The Hunt for a Tiny Diagonal Spaceship (Unsuccessful)

[Alexey_Nigin]

The bug is fixed in version 0.4. Happy searching!

[drc]

Finished #144 and #248 with only the result below.

CopperSearch version 0.4 ran with parameters 'd 144/256' and found the following patterns:

(0,0)c/10:

Code: Select all

........*.
.......***
....***.*.
......*..*
..*.**...*
..*.*.***.
..**.*....
.*...*....
***..*....
.*.**.....

Total: 1 patterns

#248 had nothing

I'll take #249-256

[gameoflifeboy]

No results for #37 and #41.

CopperSearch version 0.2 ran with parameters 'd 37/256' and found the following patterns:

Total: 0 patterns

CopperSearch version 0.2 ran with parameters 'd 41/256' and found the following patterns:

Total: 0 patterns

I'll try v0.4 on the same parts.

EDIT: I finished my v0.4 search and still nothing is found.

[dsmiller]

My search of #99 with version 0.2 is complete, with the only result another P5/P2 combination (octagon 2 and beacon, this time):

Code: Select all

......**..
.....**.**
....**...*
...**..**.
..**....*.
.**...*...
**...*....
*..*......
.*.**.....
.**.......

I will start #100 with version 0.4, then continue with #90 through #97.

[skomick]

#7 through #10 complete, no results. I'll do #11 through #20.

[Alexey_Nigin]

Firstly, thank you all.

Secondly, given the abundance of octagon 2 + some p2 combinations, you are not required to report them any more.

[Hdjensofjfnen]

Damn it!!!

OK, my computer BSOD'd, so starting the search again using 0.4, which apparently is faster, as Alexey claims. I hope.

[biggiemac]

Claiming 64-67 now. Thanks for v0.4!

[Hdjensofjfnen]

I call #160 and #216!

(I changed my mind about only doing one. This is fun!)

Also, 1/8 of the way into #101. No results.

[Hdjensofjfnen]

Update:

1/4 of the way into #101. Still no results.

[ygh]

57 here.

[biggiemac]

I'll preemptively claim 112-119 and 224-231 for once 64-67 are done. v0.4 is much faster!

Edit: to make sure I understand before I do this, if I set up 2 instances with d 14/32 and d 28/32, that covers the above search space, correct? If so, I will also claim 192-199 and 200-207.

Edit2: 64-67 finished, just a single octagon+blinkers to report, nothing more exciting.
I would like confirmation before I set up each of "search d {14,24,25,28}/32"

[Hdjensofjfnen]

Update:
#101 finished, one result found. Oddly, it evolves into a beacon and octagon, just like dsmiller's #99 find!

Code: Select all

6b2o2b$5b2ob2o$4b2o3bo$3b2o2b2ob$2b2o4bob$b2o4bo2b$2o8b$o2bobo4b$bob2o5b$b2o7b!

#160 and #216 both came back empty-handed.

[codeholic]

Are you sure you posted the correct RLE? It has no symmetry. Also please don't abuse "viewer" tag, "code" is enough.

[ygh]

Nothing found for #57.

[Bullet51]

#79 finished, no results.

EDIT: And so does #171.

#174 and #175 are added to my list.

EDIT: Added #176.

[Hdjensofjfnen]

Taking #192!

A lot of people like doing low-tech searches, don't they?

My computer can currently handle about 6380 sps, so doing this takes about an hour. Thus, I'll be doing a lot of these.

[Bullet51]

#176 complete. It seems that the C version of Coppersearch is the fastest. Thanks simeks!

[simeks]

#176 complete. It seems that the C version of Coppersearch is the fastest. Thanks simeks!

I posted a preview of a reimplementation here, but please remember that results from running that version are not conclusive unless Alexey_Nigin says so!

[biggiemac]

I have started 112-119, 192-199, 200-207, and 224-231 via (x/8)/32 where x is start value. Please please let me know if this is going to give different results than I expected. I want to be able to leave my computer alone for a longish time.

[Bullet51]

#177-#184 complete.

[drc]

I like how #173-#247 is barren except for one that Hdjensofjfnen is searching

[simeks]

I have started 112-119, 192-199, 200-207, and 224-231 via (x/8)/32 where x is start value. Please please let me know if this is going to give different results than I expected. I want to be able to leave my computer alone for a longish time.

Because parts go from 1 to Max, not from 0 to (Max - 1), I don't think that could be correct.
The first one you're suggesting would be "14/32", but there are 13 32-parts before that, corresponding to 104 256-parts, so 14/32 would correspond to 105-112/256 if I understand it correctly.

[Bullet51]

Now I am searching #17-32, #145-160 and #241-256.

[biggiemac]

I have started 112-119, 192-199, 200-207, and 224-231 via (x/8)/32 where x is start value. Please please let me know if this is going to give different results than I expected. I want to be able to leave my computer alone for a longish time.

Because parts go from 1 to Max, not from 0 to (Max - 1), I don't think that could be correct.
The first one you're suggesting would be "14/32", but there are 13 32-parts before that, corresponding to 104 256-parts, so 14/32 would correspond to 105-112/256 if I understand it correctly.

Oh right, these are labelled indexing from 1. Thanks for catching that. Well, fortunately if I shift everything down by 7 it's still unclaimed territory. So I guess what I am running is 105-112, 185-200, and 217-224. Unless there are further shenanigans afoot.