Thread for basic non-CGOL questions

[eRroR_6o6]

Is B45678/S2345 omniperiodic?

[CasperWen8805181]

What's this considered? An extensible puffer?

Code: Select all

x = 243, y = 25, rule = B2i3aij4a/S234i
233b2o$233b2o$201b2o3b2o29b2o$201b2o3b2o28bobo$39b2o3b2o188bo2bo$39b2o
3b2o152b2ob2o4bo26b3o4b2o$174b2o22b2ob2o3bobo7b2o23b2o$3bo9bo25bo4b2o
b2o125b2o30bo2bob2o3b2o3b2o3b2o3b2o3b2o$b2ob2o5b2ob2o7bo9bo4bobo3b2ob
2o123b2o19bo13b2o2b2o8b2o3b2o3b2o3b2o$o5bo3bo5bo4b2ob2o5b2ob2o2bobo131b
2o17b2ob2o$20bo5bo3bo5bo2bo13bo136bo5bo2b2o$obobobo3bobobobo34b2ob2o125b
2o16b2o$bo3bo5bo3bo4bobobobo3bobobobo9b2o2bo5bo124b2o7bobobobo$21bo3b
o5bo3bo10b2o25bo19bo97bo3bo12b2o$50bobobobo14b2ob2o15b2ob2o78bo33b2o$
37b2o12bo3bo14bo5bo13bo5bo76bobo30b2o$37b2o134bobo3b2ob2o22b2o$39b2o29b
obobobo13bobobobo26bo39bo10bo4b2ob2o$39b2o30bo3bo15bo3bo10b2o13b2ob2o
35b2ob2o$106b2o12bo5bo16bo16bo5bo7b2o3b2o$141b2ob2o28b2o3b2o$120bobob
obo13bo5bo13bobobobo$121bo3bo35bo3bo$140bobobobo$141bo3bo!

[confocaloid]

I think an "extensible puffer" would be some kind of puffer which can be extended (into a different puffer) by adding some kind of repeating component, but doesn't "extend itself" and is otherwise your typical puffer.

What's this considered? An extensible puffer?

Code: Select all

x = 243, y = 25, rule = B2i3aij4a/S234i
233b2o$233b2o$201b2o3b2o29b2o$201b2o3b2o28bobo$39b2o3b2o188bo2bo$39b2o
3b2o152b2ob2o4bo26b3o4b2o$174b2o22b2ob2o3bobo7b2o23b2o$3bo9bo25bo4b2o
b2o125b2o30bo2bob2o3b2o3b2o3b2o3b2o3b2o$b2ob2o5b2ob2o7bo9bo4bobo3b2ob
2o123b2o19bo13b2o2b2o8b2o3b2o3b2o3b2o$o5bo3bo5bo4b2ob2o5b2ob2o2bobo131b
2o17b2ob2o$20bo5bo3bo5bo2bo13bo136bo5bo2b2o$obobobo3bobobobo34b2ob2o125b
2o16b2o$bo3bo5bo3bo4bobobobo3bobobobo9b2o2bo5bo124b2o7bobobobo$21bo3b
o5bo3bo10b2o25bo19bo97bo3bo12b2o$50bobobobo14b2ob2o15b2ob2o78bo33b2o$
37b2o12bo3bo14bo5bo13bo5bo76bobo30b2o$37b2o134bobo3b2ob2o22b2o$39b2o29b
obobobo13bobobobo26bo39bo10bo4b2ob2o$39b2o30bo3bo15bo3bo10b2o13b2ob2o
35b2ob2o$106b2o12bo5bo16bo16bo5bo7b2o3b2o$141b2ob2o28b2o3b2o$120bobob
obo13bo5bo13bobobobo$121bo3bo35bo3bo$140bobobobo$141bo3bo!

That is not a puffer. It is a growing pattern with several identifiable parts.

