confocaloid wrote: ↑August 9th, 2023, 5:32 am
The usage of "signal" in the current definition (information carried by some moving object) is incompatible with the usage defended by dvgrn (a proposed synonym of "active object"). A
signal can be tracked past the point where the
active object cannot be tracked anymore.
Point of clarification: I'm definitely
not proposing "signal" as a synonym for "active object". It's very specifically "active object
moving through signal circuitry".
confocaloid wrote: ↑August 9th, 2023, 5:32 am
Mixing "active object" with "signal" increases confusion. The distinction is important and helpful, whenever you want to understand how things work.
Here again, "signal" is not a synonym for a generic "active object".
It seems at least equally confusing to try to say that an active object moving through signal circuitry may sometimes "carry a signal" and sometimes may not, depending entirely on context that may be arbitrarily far away from the circuitry in question.
The rule "if it's moving through signal circuitry, then it can be safely called a signal" is enormously simpler than a definition that requires an exhaustive analysis of a large structure to see if there are any dependent-reflector-type pieces anywhere. Terminology-wise, that just seems like a non-starter to me.
Also, it seems as if this signal/no-signal confusion can exist even without the potential presence of dependent reflectors.
The pattern below has ten perfectly good dvgrn-signals traveling through the loop. But if I'm understanding correctly, it has no confocaloid-signals in it at all: it's just a p100 oscillator, so the word "signal" shouldn't be used here:
Code:
Select all
x = 147, y = 148, rule = B3/S23
77b2o$76bobo$70b2o4bo$68bo2bo2b2ob4o$68b2obobobobo2bo$71bobobobo$71bob
ob2o$72bo2$85b2o$76b2o7bo$76b2o5bobo$83b2o5$66bo$66bobo$66b2o5b2o$74bo
$71b3o$71bo6$90b2o$90bobo$90bo12$41bo$41bobo$41b2o9$115b2o$115bobo$
115bo5$9bo$9b3o$12bo$11b2o3$3b2o$3bo12bo$2obo12bobo$o2b3o4b2o4b2o$b2o
3bo3b2o130bo$3b4o117b2o14b5o$3bo15b2o104bo13bo5bo$4b3o12bobo103bobo12b
3o2bo$7bo13bo104b2o15bob2o$2b5o14b2o117b4o2bo$bo2bo130b2o3bo3b2o$b2o
126b2o4b2o4b3o$128bobo12bo$130bo12bob2o$142b2ob2o3$134b2o$134bo$135b3o
$137bo5$31bo$29bobo$30b2o9$104b2o$103bobo$105bo12$56bo$54bobo$55b2o6$
75bo$73b3o$72bo$72b2o5b2o$78bobo$80bo5$62b2o$61bobo5b2o$61bo7b2o$60b2o
2$74bo$64b2o4b2obobo$63bo2bo2bobobobo$64b2o3bobobob2o$66b4ob2o2bo$66bo
3bo4bo$67bo2bob3o$68bobobo$69bo!
#C [[ THUMBNAIL THUMBSIZE 3 AUTOSTART Y -60 Z 10 ]]
However, this next pattern is a memory loop, which also contains ten dvgrn-signals, traveling through the loop just as happily as before. They're locally indistinguishable from the other ones, so it's nice and convenient that I get to call them the same thing.
Unlike the case above, I think that maybe the gliders below are also confocaloid-signals. The memory loop is emitting copies of the ten signals:
Code:
Select all
x = 135, y = 106, rule = B3/S23
75b2o$74bobo$68b2o4bo$66bo2bo2b2ob4o$66b2obobobobo2bo$69bobobobo$69bob
ob2o$70bo2$83b2o$74b2o7bo$74b2o5bobo$81b2o2$67bo$66bo$66b3o3$71b2o$72b
o$69b3o$69bo9$90b3o$90bo$91bo6$42bo$41bo$41b3o13$19bo$17b3o$16bo98b3o$
15bobo97bo$15bobo98bo$16bo57b2o3b2o$74b2o2bob3o47bo$78bo4bo28b2o14b5o$
74b4ob2o2bo29bo13bo5bo$74bo2bobobob2o28bobo12b3o2bo$2o15bo59bobobobo
30b2o15bob2o$2o14bo61b2obobo44b4o2bo$16b3o63bo40b2o3bo3b2o$123b2o4b3o$
68b2o61bo$20b2o47bo7b3o51bob2o$20bobo46bobo4bo3bo49b2ob2o$22bo17b2o11b
o16b2o3bo5bo$13b2o7b2o16b2o10bobo19bo3bo3bo$13b2o37bobo2b2o3bo3bo7bo2b
obo2bo39b2o$51b2ob2o2bo2bobo2b3o5bo3bo3bo39bo$3bob2o48bobo3bobo5bo5bo
5bo41b3o$b3ob2o44b2obo2b4obo5b2o6bo48bo$o50b2obobo3bo16bo3bo18bo$b3ob
2o48bobo3bo19bo16b3o$3b2o2bo48bobo3bo17bo16bo$6bobo48bo3b2o18b3o13b2o
5b3o$3b3obobo16bo56bo22bo$2bo2bo2bo5bobo7b3o78bo$bobobo7bo2bo6bo$obo2b
2o6bo2bo6b2o23b2o10b3o$obobo2bobo2bo3bo31b2o8b2ob2o$b2ob2o2b2o3bobo17b
2o23b2ob2o$14bo17bo2bo5bo17b2o26b2o$31bob2o6b2o43bobo5b2o$31bo8bobo43b
o7b2o$2b2o26b2o53b2o$3bo41b2o$3bobo39bo53bo$4b2o40b3o46b2obobo$48bo10b
2o33bobobobo$58bobo30bo2bobobob2o$58bo32b4ob2o2bo$57b2o15b2o2b2o15bo4b
o$73bobo3bo11b2o2bob3o$74bo3bo12b2o3b2o$77bo$78b3o$80bo2$18b2o$18b2o!
#C [[ THUMBNAIL THUMBSIZE 3 AUTOSTART X 10 Y -40 Z 10 ]]
Now, I'm definitely not speaking for confocaloid here. It seems possible to me that these gliders still aren't "really" confocaloid-signals, until some more structure is added to allow gliders to be added or subtracted from the memory loop. It's still just a p100 gun, really, pretty much the same as the oscillator.
Maybe just one faraway *WSS (or some such) is enough to make these cycling gliders into confocaloid-signals, if it eventually arrives and subtracts a glider from the memory loop. I'm not entirely sure -- and would really rather not have to worry about it. In a lot of the circuitry-building that I've done, the question of whether something is a confocaloid-signal or not is more of an irrelevant distraction than a useful terminological distinction.
It's not terribly
difficult to figure out whether any given piece of circuitry can carry zeroes and ones in an information-theory sense. It's just kind of a waste of time when what you're doing is building, say, pseudo-period guns.
When you're building things like pi calculators, of course, there's no question -- the active objects traveling around in that circuitry are definitely all signals by anyone's definition.