usage to explain and document -- making things more confusing than they were before.

What Might Have Been vs. Current Reality
It would be lovely if a quarter century ago someone had come up with a perfect unambiguous short word for "dvgrn-signal", and everyone had used that exclusively when they meant "dvgrn-signal", and had used "signal" when they meant "confocaloid-signal".  But that is not what happened.  Instead, "signal" has routinely gotten used for both the "dvgrn-signal" and "confocaloid-signal" senses of the term. Those are the facts on the ground -- and the LifeWiki is supposed to document existing usage.

To me that means that we need a definition of "signal" on the LifeWiki that acknowledges the slight ambiguity in existing usage of "signal".  It doesn't require a big change. According to a supermajority of voters in the poll, just one added sentence will be an improvement -- and of course we can always adjust further from there.

Related Question
@Jormungant, I've been looking for someone who thinks that the "signal" poll was set up in a misleading way and that therefore the results of the poll can not be meaningfully interpreted. No one has spoken up to agree with confocaloid on that point yet.

Based on the outcome of that poll, would you say it makes sense to edit to the "signal" article in line with the supermajority vote, and see where things go from there? Or is there some further consensus-building that might be helpful here?

[confocaloid]

In response to dvgrn copy-pasting an earlier post and deleting the original post:

[...] -- and the LifeWiki is supposed to document existing usage.

[...] -- and the LifeWiki is supposed to document existing usage.

To me that means you are continuing to confuse LifeWiki with Life Lexicon.
LifeWiki is supposed to document existing knowledge about Life and other cellular automata. It is supposed to be an encyclopedia explaining what is known in the area, rather than a dictionary listing common phrases.
The current definitions in drifter and signal already explain what is a drifter and what is a signal.

[...] the supermajority vote [...]

The basic point is that there is no "general agreement" for your changes. Several people disagreed on each of the two poll threads (and both were confusing to begin with).

[dvgrn]

In response to dvgrn copy-pasting an earlier post and deleting the original post...

I'm trying to get those questions for Jormungant to a place where they won't be completely buried by walls of text from the two of us. I'd like to hear from Jormungant, if he's willing to say anything more.

Probably tomorrow I'll move that post again to the end of the discussion. Let me know if you object. If you do, please explain what I should do instead, to keep our interactions from continuing to drown out all other discussion.

Meanwhile:

1) do you retract your statement that "there is no supermajority of voters in the poll"? You later said instead that "The basic point is that there is no "general agreement" for your changes". That's a totally different statement, and it's vague enough that it could either be true or not true, depending on how 'general agreement' is defined.

2) You're continuing to claim that I'm "confused" about various things.

[...] -- and the LifeWiki is supposed to document existing usage.

To me that means you are continuing to confuse LifeWiki with Life Lexicon.

Up until now I would have said that there has been general agreement for a long time, including recently, that the LifeWiki should attempt to document existing usage rather than trying to redefine/change it.

[confocaloid]

Probably tomorrow I'll move that post again to the end of the discussion. Let me know if you object. If you do, please explain what I should do instead, to keep our interactions from continuing to drown out all other discussion.

If that is considered important, yes I do object. When you are deleting the original post, you are deleting context that could help other people to understand the conversation.

Instead of copy&pasting an unabridged wall-of-text post and deleting the original, (probably) you could ask the main questions briefly in a new post, and leave the original post.

That's a totally different statement, and it's vague enough that it could either be true or not true, depending on how 'general agreement' is defined.

Claiming either some kind of "supermajority" or "general agreement" is misleading -- several people clearly disagreed on the issues under discussion. Apparently you are going to ignore that disagreement and proceed pretending that everyone agreed. I think that is detrimental to any possible future agreement, and also detrimental to the state of LifeWiki (which is supposed to be an encyclopedia, documenting what is known in the area).

You're continuing to claim that I'm "confused" about various things.

LifeWiki [partially successfully] attempts to do several things at once. In addition to articles (which are supposed to be encyclopedic), there are disambiguation pages (which are more "dictionary-like", and which are supposed to list meanings of words/phrases).

When you are explaining existing usage of words or phrases, you should not mix that with definitions of the underlying concepts. The usage of terms should be explained separately from the definitions of the concepts.

[dvgrn]

If that is considered important, yes I do object. When you are deleting the original post, you are deleting context that could help other people to understand the conversation.