The non-repeating part on the right looks arbitrary (probably left from some manual experiments, or evolved from some initial seed):

Code: Select all

x = 317, y = 33, rule = B2i3aij4a/S234i
73b2o8b2o5b2ob2o$73b2o3b2o3b2o5bo2bo$61bo7b2o7b2o11b2o2b2o$60bobo6b2o
24b2o$37b2o22b2o37b2o205b2o$37b2o34b2o25b2o3b2o3b2o195b2o$41b2o30b2o
30b2o3b2o163b2o3b2o29b2o$40bobo232b2o3b2o28bobo$38bo2bo71b2o3b2o188bo
2bo$38b3o4b2o10bo55b2o3b2o152b2ob2o4bo26b3o4b2o$2ob2o9bo15b2o13b2o10bo
190b2o22b2ob2o3bobo7b2o23b2o$o2bo10bo15b2o3b2o3b2o15bo7b2o46bo4b2ob2o
125b2o30bo2bob2o3b2o3b2o3b2o3b2o3b2o$b2o2b2o3b2o2bo10b2o8b2o3b2o24bo
45bobo3b2ob2o22b2o45b2o52b2o33b2o2b2o8b2o3b2o3b2o3b2o$5b2o3b2o8b2o3b2o
2bo33bo48bobo30b2o45b2o52b2o$15b2o3b2o7bo33b2o48bo33b2o41b2o74b2o5b2o$
15b2o12bo117b2o41b2o63b2o8bo2b2o3b2o$120b2o5b2o126b2o8b2ob2o$55b2o63b
2o3b2o2bo8b2o142b2o$55b2o68b2ob2o8b2o58b2o48bo33b2o$57b2o52b2o85bo48bo
bo30b2o$57b2o52b2o33b2o2b2o8b2o3b2o3b2o3b2o24bo45bobo3b2ob2o22b2o$113b
2o30bo2bob2o3b2o3b2o3b2o3b2o3b2o15bo7b2o46bo4b2ob2o$113b2o22b2ob2o3bob
o7b2o23b2o10bo$137b2ob2o4bo26b3o4b2o10bo55b2o3b2o$173bo2bo71b2o3b2o$
140b2o3b2o28bobo$140b2o3b2o29b2o30b2o30b2o3b2o$172b2o34b2o25b2o3b2o3b
2o$172b2o22b2o37b2o$195bobo6b2o24b2o$196bo7b2o7b2o11b2o2b2o$208b2o3b2o
3b2o5bo2bo$208b2o8b2o5b2ob2o!

The stationary part grows by making copies of the following constellation:

Code: Select all

x = 142, y = 25, rule = B2i3aij4a/S234i
138b2o$138bo$141bo$130b2o8b2o$130b2o2b2o$133bobo$132bo$128b2o2b6o$129b
o7bo$118bo7bo7b2o$7b2o8b2o63b2o13b2o3b2o3b2o3b2o3bobo6b2ob3o2b2o2b2o$
7b2o3b2o3b2o3b2o3b2o3b2o3b2ob2o25b2o13b2o8b2o3b2o3b2o3b2o3b2o3b2o10bo
2bo5b2o$12b2o8b2o3b2o3b2o3bo2bo9b3o14b2o3b2o3b2o13b2o32b2o3b2o$38b2o2b
2o3b2o13b2o8b2o3b2o44b2ob2o$42b2o3b2o8b2o3b2o60bo$52b2o3b2o6b3o54bobo$
52b2o68b2o$2o114b2o19b2o$2o114bo4b2o15bo$119bob2o12bo$118b2o8b3o4b2o2$
126bo$126bo$126bo!

The moving part is a wick growing in one direction. Here is a seed that grows in two directions:

Code: Select all

x = 15, y = 4, rule = B2i3aij4a/S234i
b3o$o3bo6b3o$2ob2o5bo3bo$10b2ob2o!

And this is a replicator, but that was already known:

Code: Select all

x = 5, y = 3, rule = B2i3aij4a/S234i
b3o$o3bo$2ob2o!

[CasperWen8805181]

And this is a replicator, but that was already known:

Code: Select all

x = 5, y = 3, rule = B2i3aij4a/S234i
b3o$o3bo$2ob2o!

I kinda think it's an oscillating wickstrecher that comes with a burner now.

[CasperWen8805181]

And this is a replicator, but that was already known:

Code: Select all

x = 5, y = 3, rule = B2i3aij4a/S234i
b3o$o3bo$2ob2o!

I kinda think it's an oscillating wickstrecher that comes with a burner now.

