Regarding the name of the """logarithmic""" replicator rule

[confocaloid]

The article currently says "Before the end of 2023, this rule was commonly referred to by the inaccurate name logarithmic replicator rule." But there is no explanation of why the name is believed to be inaccurate.

There is a section "Growth bounds" later down the page. However, that section seems to be written with the assumption that readers already understand the topic, and there is no explanation at all how the bounds are related to the name controversy.

There is also a footnote linking to this forum thread. However, the forum thread also assumes that readers already understand the issue ("The creation of this thread may be regarded by all those who have been involved in its events thus far as an instigation of something that we had thus far mostly left settled." etc. etc.)

Why the common name is believed to be inaccurate?
Why it was considered so important to rename the page as soon as possible (even with attempts to remove the common name from the page entirely), before and without explaining the issue in the article itself in a sufficiently clear way for LifeWiki readers?

[dvgrn]

The article currently says "Before the end of 2023, this rule was commonly referred to by the inaccurate name logarithmic replicator rule." But there is no explanation of why the name is believed to be inaccurate.

There's a footnote on that quoted sentence, as you mention, which links directly to DroneBetter's explanation: the replicator grows at O(sqrt(t)), not O(log(t)).

...the cell-length in the t'th iteration, l(t), has the asymptotic bounds 2*√t < l(t) < 2*√(5*t/3). As such, this prevailing name is incorrect, since the replicator's asymptotic width is Θ(√t).

Basically the term "logarithmic" never actually had anything to do with the behavior of the rule.

Why it was considered so important to rename the page as soon as possible (even with attempts to remove the common name from the page entirely), before and without explaining the issue in the article itself in a sufficiently clear way for LifeWiki readers?

I wouldn't say that anyone thought it was particularly urgent to rename the page. It had already waited around unchanged for a couple of months after the mistake was spotted, without causing any huge emergencies.

However, once Nathaniel's executive decision was made, it didn't make any particular sense to wait around any longer. It does seem like a good idea to be reasonably quick about implementing executive decisions by the mod/admin team, to prevent confusion, and to get everyone used to how these executive decisions are going to work in the future.

The footnote explains the issue clearly, at least to people who are likely to be deeply interested in the detailed history of an out-of-date name. It's unlikely that the community will use "logarithmic replicator rule" to refer to that rule in the future, so it seems appropriate to me to leave that explanation as an optional footnote rather than taking up space in the main article with that decade-old nomenclature mistake.

[confocaloid]

The article currently says "Before the end of 2023, this rule was commonly referred to by the inaccurate name logarithmic replicator rule." But there is no explanation of why the name is believed to be inaccurate.

There's a footnote on that quoted sentence, as you mention, which links directly to DroneBetter's explanation: the replicator grows at O(sqrt(t)), not O(log(t)).

That is incorrect. The mentioned footnote does not link to an explanation of the inaccurateness of the common name.

That footnote links to this post, which is not an explanation of why the common name 'logarithmic replicator rule' for B36/S245 is inaccurate. Instead, that post is an (attempt at a) chronology of events in the LifeWiki disagreement (which are of interest mostly to involved editors, and not to LifeWiki readers), followed by three possibilities stated as "three main options".

The only place in the post actually relevant to the question "why the common name is inaccurate?" is the chronology list item where DroneBetter states that they found "exact forms [...] for the functions that give the number of iterations for the left and right edges to reach specific distances from the origin, in AforAmpere's emulator [...] This provides that the cell-length in the t'th iteration, l(t), has the asymptotic bounds [...]".

That "chronology list item" would not be a satisfactory answer to the question even by itself. Buried in a "meta" post with implicit assumptions that "people already know what it is all about", it is not an answer to the question at all.

My point is that, if you're claiming on the wiki that the common name is inaccurate, then you should explain (to the readers, in a reasonably clear way) why. Linking to an obscure "meta" post does not explain the issue to readers.

Why it was considered so important to rename the page as soon as possible (even with attempts to remove the common name from the page entirely), before and without explaining the issue in the article itself in a sufficiently clear way for LifeWiki readers?

I wouldn't say that anyone thought it was particularly urgent to rename the page. It had already waited around unchanged for a couple of months after the mistake was spotted, without causing any huge emergencies.

That is a false claim. The "huge emergencies" began immediately after the first message posted about the name. There was no time to discuss the issue before page moves started.