I kind of doubt that that would have been a problem. When I moved the post, I updated all the links from previous quotations of the old post, to point to the new copy.

However, since you object, I'll try your suggestion instead.

Apparently you are going to ignore that disagreement and proceed pretending that everyone agreed.

I am ignoring nothing (in my opinion).

I am absolutely not "pretending that everyone agreed". That is a completely baseless attack, and I'd appreciate it if you would retract it.

I don't think you're putting your side of the discussion in a particularly good light by continuing to use loaded terms like these.

I've done everything I can to understand and consider your arguments. However, I'm not obligated to agree with them just because I've considered them. For the "drifter" issue especially, they just don't seem like very compelling arguments.

Now, while acknowledging the obvious fact that everyone does not agree, I'm still currently planning to insert the word "non-empty" into the drifter article. I'm giving a few days' advance notice so that people can speak up and say what they think about that plan.

You've already spoken up to say what you think. Now it's other people's turn.

When you are explaining existing usage of words or phrases, you should not mix that with definitions of the underlying concepts. The usage of terms should be explained separately from the definitions of the concepts.

I could maybe agree with this, but it's a rather vague statement, not always easy to apply to specific cases. If this is your "theory of LifeWiki editing", then I think it's leading you to several unsupportable conclusions.

I also think that it's a really useful skill for a LifeWiki editor to be able to recognize a lost cause, and be able to de-escalate gracefully.

It's totally fine for you to continue to think that you're completely right on all of these issues... but in that case, sometimes it's going to be necessary for you to take a deep breath, back away from an issue, and just allow other people to be wrong for a while. If these problems that you're envisioning so vividly are really problems, then with any luck they will cause enough trouble that people will then be able to see what needs to be fixed.

[confocaloid]

I've done everything I can to understand and consider your arguments. However, I'm not obligated to agree with them just because I've considered them. For the "drifter" issue especially, they just don't seem like very compelling arguments.

Now, while acknowledging the obvious fact that everyone does not agree, I'm still currently planning to insert the word "non-empty" into the drifter article. I'm giving a few days' advance notice so that people can speak up and say what they think about that plan.

In your posts you are focusing on me and my arguments (e.g. "I've done everything I can to understand and consider your arguments."), as if these were the only thing to consider. It is not just that I disagree; there are already other people who disagree with you on this. "Everyone does not agree" does not reduce to one person.

There are already people other than me, who disagreed with your "hard-line stance" on the drifter issue specifically:
* viewtopic.php?p=167803#p167803
* viewtopic.php?p=168439#p168439

There are already people other than me, who disagreed with your stance on the signal and dependent reflector issues:
* viewtopic.php?p=163548#p163548
* viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6099
* viewtopic.php?p=163340#p163340
* viewtopic.php?p=163352#p163352

I think the "signal" poll is misleading -- it does not explain what are the underlying issues, and it mixes several different issues. But if you want to ignore that, and if you want to interpret "results" as something meaningful, then at least 6 people so far selected Option 1: "The p43 Snark loop contains no signals. Circulating gliders in a context like this should not be referred to as "signals" in LifeWiki articles, because they do not encode any information. The current LifeWiki definition of "signal" is complete and correct as it stands."

In the "dependent reflector" poll, 4 people so far selected EXCLUDE and 4 people selected NO PREFERENCE. In addition, there were non-vote replies in that thread and elsewhere in this discussion, that did not agree with your position on the issues.

For the "drifter" issue specifically, I think your proposed addition would turn a useful concise definition into a confusing attempt at a modified definition. "Non-empty" is not relevant to the underlying concept. It is only relevant to existing usage of the word so far. A glider moving through a non-empty still life constellation still behaves in essentially the same way as a glider moving in empty space; an "anti-glider" drifter moving through sea of "on" cells behaves the same way as the usual glider.
viewtopic.php?p=168503#p168503
viewtopic.php?p=168505#p168505
My point is that your proposed redefinition of drifter would introduce artificial distinctions and break yet another useful concept, without solving any real problems.

(Added later)

The Life community has had these kinds of disagreements in the past about the most trivial things...

Maybe one of reasons is because those things were not in fact trivial. Basically, you are only stating your opinion on whether or not certain issues are "nontrivial" or "worthy of discussion" -- except you are not presenting it as your opinion.