Found this crazy thing in the rule +S5k

Code: Select all

x = 25, y = 26, rule = B2i3aij4a/S234i5k
10bo$9b3o$8bo2bo2bo$8b2o3b3o$13bo2bo$5b3ob2o4b2o$5bo4b2o$5b6o3b2ob2o$
13b2o2bo$6b2o2b2o2b3o2b3o$4bo2bo3bo6bo$4b2o2b4ob2o3b2o3bo$6bo6bo2bo6b
o$bo3b2o3b2ob7o3bo$obo5bo2bo10bo$o2bo3b5ob2o2b2o3bo$b2o10bo3bo$6b2o2b
2ob4o2b3o$4bo2bo3bo6bo$4b2o2b4ob2o3b2o3bo$6bo6bo2bo5bobo$bo3b2o3b2ob5o
3bo2bo$obo5bo2bo10b2o$o2bo3b5ob2o2b2o$b2o10bo3bo2bo$6b2o2b2ob4o2b2o!

[confocaloid]

[...] An extensible puffer? [...]

Here is an extensible puffer in Borogoves:

Code: Select all

x = 13, y = 86, rule = B3aij/S2-i3-ac4-ajnwy5-y
3b2o$4b3o$6b2o$6bobo$8b2o$7b2o2$2o3b3o$o2bobo2b2o$2b2o5bo$7b3o2$8b2o$
9b2o$6bob2o$6b3o15$3b2o$4b3o$6b2o$6bobo$8b2o$7b2o2$2o3b3o$o2bobo2b2o$
2b2o5bo$7b3o2$b2o3b3o$bo2bobo2b2o$3b2o5bo$8b3o2$9b2o$10b2o$7bob2o$7b3o
10$3b2o$4b3o$6b2o$6bobo$8b2o$7b2o2$2o3b3o$o2bobo2b2o$2b2o5bo$7b3o2$b2o
3b3o$bo2bobo2b2o$3b2o5bo$8b3o2$2b2o3b3o$2bo2bobo2b2o$4b2o5bo$9b3o2$10b
2o$11b2o$8bob2o$8b3o!

[CasperWen8805181]

[...] An extensible puffer? [...]

Here is an extensible puffer in Borogoves:

Code: Select all

x = 13, y = 86, rule = B3aij/S2-i3-ac4-ajnwy5-y
3b2o$4b3o$6b2o$6bobo$8b2o$7b2o2$2o3b3o$o2bobo2b2o$2b2o5bo$7b3o2$8b2o$
9b2o$6bob2o$6b3o15$3b2o$4b3o$6b2o$6bobo$8b2o$7b2o2$2o3b3o$o2bobo2b2o$
2b2o5bo$7b3o2$b2o3b3o$bo2bobo2b2o$3b2o5bo$8b3o2$9b2o$10b2o$7bob2o$7b3o
10$3b2o$4b3o$6b2o$6bobo$8b2o$7b2o2$2o3b3o$o2bobo2b2o$2b2o5bo$7b3o2$b2o
3b3o$bo2bobo2b2o$3b2o5bo$8b3o2$2b2o3b3o$2bo2bobo2b2o$4b2o5bo$9b3o2$10b
2o$11b2o$8bob2o$8b3o!

Yeah, I was thinking extensible lengthwise.
Ummm...

Code: Select all

x = 3, y = 3, rule = B2ei3aij4a/S235k
3o$o$obo!

[muzik]

Why is it that parity rules where the number of copies is equal to (or a perfect power of) the number of states ends up behaving in a different way that's kind of hard to describe?

Here's a replicator rule in which any pattern becomes a 4x4 grid of copies. Notice, however, that unlike what you traditionally see (everything's a scramble until it hits that power of two, in which case everything magically annihilates and you're left with clean copies spaced out), the annihilation happens before that point, and everything getting into position happens after that as a result of subsequent evolution.

Code: Select all

x = 1, y = 1, rule = R3,C2,S1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15,B1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15,N@aa02a8154055
o!

In "normal" replicator rules, annihilation happens at generation 2^n, like can be seen in the following case, but in the above case it just doesn't - it instead happens at generation ((4^n - 1)/3)+1.

Code: Select all

x = 1, y = 1, rule = B1c2ak3ackjr4jnry5ackjr6ak7c/S1c2ak3ackjr4jnry5ackjr6ak7c
o!

