confocaloid wrote: ↑March 20th, 2024, 12:29 pm
The difference is that in the p42 oscillator
shown on the page, the phase containing wings doesn't contain any other parts of the hassled reaction. In particular, that phase doesn't contain temporary loaves (which appear at different time)...
Oops, sorry -- that was a very unlikely coincidence! I'm not sure where I got "p42" from, so it's very odd that it also happened to contain a temporary loaf. The transparent loaves I meant to point to are the ones in the
p37 wing hassler.
I definitely agree that the loaves in the p37 are transparent catalysts, whereas the ones in the p42 are just transient junk that happens to be shaped like a loaf for a short time.
It's not clear that there's any kind of good argument for labeling those four blocks in 68P16 as "transparent catalysts" -- but it's also not entirely clear yet (at least to me) exactly where the dividing line is. I have some vague recollection that there might be hasslers out there where there's a transparent catalyst around the edge somewhere, that successfully does the job of absorbing some very specific active reaction -- but where that exact reaction is very specific and isn't used anywhere else.
That's still going to be an "around the edge" transparent catalyst, probably interacting with just one copy of the active object (in cases where the hassler is working with multiple symmetric copies). In the 68p16, I think I wouldn't want to call the block a "transparent catalyst" when it's right in the middle of the action, being hit from two sides by the active reaction in two quadrants.
EDIT: The separate
68P16 article has had a "p16 wing hassler" alias in it since it was created on January 2, 2019. So rather than a simple revert for DroneBetter's edit, I think I should add a link to that article, saying something about why it's not exactly a wing hassler (as the article says, it's a hassler, but it hassles "four wings and four blocks".)
The new question is, should we remove the "(or p16 wing hassler)" from that article? Or at this point is that one of those names that's valid even though it isn't actually accurate? I haven't dug up any instances of anyone actually using "p16 wing hassler", so I'm thinking maybe it's still a good idea to remove that parenthetical alias.