• On September 29, 2023 DroneBetter left a message on the talk page (15:45).
• After that, DroneBetter immediately moved the page away from the common name and to their invented name (15:46), without waiting for feedback from other people.
• I replied on the talk page (15:49) and moved the page back to the common name 'logarithmic replicator rule' (15:50).

The footnote explains the issue clearly, at least to people who are likely to be deeply interested in the detailed history of an out-of-date name.

That is a false claim. Obviously the footnote does not explain the issue at all (it just links to a forum post without any explanations in the article); and the linked forum post does not explain the issue to the readers in a satisfactory way either, as I wrote above.

[dvgrn]

@confocaloid, your discussion points would seem a lot more polite if you reworded them into a form that you wouldn't object to receiving yourself.

Here you seem to be using "false claim" as a synonym for "claim I don't personally agree with". As a rule, people aren't going to respond very well to that kind of labeling. I honestly don't think that any of those claims are false claims. I just made them, and I've looked at them again, and they do a good job of expressing what I was trying to say.

Premises are the Problem Again
The issue here actually seems to be an underlying premise that you haven't stated clearly, but you're spending all this time and basing this entire argument on it.

You appear to believe that the sqrt replicator rule article is in urgent need of a detailed explanation of why the name "logarithmic replicator rule" used to be applied to the rule, and why that name was wrong.

It's fine to have that opinion. But this is a key challenge for you: can you find anyone else in the community that agrees with you that any kind of bad editing was done here, that is in urgent need of correction? Does anyone else think that the question that you believe is unanswered actually needs answering?

If you can find someone like that, please encourage them to state that opinion here. If you can't, then please consider the possibility that this issue is not as important as you think it is, and possibly isn't worth making any kind of fuss about at all.

To me the old name seems almost entirely irrelevant to the article, so I wasn't at all interested in putting in any explanation about the old name; details can easily be found by anyone who is interested by following the footnote.

[confocaloid]

To me the old name seems almost entirely irrelevant to the article, so I wasn't at all interested in putting in any explanation about the old name; details can easily be found by anyone who is interested by following the footnote.

To you, the common name 'logarithmic replicator rule' might perhaps seem irrelevant.

However, it is directly relevant, simply because 'logarithmic replicator rule' is the common name of the rule B36/S245. Just because DroneBetter recently invented a new name and this new name was pushed to a few webpages, does not invalidate the commonness of the common name.

Here's a question for you. Instead of repeating your false claims about the history of the dispute and the current state of the article again and again, can you please wait for someone else (without canvassing them to do so) who would respond here and provide their feedback that would support your point of view, without copying your claims you already stated directly with minor rewording or with no rewording at all?

[HerscheltheHerschel]

To me the old name seems almost entirely irrelevant to the article, so I wasn't at all interested in putting in any explanation about the old name; details can easily be found by anyone who is interested by following the footnote.

To you, the common name 'logarithmic replicator rule' might perhaps seem irrelevant.

However, it is directly relevant, simply because 'logarithmic replicator rule' is the common name of the rule B36/S245. Just because DroneBetter recently invented a new name and this new name was pushed to a few webpages, does not invalidate the commonness of the common name.

Here's a question for you. Instead of repeating your false claims about the history of the dispute and the current state of the article again and again, can you please wait for someone else (without canvassing them to do so) who would respond here and provide their feedback that would support your point of view, without copying your claims you already stated directly with minor rewording or with no rewording at all?

I myself would use an accurate name even if it's uncommon. For example, imagine that the P280 U-turner hassler was called the P140 R-turner hassler. Would use the incorrect but common name or the correct but uncommon name?

[confocaloid]

I myself would use an accurate name even if it's uncommon. For example, imagine that the P280 U-turner hassler was called the P140 R-turner hassler. Would use the incorrect but common name or the correct but uncommon name?

Reply:
If it was already the case (at the time when I'm supposed to make my choice of how to refer to the oscillator) that a p280 U-turner hassler was for some reason commonly referred to as "p140 R-turner hassler", then it's quite likely that I would refer to the oscillator by that common name as well, even knowing that it is technically incorrect.

(If people already commonly refer to a p280 oscillator as "p140 R-turner hassler" (for whatever reason), then it makes sense for me to do so as well, and it makes sense to explain that on LifeWiki.)