This can be seen in higher state counts as well - here's three:

Code: Select all

x = 1, y = 1, rule = Fredkinmod3M-singlecell-center
o!

Again, everything becomes a grid of nine copies at generation 3^n, but the annihilation happens at generation ((3^n - 1)/2)+1 rather than the expected 3^n, like what the following pattern does:

Code: Select all

x = 1, y = 1, rule = Fredkinmod3vN-singlecell-nocenter
o!

This fact appears to be general - here's WolframAlpha pages for higher parity rules which follow this:
4 copies, mod 2
8 copies, mod 2
16 copies, mod 2
3 copies, mod 3
9 copies, mod 3
5 copies, mod 5
7 copies, mod 7

For comparison, some parity rules which don't, since the number of copies isn't a perfect power of the state count:
5 copies, mod 2
4 copies, mod 3
5 copies, mod 3
4 copies, mod 5

Note that the fractals generated by the ones with copies being a power of the state count tend to be Pascal triangle-sequences, whereas those where they aren't a perfect power tend to be much rougher.

[d/dx]

Is this known? (D&N)

Code: Select all

x = 44, y = 181, rule = B3678/S34678
14$18b4o$17bob2obo$17b6o$18b7o$19b6o$19b6o$17b7o$15b10o$15bob6obo$16b
5o2bo$17b4o$16b6o$15bob5o$16b7o$17b6o$17b7o$17b6o$17b6o$16b5o$16b4obo$
17b4o$17b5o$17b5o$17b6o$16b5obo$16b5o$17b3o$17b5o$17b7o$17b6o$16b6obo$
16b7o$17b4obobo$17b4obobo$17b6o$17b6o$16b6o$16b6o$17b5o$17b6o$17b6o$
17b6o$16b6obo$16b7o$17b6o$17b6o$17b5o$17b5o$16b6o$16b7o$17b6o$17b6o$
17b5obo$17b6o$16b7o$16b7o$17b5o$17b5o$17b5o$17b6o$16b7o$16b7o$17b5obo$
17b6o$17b6o$17b6o$16b6o$16b6o$17b5o$17b6o$17b6o$17b6o$16b6obo$16b7o$
17b6o$17b6o$17b5o$17b5o$16b6o$16b7o$17b6o$17b6o$17b5obo$17b6o$16b7o$
16b7o$17b5o$17b5o$17b5o$17b6o$16b7o$16b7o$17b5obo$17b6o$17b6o$17b6o$
16b6o$16b6o$17b5o$17b6o$17b6o$17b6o$16b6obo$16b7o$17b6o$17b6o$17b5o$
17b5o$16b6o$16b7o$17b6o$17b6o$17b5obo$17b6o$16b7o$16b7o$17b5o$17b5o$
17b5o$17b6o$16b7o$16b7o$17b5obo$17b6o$17b6o$17b6o$16b6o$16b6o$17b5o$
17b6o$17b6o$17b6o$16b6obo$16b7o$17b6o$17b6o$17b5o$17b5o$16b6o$16b7o$
17b6o$17b6o$17b5obo$17b6o$16b7o$16b7o$17b5o$17b5o$18b4o$18b5o$18b5o$
18b5o$19b3o$18b5o$18b2ob2o$20bo!

[d/dx]

I'm looking for a database of Wireworld patterns. Anything?

[confocaloid]

Questions like this belong to Thread for basic non-CGOL questions. Please do not create a new forum thread for every question or post. In most cases, it is better to post in an existing forum thread.

I'm looking for a database of Wireworld patterns. Anything?

"Patterns/WireWorld" in Goly's collection and OCA:WireWorld and links present there may suffice, depending on details (what you mean by a "database of patterns"?)

Sometimes you may need to look up an archived copy in Wayback Machine.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130805201 ... 24_04.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20040606062 ... world.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20110204063 ... world.html

[confocaloid]

Is there a strict still life in B/S012345678 other than the dot?

[b-engine]

Is there a strict still life in B/S012345678 other than the dot?

Every polyplet in the rule are strict still lifes. It you rather call them pseudo still life, this is like calling a boat tie a pseudo still life.

[confocaloid]

Is there a strict still life in B/S012345678 other than the dot?

Every polyplet in the rule are strict still lifes.

I doubt that that choice can be made consistent.