[HartmutHolzwart]

After around 200 messages on the subject, couldn't you just close this discussion and go on to something else?

Edit: As someone asked me to clarify: I mean both of you.

I used to follow the discussion, but it gets boring over time. Now I could just ignore it and I do so most of the time, but it never ends, so I get curious and read through it again...

Being a mathematican by education, I know that precise definitions are key, but on the other hand one shouldn't overdo it.

You both made your point more than clear, and it is obvious that you won't convince each other.

I won't judge the one way or the other, as in any case of you would then try to convince me of the contrary.

Edit 2: It should be needless to say, but I do it anyway, as people in this community partly seem to be very sensitive. This just refers to this specific thread! Please continue to contribute further to the CGoL community. And produce wonderful, curious and diverse patterns as you did in the past.

[dvgrn]

After around 200 messages on the subject, couldn't you just close this discussion and go on to something else?

Edit: As someone asked me to clarify: I mean both of you.

Thanks for the clarification! I should probably give my answer to this question, then.

I would be quite happy to close this discussion and leave all of the LifeWiki articles in question exactly as they currently are -- as long as there's general agreement that that will actually close the discussion.

The problem that kept coming up for me with the "signal" article was that various other LifeWiki articles kept gradually getting adjusted to agree with confocaloid's interpretation of "signal", even after multiple specific requests from me to put a hold on those kinds of edits.

It is widely considered acceptable to refer to "signals" circulating in simple closed-loop oscillators. I found that, if I didn't keep on objecting again and again, changes by confocaloid related to this seemed likely to continue, gradually but indefinitely.

The current LifeWiki has quite a lot of evidence that the "dvgrn-signal" usage of "signal" is perfectly okay. To me that seems like very useful information to have on the LifeWiki, so I really don't want to see it gradually eroded away.

(This shouldn't surprise anyone -- I did a lot of work in 2018 to put that information there. It's quite painful to see that much work in danger of being undone, for what seem to me to be insufficient reasons.)

Taking Steps Toward Ending The "Signal" Discussion
My current plan is to make the smallest possible changes to the "drifter" and "signal" articles that will protect against the gradual erosion of meaning that I described above. If those changes stick -- note the "if" here! -- then other proposed edits won't really make sense any more, because they won't line up with the newly revised definitions.

I'm hoping that any future plan to use "drifter" as a synonym for "dvgrn-signal", or to restrict "signal" to mean only "confocaloid-signal", will most logically start by an attempt to revert those two upcoming changes.

At the moment, unfortunately, I don't see any better way to "close this discussion and go on to something else".

The next section is an attempt to answer some of confocaloid's points from previous posts.

Potential Hypocrisy? Indeed!
Of course I'm perfectly aware that planning to make these two edits leaves me wide open to accusations of "doing the same thing that confocaloid was doing" -- making edits in the face of significant opposition.

Luckily,
1) I made a really good-faith effort to gauge the level of community support by running a "signal" poll, and was perfectly willing to abide by the results of that poll if the votes had come in the opposite of what I had expected.
2) In spite of confocaloid's claims of other people also disagreeing, I'm not finding any serious disagreement to my plan of making these edits, coming from anyone except confocaloid.
3) I've asked repeatedly for evidence that anyone thought the "signal" poll was in some way invalid or misleading. No one who voted for Option 1 in the poll, except confocaloid, has spoken up to say that the poll seems likely to give an inaccurate picture of the supermajority view of the community.
4) I don't at all mind being a little bit inconsistent, anyway, when it's necessary to solve a thorny problem.

-- Anyone is welcome to do a "commonly agreed meaning of 'drifter' in the community" poll, of course, and I could delay that edit until after the results come in. But it's clear enough what the results of that one will be that I'm not going to spend time on it myself.

EDIT: I honestly believe that I've already responded to confocaloid's points below, many times now.

Everyone should please rest assured that I'm still listening very hard for other voices to join this discussion, especially to respond to my items number (2) and (3) above. It wouldn't take very many people speaking up now to explain their objections to the two edits in question, to convince me not to make those edits right now. Those edits are just my best-guess plan in the absence of other new feedback from the community.

People have certainly expressed disagreement with my views at some point, and other people have expressed agreement. But it's always possible that those opinions could have changed based on the discussion since those posts. It would be useful to hear from anyone whose opinion has changed, in either direction -- or from anyone else who chose Option 1 in the poll who believes that I'm not acknowledging their feedback.