Short version: common names of things do not have to be technically correct.

[dvgrn]

My posts above were a good-faith attempt to answer the previous questions that you asked.

Here's a question for you. Instead of repeating your false claims about the history of the dispute and the current state of the article again and again, can you please wait for someone else (without canvassing them to do so) who would respond here and provide their feedback that would support your point of view, without copying your claims you already stated directly with minor rewording or with no rewording at all?

This is just a quick answer to this latest question. I can see that clearly it won't help anything for me to post any more on this thread, so I won't answer any more questions here -- and I certainly won't bother doing any canvassing.

@confocaloid, I would just again strongly advise you to find a "touchstone", very soon -- someone in the community who you can trust to give you an honest independent opinion, about whether or not the rest of the community wants you continue these kinds of arguments. Sokwe and I and others have told you several times now that it's high time for you to disengage, calm down, and stop breaking rule 1a. You clearly don't trust us to make that judgment, for whatever reason -- so please find someone you do trust, and ask them what you should do, and listen to the answer.

[confocaloid]

[...] someone in the community who you can trust to give you an honest independent opinion, about whether or not the rest of the community wants [...]

As I already wrote before (both in this dispute, and in previous our terminology disagreements), no single person can speak for the entire community. Not even a long-term member. Hence your suggestion reads as an inherently bad advice.

What would be reasonable (both in this dispute, and in other terminology disputes -- condition vs. transition, dependent reflectors, communication of information, etc.) is to let people discuss the matter. Instead, you consistently assumed that you can "speak for the community" in all these discussions. This is unfortunate, because it was a major cause that prevented the actual discussion from taking place.

[C28]

[...] someone in the community who you can trust to give you an honest independent opinion, about whether or not the rest of the community wants [...]

As I already wrote before (both in this dispute, and in previous our terminology disagreements), no single person can speak for the entire community. Not even a long-term member. Hence your suggestion reads as an inherently bad advice.

i think dvgrn meant someone who could "take the temperature" of the community on the matter at hand and give you an idea of the results so you could make a more informed desicision, not someone to act as a "representative" of the community to "decide" the matter by themselves.

[confocaloid]

[...] someone in the community who you can trust to give you an honest independent opinion, about whether or not the rest of the community wants [...]

As I already wrote before (both in this dispute, and in previous our terminology disagreements), no single person can speak for the entire community. Not even a long-term member. Hence your suggestion reads as an inherently bad advice.

i think dvgrn meant someone who could "take the temperature" of the community on the matter at hand and give you an idea of the results so you could make a more informed desicision, not someone to act as a "representative" of the community to "decide" the matter by themselves.

I'm not sure what you mean by making a more informed decision.

I can make up my mind on the questions which were supposed to be discussed in this thread. For that, I do not need to know what other people think about the issue. I do not need to know whether or not there is a general agreement on the matter. My position on the naming of the rule B36/S245 does not depend on what others think about this, and does not depend on whether or not there is a general agreement on the issue.

Generally, any discussion thread about some particular issue (for example, this forum thread about the naming of the rule OCA:B36/S245) provides the exact place where people who have some opinion on the matter can attempt to explain their own opinion.
Not making premature assertions about "general agreement" that cannot yet be visible at this point.
Not trying to "take the temperature".
Just explaining one's own opinion.

My take on the issue which was supposed to be discussed in this thread:

• 'logarithmic replicator rule' is the only name of the rule B36/S245 in common use. This name may not accurately describe the growth of the replicator, but that does not make it a bad name, and that does not contradict its commonness. This name was used for many years by many people, and reached pages outside this website. Hence it should remain in the article for all LifeWiki readers knowing the rule by its common name and looking for what is known about it.
• The new name was invented in late September of this year, and was pushed by the same person without consensus (or even any previous discussion of the issue, for that matter) in a LifeWiki edit war and in this merge request (October 1, 2023).
• Currently the article contains an assertion that the name 'logarithmic replicator rule' is inaccurate, but there is no explanation. The article lacks an answer to the question "Why the common name 'logarithmic replicator rule' is believed to be inaccurate?"
• The article needs cleanup and expansion. There should be a readable explanation written for readers, answering the question "Why the common name 'logarithmic replicator rule' is believed to be inaccurate?"
  The section on growth bounds needs cleanup and a clarification how it is related to the renaming of the rule.

