Code: Select all
x = 16, y = 12, rule = B3/S23
2o2b2o4b2ob2o$ob2obo4bobobo6$6bo$7o3b2o2b2o$o10bo2bo$o3bo6bo2bo$5o7b2o
!
Code: Select all
x = 16, y = 12, rule = B3/S23
2o2b2o4b2ob2o$ob2obo4bobobo6$6bo$7o3b2o2b2o$o10bo2bo$o3bo6bo2bo$5o7b2o
!
Code: Select all
x = 5, y = 3, rule = B3/S23
o3bo$bobo$obobo!
Code: Select all
x = 7, y = 3, rule = B3/S23
bo3bo$obobobo$bobobo!
Code: Select all
x = 6, y = 2, rule = B3/S23
2ob3o$2o2bo!
Code: Select all
x = 34, y = 16, rule = B3/S23
4b2o2b2o14b2o2b2o$2o3bo2bo3b2o6b2o3bo2bo3b2o$o2bo6bo2bo6bo2bo6bo2bo$2b
3o4b3o10b3o4b3o$6b2o18b2o$4b2o2b2o14b2o2b2o$3bo2b2o2bo12bo2b2o2bo$4b2o
2b2o14b2o2b2o$6b2o18b2o$4bo4bo14bo4bo$4b6o14b6o2$4b2ob3o14b2ob3o$4b2o
2bo2bo12b2o2bo$10b2o18bo$29b2o!
Code: Select all
x = 21, y = 8, rule = B3/S23
7b2o10b2o$o2bobo2bo3bo2bobo2bo$4ob3o4b4ob3o2$2ob3o6b2ob3o$2o2bo7b2o2bo
2bo$6bo11b2o$5b2o!
Code: Select all
x = 21, y = 7, rule = B3/S23
3bo$2b3o5b3o3b2ob2o$bo3bo3bobobo3bobo$2o3b2ob2o3b2o3bo$bo3bo3bo3bo4bo$
2b3o5b3o4bobo$3bo7bo4b2ob2o!
Code: Select all
x = 6, y = 3, rule = B3/S23
2b2o$2o2b2o$o4bo!
Code: Select all
x = 7, y = 5, rule = B3/S23
bo3bo$2o3b2o$bo3bo$2b3o$3bo!
Code: Select all
x = 16, y = 6, rule = LifeHistory
2.A$.3A$A3.A6.A3.A$A3.A6.2A.2A$.3A9.A$2.A!
It is true that 2*5 is the smallest but there are actually 1024 possible patterns in a 2*5 bounding box.wwei23 wrote:I think that you are completely right. It can easily be shown that 2 by 5 is the smallest counterexample-there are only 512+256+64+4=836 patterns to search, easy-even by hand!
True, but some can be easily shown to be unfeasible even before evaluation. Not all the patterns need to be looked at.gmc_nxtman wrote:It is true that 2*5 is the smallest but there are actually 1024 possible patterns in a 2*5 bounding box.wwei23 wrote:I think that you are completely right. It can easily be shown that 2 by 5 is the smallest counterexample-there are only 512+256+64+4=836 patterns to search, easy-even by hand!
Code: Select all
x = 25, y = 6, rule = LifeHistory
5A5.5A5.5A$A3.A5.A3.A5.A3.A$A3.A5.A3.A5.A3.A$5A5.A3.A5.A3.A$10.5A5.A
3.A$20.5A!
Code: Select all
x = 5, y = 7, rule = LifeHistory
5A$ABDBA$AB.BA$A3.A$AB.BA$ABDBA$5A!
Code: Select all
x = 8, y = 8, rule = B3/S23
4bo$3bobo$b3obo$o4b2o$b2o4bo$2bob3o$2bobo$3bo!
Code: Select all
x = 6, y = 9, rule = B3/S23
5bo$3b3o$2bo$o2bo$4o2$3o$o2bo$2b2o!
Code: Select all
x = 37, y = 6, rule = B3/S23
o2bo6bo3bo5bo4bo4bo5bo$4o6b5o5b6o4b7o3$4o6b5o5b6o4b7o$o2bo6bo3bo5bo4bo
4bo5bo!
I think the original definition is more subtle than that. It seems as if it would be okay for living cells in a candidate counterexample to die at T=1. There just has to be a way to save each such individual cell from dying, by placing neighbor cells outside the boundary of the candidate pattern.wwei23 wrote:My interpretation is "no living cells die at the next generation."