Dependent Reflector Terminology and Analysis

[confocaloid]

As such, they could be considered to be evidence that this sense of "signal" is in common use.

(1) If LifeWiki is supposed to be a place for documenting commonly used terms, then the content of LifeWiki pages cannot be used as an "evidence" of commonness of those terms. The evidence would be external to LifeWiki.
(2) My edits (rewording to a non-controversial version) directly follow your suggestion. Since there is a disagreement on the uses and meanings of "signal", it makes sense to avoid further modifying LifeWiki to either add or remove uses of "signal", until the disagreement is resolved.

The LifeWiki's quality tends to suffer when it starts getting used to document the opinions of the most energetic editor, or the even the majority view in a contested issue. So I've asked for a pause in editing on this particular topic, until the disagreement gets sorted out.

[dvgrn]

(2) My edits (rewording to a non-controversial version) directly follow your suggestion. Since there is a disagreement on the uses and meanings of "signal", it makes sense to avoid further modifying LifeWiki to either add or remove uses of "signal", until the disagreement is resolved.

I can understand your point of view on this.

However, your edits did in fact modify LifeWiki to remove two uses of "signal", in a way that matches your personal preference. I haven't reverted your edits -- that would be an equally bad idea, a change in the direction of my personal preference! I'm just reminding you about my request.

Your rewording is not actually non-controversial. You've replaced a wording that I believe is specific, meaningful, and in keeping with current common usage, with a slightly longer and vaguer term that isn't quite as good (in my opinion, of course).

You cannot control everything that other people do on the LifeWiki. Many members of the community seem to strongly prefer to not get involved in this discussion. And some people will not necessarily even know about the request for a pause.

You can, however, control your own editing behavior, and I can control mine. My request stands. It was intended to apply only to you and me, as the only active LifeWiki editors who seem to be involved in this discussion. I can see why that might not have been clear to you, but hopefully it's clear now.

The LifeWiki's quality tends to suffer when it starts getting used to document the opinions of the most energetic editor, or the even the majority view in a contested issue. So I've asked for a pause in editing on this particular topic, until the disagreement gets sorted out.

[confocaloid]

Your rewording is not actually non-controversial. You've replaced a wording that I believe is specific, meaningful, and in keeping with current common usage, with a slightly longer and vaguer term that isn't quite as good (in my opinion, of course).

Both edits replaced "signal" with "object". The word "object" is not longer than "signal", and (I think) more common.
Hopefully there _is_ agreement that both dove and I-heptomino are objects.
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... did=133581
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... did=133580

[dvgrn]

Both edits replaced "signal" with "object". The word "object" is not longer than "signal", and (I think) more common.
Hopefully there _is_ agreement that both dove and I-heptomino are objects.
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... did=133581
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... did=133580

Sorry, my mistake. There have been a lot of changes and suggested changes recently. I was thinking that those edits were another case of "active object" getting used in preference to "signal".

Neither of us is really interested in length as a measure of the appropriateness of a term, so let's not continue along these lines. "Thing" would be a shorter and more general term than "object", but not an improvement.

The point I'm trying to get across here is that "active object" is a vague term that could apply to a lot of things that do not and cannot travel through signal circuitry. Pretty much every use of "signal" that you want to correct really does mean something more specific than "active object" -- and definitely more specific than just "object"!

This is why, in my view, your suggested changes are doing minor damage to the definitions -- by making them less specific, unnecessarily, with no benefit that I can see.

[confocaloid]

The point I'm trying to get across here is that "active object" is a vague term that could apply to a lot of things that do not and cannot travel through signal circuitry. Pretty much every use of "signal" that you want to correct really does mean something more specific than "active object" -- and definitely more specific than just "object"!

This is why, in my view, your suggested changes are doing minor damage to the definitions -- by making them less specific, unnecessarily, with no benefit that I can see.

I think "signal" is more vague than "object". "Object" in these cases will almost certainly refer to an arrangement of alive cells.