[C28]

I'm not sure what you mean by making a more informed decision.

I can make up my mind on the questions which were supposed to be discussed in this thread. For that, I do not need to know what other people think about the issue. I do not need to know whether or not there is a general agreement on the matter. My position on the naming of the rule B36/S245 does not depend on what others think about this, and does not depend on whether or not there is a general agreement on the issue.

Generally, any discussion thread about some particular issue (for example, this forum thread about the naming of the rule OCA:B36/S245) provides the exact place where people who have some opinion on the matter can attempt to explain their own opinion.
Not making premature assertions about "general agreement" that cannot yet be visible at this point.
Not trying to "take the temperature".
Just explaining one's own opinion.

i can understand that, but i think you should try to understand that it's the way you are acting upon your opinions is what's extending the life of this fight. you act as though you viewpoints and decisions are valuable military assets to be defended from any attack, real or otherwise, with the result that you end up sending missile after missile of anger dressed up as "debate".

[confocaloid]

Now, note that my previous post used words and phrases 'discussion', 'article', 'post', 'thread', 'clarification', etc.
While your post uses words and phrases 'fight', 'assets', 'attack', 'missile', etc.

It is not me here who is trying to avoid/prevent the actual discussion of the actual issues.

[C28]

Now, note that my previous post used words and phrases 'discussion', 'article', 'post', 'thread', 'clarification', etc.
While your post uses words and phrases 'fight', 'assets', 'attack', 'missile', etc.

It is not me here who is trying to avoid/prevent the actual discussion of the actual issues.

1) you are pulling the words out of context (which, confusingly, is similar to what you accuse others of doing)
2) how else am i to describe it when the person on the other side seems to be refusing to accept that other people can differing opinions? (I'm open to tips, just please don't try to sneak in anything passive-aggressive.)

[confocaloid]

1) you are pulling the words out of context (which, confusingly, is similar to what you accuse others of doing)

My point is that you're using words and phrases that reflect how you see this forum thread (which was actually supposed to be a place to discuss the naming and content of the article OCA:B36/S245).

2) how else am i to describe it when the person on the other side seems to be refusing to accept that other people can differing opinions? (I'm open to tips, just please don't try to sneak in anything passive-aggressive.)

I understand very well and accept that other people can and often do have differing opinions.
However, note that your recent posts here (and my replies to those posts) are entirely off-topic in this thread. You're not saying anything about the LifeWiki article about the logarithmic replicator rule, in a forum thread that was created for discussion of that topic.

[C28]

wait would it be possible to do a poll so the community as a whole could decide on the issues concerning the name of the page instead of getting nowhere with all of this bickering?

[confocaloid]

wait would it be possible to do a poll so the community as a whole could decide on the issues concerning the name of the page instead of getting nowhere with all of this bickering?

The Life/CA community is much larger than the few people who are currently active on the forums. Hence the poll won't solve the issue.

Further, a poll can never replace the actual discussion where people explain their opinions, instead of just saying yes or no.

Short version: you could, but it cannot solve the issue.

[confocaloid]

I think all posts starting from viewtopic.php?p=173392#p173392 and to this post should be moved to Sandbox (Thread for your miscellaneous posts and discussions). These posts are offtopic in a discussion thread about the naming and content of a LifeWiki article about a rule.

[C28]

The Life/CA community is much larger than the few people who are currently active on the forums. Hence the poll won't solve the issue.

Further, a poll can never replace the actual discussion where people explain their opinions, instead of just saying yes or no.

Short version: you could, but it cannot solve the issue.

While the problems are a concern and aren't likely to be solved, it's one of the better courses of action to take compared to than trying to use logic and reasoning, which has proven to be nothing but a quagmire.

[confocaloid]

C28, your recent posts here are off-topic. This thread is for discussion of the content and naming of the LifeWiki article about the rule B36/S245. If you don't have an opinion on this, or if you don't want to post on the matter yourself, then please do not fill the thread with unrelated discussion.

The wiki works via gradual editing and discussion. Polls cannot create consensus, and polls cannot replace an actual discussion where people explain their opinions.
In this case, the issues have to do with content of the article (in particular it is likely that the article needs cleanup and expansion). This cannot be solved by a poll.