Consider the cellular automaton "S0-12,B" with the following neighbourhood (the neighbours of a cell are the 12 cells that are at Euclidean distance 5 from it):

Code: Select all

x = 11, y = 11, rule = R5,C0,S0-12,B,N@040411010000010080000080882020
5bo$2bo5bo$bo7bo3$o4bo4bo3$bo7bo$2bo5bo$5bo!

It seems plausible that each of the following patterns is a strict still life in that cellular automaton (because these patterns consist of two alive cells that are each other's neighbours):

Code: Select all

x = 6, y = 1, rule = R5,C0,S0-12,B,N@040411010000010080000080882020
o4bo!

Code: Select all

x = 5, y = 4, rule = R5,C0,S0-12,B,N@040411010000010080000080882020
o3$4bo!

Neither of those patterns is a strict still life in B/S012345678, though, since in each case the two dots are not in each other's range-1 Moore neighbourhood.
Conversely, the 2x1 domino is not a strict still life in the "S0-12,B Euclidean range 5" CA, because the two dots are not in each other's neighbourhood:

Code: Select all

x = 2, y = 1, rule = R5,C0,S0-12,B,N@040411010000010080000080882020
2o!

Yet it's obvious that both cellular automata are equivalent, if you only look at how patterns evolve.

I believe the most intuitive consistent way out of this puzzle is to say that the only strict still life in these CA rules is the dot.

It you rather call them pseudo still life, this is like calling a boat tie a pseudo still life.

Not necessarily. In the boat tie still life, alive cells are connected by jumping to neighbours using the same neighbourhood that is used in the CA rule (i.e. range-1 Moore neighbourhood).
In the B3/S23 case, which neighbourhood is used can be derived "from scratch" by observing differences in evolution of patterns.
That is not the case for B/S012345678, as no set of experiments with patterns can reveal unambiguously whether the neighbourhood is range-1 Moore, or range-1 von Neumann, or range-17 Moore; for every neighbourhood there's a cellular automaton equivalent to the Life-like rule B/S012345678.

Note also that there is no "block tie" still life in B3/S23, even though that would be a similar case. In contrast, every pattern is a (not necessarily strict) still life in B/S012345678.

Code: Select all

x = 4, y = 4, rule = B3/S234
2o$2o$2b2o$2b2o!

[b-engine]

I doubt that that choice can be made consistent.
...

To me, to decide whether a still life is strict of not, the neighborhood of the CA is also considered with the evolution of patterns, no matter what transitions are applied into the CA.
Even if there's no way to find the neighborhood of the CA like this by simulation, but I still consider B/S012345678 as Moore CA. Thus, I consider every polyplets as strict still lifes in the CA.

[confocaloid]

Even if there's no way to find the neighborhood of the CA like this by simulation, but I still consider B/S012345678 as Moore CA. Thus, I consider every polyplets as strict still lifes in the CA.

As an example of the problems this causes with (lack of) intuitiveness, I don't see a reason to assume a larger neighbourhood when a smaller would suffice. Range-1 von Neumann neighbourhood would suffice (rule B/S01234V). But that means diagonal lines of cells are not strict still lives anymore.
It would suffice to take just two cells (one to the left and one to the right) as the neighbourhood. But that means vertical dominoes are not strict still lives anymore.

Further, there is no intuitive reason whatsoever to include in the neighbourhood any cells, besides the middle cell.
The cellular automaton described by the rulestring B/S01234V is identical to the range-1 Moore cellular automaton described by the rulestring B/S012345678, and is an example of an inner-only totalistic cellular automaton, where a cell's state in the next generation is solely based on the state of the cell itself.
No transfer of information between different cells is possible in such a CA; hence there are no strict still lives other than the dot.

[C_R_116]

Even restricting to Life-like cellular automata (which this rule is not), there are 2^18 = 262144 of them.

Aren't there 263169 rules?
Rules with B0-8/S0-8 = 2^18 = 262144
Rules with B/S0-8 = 2^9 = 512
Rules with B0-8/S = 2^9 = 512
B/S = 1
Sum of life-like rules = 263169

Does "life-like" not include the absence of birth/survival?

[unname4798]

Even restricting to Life-like cellular automata (which this rule is not), there are 2^18 = 262144 of them.