"Signal" might refer to a moving information carried by some object (as defined in Signal),
or it might refer (informally) to the object itself that carries some information,
or (according to your point of view, as far as I understand it) "signal" might refer to any moving object regardless of whether or not it is used to transmit information.

That means "signal" is ambiguous (even not counting the meaning of "signal" in the context of wires).
---
Cross-posting here my suggestions from the Life Lexicon thread:

In my opinion, in a large fraction of those uses, the word 'signal' does not contribute anything to the clarity of the statement. Jargon can be distracting; the best jargon is no jargon. When it is possible to avoid use of 'signal', my preference would be to avoid use of 'signal'. Frequently, the word is ambiguous, and its addition/removal does not change the intended meaning.

Especially in definitions of other terms, I would try to avoid use of the word 'signal' when possible, for the sake of clarity.
I would prefer to transform Signal into a proper disambiguation page, listing all existing meanings separately from each other.

[dvgrn]

I think "signal" is more vague than "object". "Object" in these cases will almost certainly refer to an arrangement of alive cells.

I don't agree that "signal" is more vague than "object". "Signal" indicates that something is moving, whereas "object" carries no such connotation. "Active object" kind of does imply that it's moving, but it could be just shuttling or getting hassled, or could be doing something else entirely -- anything from a one-time signal chain to a chaotic explosion.

I prefer "signal" because it's shorter and clearer than "active object". It indicates unequivocally that the active object in question is moving through some kind of signal circuitry.

I'm not in the least disturbed by the fact that "signal" can mean multiple things. Many terms have multiple meanings. "Signal" will continue to have multiple meanings, some of them a quarter century old, even if this current highly ambitious campaign succeeds in erasing some of the evidence of that fact.

It seems best to avoid continuing this discussion much further here with no one else saying anything. Luckily I'm traveling and on vacation for the next two weeks. That should prevent me from continuing to feed the fire for a while, at least.

[confocaloid]

I prefer "signal" because it's shorter and clearer than "active object". It indicates unequivocally that the active object in question is moving through some kind of signal circuitry.

If "signal" is used (e.g. on LifeWiki) to mean "active object moving through a circuit" (and if this is clear from the context), then it is still unclear what exactly is implied. The ambiguity is whether or not the active object in question is supposed to carry some information.

My point is that these "if" are big "if"s, and still do not eliminate ambiguity. "Signal" is basically a jargon word, rather than a well-defined term.

[dvgrn]

@confocaloid, I see that you're still removing what I consider to be valid and appropriate uses of the word "signal" from other people's LifeWiki edits. In this case, you replaced "(all previously known p93 oscillators were signal loops or [[LCM oscillator]]s)" with "(all previously known p93 oscillators were either [[least-common-multiple oscillator]]s or closed [[track]]s made out of [[conduit]]s)".

My personal opinion is that "signal loops" is a term in common use. To me it seems both shorter and clearer than "closed tracks made out of conduits", so I object to the continued campaign against the use of "signal" in this context.

I've asked you twice now to stop doing this kind of policing of other people's use of "signal" in LifeWiki articles.

I have stopped adding uses of "signal" (which I would otherwise do as a matter of course, since I've been using "signal" for well over a decade, in the precise sense that you've been objecting to).

Once again, please stop subtracting uses of "signal" from LifeWiki articles, until you can find some other uninvolved long-term member of the community to moderate. If you continue to feel free to subtract uses of "signal", then it seems only fair that I should feel free to add them -- but that would be exactly the kind of silly edit warring that we're trying to avoid with this discussion.

I've tried asking several people to help sort this out, by the way, but so far have gotten no response at all. This is perfectly understandable, I suppose. We're all just volunteers around here, and the argument has become unpleasant enough that it does seem to make perfect sense that no one else would want to get mixed up in it.

I prefer "signal" because it's shorter and clearer than "active object". It indicates unequivocally that the active object in question is moving through some kind of signal circuitry.

If "signal" is used (e.g. on LifeWiki) to mean "active object moving through a circuit" (and if this is clear from the context), then it is still unclear what exactly is implied. The ambiguity is whether or not the active object in question is supposed to carry some information.