[confocaloid]

To me that seems like very useful information to have on the LifeWiki, so I really don't want to see it gradually eroded away.

(This shouldn't surprise anyone -- I did a lot of work in 2018 to put that information there. It's quite painful to see that much work in danger of being undone, for what seem to me to be insufficient reasons.)

What you describe as "information", is only a specific wording. And I do not believe your specific wording is a particularly good way to explain underlying concepts to readers who are not yet familiar with the underlying ideas. E.g. the word 'signal' is overused, in multiple places where it does not help.
viewtopic.php?p=163914#p163914
viewtopic.php?p=165660#p165660

E.g. claiming that periodic dependent glider reflectors have anything to do with signals is misleading. These are not signal-processing devices; these are merely period-specific reactions that can redirect a glider stream.

Likewise, requiring the definition of a stable conduit to rely on the idea of signals is misleading. Stable conduits can be used in e.g. simple Herschel loop oscillators and guns, which do not involve any communication. In my view, in such cases explicit references to signals are a completely unnecessary distraction, that makes it harder to understand the ideas behind patterns/concepts that are the topic of the respective LifeWiki article.

Regarding drifters: requiring that a drifter should move through a non-empty background is misleading; it introduces an irrelevant distinction between an "ON-perturbation moving on an OFF-background" and an "OFF-perturbation moving on an ON-background". Even when the two are equivalent, the proposed redefinition would artificially distinguish them. (And there are equivalent drifters moving on more complicated backgrounds.)
viewtopic.php?p=168503#p168503

As far as I can tell, dvgrn essentially ignores differences between jargon that is/could be used in conversations, versus wording to be used on LifeWiki when explaining things to a wider audience. I believe this is counterproductive.

Several people already responded in this and other threads. Their specific opinions would not be acknowledged by the proposed redefinitions of signal and drifter. When several people disagree with your proposal in some way, maybe it is better to attempt to come up with a different idea?

(Added later)

1) I made a really good-faith effort to gauge the level of community support by running a "signal" poll, and was perfectly willing to abide by the results of that poll if the votes had come in the opposite of what I had expected.
2) In spite of confocaloid's claims of other people also disagreeing, I'm not finding any serious disagreement to my plan of making these edits, coming from anyone except confocaloid.
3) I've asked repeatedly for evidence that anyone thought the "signal" poll was in some way invalid or misleading. No one who voted for Option 1 in the poll, except confocaloid, has spoken up to say that the poll seems likely to give an inaccurate picture of the supermajority view of the community.
4) I don't at all mind being a little bit inconsistent, anyway, when it's necessary to solve a thorny problem.

(1) I think "running a poll" was not a meaningful choice in the first place. There was already discussion in previously created forum threads. Instead of letting the discussion evolve further, you created a poll thread (with several different questions combined in a misleading way), only to request further "non-poll" feedback later.

(2) Your point (2) above is inconsistent with your desire to interpret the votes as "evidence". If you think the votes can be used as some kind of evidence for/against your proposed changes, then the already existing votes for what you wrote under "Option 1" apparently constitute evidence of "serious disagreement" to your proposed edits, coming from other people. There is no general agreement for your edits, and it is not just me.

If you ignore that inconsistency to "solve" what you see as a "problem" right now, then there will be long-term consequences of that choice. Probably you understand that, but it should be obvious that other people understand that as well.

https://conwaylife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=6135

image.png (75.85 KiB) Viewed 2587 times

-- Anyone is welcome to do a "commonly agreed meaning of 'drifter' in the community" poll, of course, and I could delay that edit until after the results come in. But it's clear enough what the results of that one will be that I'm not going to spend time on it myself.

Polls are not helpful here in the first place. If one ignores replies with feedback that is not reducible to simple "yes/no" votes, no amount of poll threads will be helpful.

[confocaloid]

At the moment, unfortunately, I don't see any better way to "close this discussion and go on to something else".

Planning to make breaking changes to long-standing definition, that several people already disagreed with, is unlikely to be helpful for resolving the issues under discussion.

EDIT: I honestly believe that I've already responded to confocaloid's points below, many times now.

You already ignored my points that I was trying to explain several times. What you claim diverges from what you do.
Also, other people already posted in these related forum threads, and the existing feedback cannot be reduced to a single yes/no question.