[Haycat2009]

Honestly I do not know HOW I ended up on the receiving end of the missile every time, dressed as discussion. The powerful admins have already decreed that B36/S245 is Sqrt rep rule, and we are in no position to change that. Discussion time is over. The Admins have decided, so this bickering is not going to yield any results. We need clarification, trust and most of all peace!

[confocaloid]

The problem is that the content of the article does not explain adequately why the rule was renamed, and does not explain adequately how the new name is related to the behaviour of the rule/patterns in the rule. The article needs cleanup and clarification. This issue is left unresolved.

Discussion time is over.

Trying to shut down the discussion before it actually happened does not solve the underlying issues.

In particular the problems with content were never adequately discussed. And roughly half of posts here so far are offtopic/not productive.

My take on the issue which was supposed to be discussed in this thread:

• 'logarithmic replicator rule' is the only name of the rule B36/S245 in common use. This name may not accurately describe the growth of the replicator, but that does not make it a bad name, and that does not contradict its commonness. This name was used for many years by many people, and reached pages outside this website. Hence it should remain in the article for all LifeWiki readers knowing the rule by its common name and looking for what is known about it.
• The new name was invented in late September of this year, and was pushed by the same person without consensus (or even any previous discussion of the issue, for that matter) in a LifeWiki edit war and in this merge request (October 1, 2023).
• Currently the article contains an assertion that the name 'logarithmic replicator rule' is inaccurate, but there is no explanation. The article lacks an answer to the question "Why the common name 'logarithmic replicator rule' is believed to be inaccurate?"
• The article needs cleanup and expansion. There should be a readable explanation written for readers, answering the question "Why the common name 'logarithmic replicator rule' is believed to be inaccurate?"
  The section on growth bounds needs cleanup and a clarification how it is related to the renaming of the rule.

[Haycat2009]

Trying to shut down the discussion before it actually happened does not solve the underlying issues.

It has happened. I saw the posts. We need to put a full stop to this, for the love of peace and self-preservation. Period.

[confocaloid]

The actual discussion did not happen. In particular, the problems with content were never adequately discussed, and roughly half of posts here so far are offtopic/not productive.

In addition, there's no adequate explanation of how your "discussion-time-over" posts actually contribute to discussion (and/or) to "peace and self-preservation". The answer is probably that they don't. Obviously you cannot decide yourself what are opinions of people who did not yet post anything on this issue.

The best discussions don't have a definite time limit / "deadline" and are left open for as long as people want to contribute something. Trying to "speed up" discussions artificially and sweeping unresolved problems under the rug does not contribute to any of aims you enumerated.

[dvgrn]

... roughly half of posts here so far are offtopic/not productive.

Unfortunately meta-discussion -- discussions about the discussion -- does tend to happen far too much. The thing is, labeling previous posts as "offtopic/not productive" is also meta-discussion, and so it could possibly also be accused of being off-topic/not productive -- just like this paragraph I'm writing, which amounts to meta-meta-discussion.

So far it doesn't seem as if anyone wants to discuss the name of the sqrt replicator rule any further in this LifeWiki discussion thread. That being the case, this thread is actually a pretty good place to put meta-discussion along the lines of confocaloid's post above, and this post of mine that answers that post.

It will save moderators some time if nobody bothers to report either of these posts to label them as off-topic or non-productive. I hope people can also avoid saying anything more like that here in this thread. These posts might actually be very productive -- if we can use this occasion to agree on some key points about how things are going to work in the future.

The best discussions don't have a definite time limit / "deadline" and are left open for as long as people want to contribute something. Trying to "speed up" discussions artificially and sweeping unresolved problems under the rug does not contribute to any of aims you enumerated.

An important detail here is that executive decisions are not necessarily intended to either speed up or shut down discussion. They won't necessarily have that effect -- once people understand their potentially temporary nature, and how they'll be used in the future.

They're intended to focus discussion, and to make sure that what happens right after an executive decision is discussion, and not edit-warring. They're a mechanism to avoid edit wars. Hopefully they'll never actually be needed again, because nobody will bother engaging in an edit war again, now that we have the first couple of steps of LW:DR to remind everybody how to avoid them!

However, executive decisions are one possible tool in the admin/mod team's toolkit, as per LW:DR rules, and may they occasionally be used in the future, if edit wars do keep happening. They might help avoid useless arguments that would otherwise go on and on without getting anywhere -- but they won't stop useful discussion, and they don't create or enforce any kind of time limit on that discussion.