Aren't there 263169 rules?
Rules with B0-8/S0-8 = 2^18 = 262144
Rules with B/S0-8 = 2^9 = 512
Rules with B0-8/S = 2^9 = 512
B/S = 1
Sum of life-like rules = 263169

Does "life-like" not include the absence of birth/survival?

Yes, it does include the absence of B and S.

[squareroot12621]

Even restricting to Life-like cellular automata (which this rule is not), there are 2^18 = 262144 of them.

Aren't there 263169 rules?
Rules with B0-8/S0-8 = 2^18 = 262144
Rules with B/S0-8 = 2^9 = 512
Rules with B0-8/S = 2^9 = 512
B/S = 1
Sum of life-like rules = 263169

Does "life-like" not include the absence of birth/survival?

No, it's just 2^18 = 262,144, since there are 18 choices for whether or not to include B0, B1, S7, etc. Rules without birth or survival are just missing a lot of those transitions...uh, conditions (and are also usually really boring).

[C_R_116]

Does "life-like" not include the absence of birth/survival?

No, it's just 2^18 = 262,144, since there are 18 choices for whether or not to include B0, B1, S7, etc. Rules without birth or survival are just missing a lot of those transitions...uh, conditions (and are also usually really boring).

So OCA:Seeds and OCA:Serviettes are NOT Life-like?

[squareroot12621]

Does "life-like" not include the absence of birth/survival?

No, it's just 2^18 = 262,144, since there are 18 choices for whether or not to include B0, B1, S7, etc. Rules without birth or survival are just missing a lot of those transitions...uh, conditions (and are also usually really boring).

So OCA:Seeds and OCA:Serviettes are NOT Life-like?

...
*sigh*
The 2^18 comes from having 18 choices (the transitions/conditions/however-confocaloid-wants-to-call-these-things), each with 2 options (in the rule or not). In a B/Sxxx or Bxxx/S rule, the part of the rule that doesn't have any transitions/conditions is just where someone chose all of those transitions/I'm-not-gonna-say-both-words-anymore to not be in the rule.
TL;DR: The rules without any birth or without any survival are being overcounted.

[confocaloid]

So OCA:Seeds and OCA:Serviettes are NOT Life-like?

Both Seeds and Serviettes are Life-like cellular automata (two-state CA on the square grid using range-1 Moore neighbourhood and using neighbour-counting birth/survival conditions).
Both of those CA are already counted in the number 2^18 = 262,144. Other Life-like CA with no birth and/or no survival are also already counted, and therefore adding them separately will result in overcounting.

Specifically, the number 18 is the total number of distinguishable living conditions that could be either included or excluded individually: the set { B0, B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8, S0, S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8 } has 18 members. The expression is 2^18 because there are two possible choices for every of those living conditions, and the choices are independent from each other.
In particular, Seeds (B2/S) is counted by choosing to include living condition B2 and exclude the other 17 conditions; Serviettes (B234/S) is counted by choosing to include B2, B3, B4 and exclude the other 15 conditions.

I'm-not-gonna-say-both-words-anymore

I think you're incorrectly attributing to me terminology that I did not contribute/invent (even though I do find that terminology much more clear and intuitive, compared to currently-common forum jargon). See for example these sources:
https://conwaylife.com/ref/mniemiec/liferule.htm
https://rejbrand.se/rejbrand/article.asp?ItemIndex=429
https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.1644
See also other quotes here:
viewtopic.php?p=171671#p171671

I also think many posts in these discussions incorrectly assume that the words and phrases in question are synonyms. If you take the time to read prior discussions and sources, it is fairly clear that the words and phrases have different meanings and are not synonymous with each other.

[hotdogPi]

Why is Serviettes even notable? Because it comes pre-packaged with Golly? That doesn't really seem like a good reason.

[confocaloid]

Why is Serviettes even notable? Because it comes pre-packaged with Golly? That doesn't really seem like a good reason.

"Because it is old" is actually a valid reason (even if maybe not a very good reason). There were some discussions of that particular rule; it appeared on various pages.
It's an old named Life-like CA that received significant attention in various discussions and sources. Having a wiki entry describing it and giving what is known about it is preferable, compared to hiding that information and letting people reinvent/rediscover it again and again, each time wondering if it's known and where to find more.

[Haycat2009]

What is the main factor in a rule’s notability - tech or evolution?