My point is that these "if" are big "if"s, and still do not eliminate ambiguity. "Signal" is basically a jargon word, rather than a well-defined term.

I still strongly disagree with this focus on "whether or not the active object in question is supposed to carry some information". The definition and common usage of signal requires only a moving active object. The ambiguity you mention is just one of several properties of the signal that are not addressed by the application of the term "signal". The movement of the active object itself is sufficient to constitute "movement of information through the Life universe".

Now, the question of whether or not an active object can be safely removed without damaging the circuitry that carries it is an interesting question, for sure! Usually we add the word "dependent" when it's important to make that clear. Without an additional term like that, I think it's just not true that the single word "signal" implies that the active object can be freely added or removed.

Long story short, I would still strongly prefer to address this perceived problem by adding a paragraph to the signal article, so that the definition more clearly allows the existing common usage of "signal" to mean "active object moving through signal circuitry". I think that that small change would solve the problem much more simply than editing dozens of Life Lexicon entries and adding complicated footnotes to explain a quarter century of common uses of the term that don't conform to the narrower interpretation of "signal".

[confocaloid]

I still strongly disagree with this focus on "whether or not the active object in question is supposed to carry some information". The definition and common usage of signal requires only a moving active object. The ambiguity you mention is just one of several properties of the signal that are not addressed by the application of the term "signal". The movement of the active object itself is sufficient to constitute "movement of information through the Life universe".

I disagree. The definition and common usage of signal makes the distinction between moving information of interest (which can be carried in many different ways) and moving objects (which may or may not be described as "signals").

If you assert that the definition "requires only a moving active object", you implicitly assert that it's a correct usage of terminology to describe every moving object in a pattern as a signal -- every single glider, every single Herschel, and so on. But that's not a correct usage of terminology -- "signal" is commonly used only when one wants to emphasize that there's some information movement of interest, and other words are commonly used in other cases.

A description/discussion/explanation where "signal" is not used at all would be much much better, compared to a description/discussion/explanation where "signal" is used to describe every single moving pattern. When everything that moves is described as a "signal", "signal" loses its meaning and becomes a jargon word.

Long story short, I would still strongly prefer to address this perceived problem by adding a paragraph to the signal article, so that the definition more clearly allows the existing common usage of "signal" to mean "active object moving through signal circuitry". I think that that small change would solve the problem much more simply than editing dozens of Life Lexicon entries and adding complicated footnotes to explain a quarter century of common uses of the term that don't conform to the narrower interpretation of "signal".

I think adding such a paragraph would be incorrect and misleading. The existing definition does not equate "signal" with "moving object", and that's correct.
If the definition is changed in a way you're proposing, the definition would become useless, and "signal" would become a jargon word.

Instead, what is needed is a disambiguation page. The existing definition of "signal" is kept, with the existing distinction between "signal" and "moving object".
Less common uses of the word "signal" should be covered separately, without changing the existing definition in any way.

[confocaloid]

@confocaloid, I see that you're still removing what I consider to be valid and appropriate uses of the word "signal" from other people's LifeWiki edits. [...]

[...] I object to the continued campaign against the use of "signal" in this context.

Note that I very clearly stated in the edit summary of that edit:

Suggested rewording -- the discussion in CGoLM&C 3.5, 3.6 doesn't rely on the concept of signals. See also viewtopic.php?f=7&t=5477

In my opinion, that's very different from either "policing" or "campaign" of any kind that I'm being constantly accused here.
- It is a suggested rewording.
- It very clearly provided a justification in the edit summary.
- It was further discussed on the talk page Talk:P93 R-pentomino hassler, and was accepted as a constructive edit, as far as I can judge.
---
See also my previous post above, for replies to other parts.

[dvgrn]

In my opinion, that's very different from either "policing" or "campaign" of any kind that I'm being constantly accused here.

I recognize that the word "policing" may have been offensive. My apologies.

"Constantly accused" is somewhat offensive to me. So far in this thread, you've told me that I've misrepresented you, ignored feedback, been controlling, attacking and aggressive, that I'm promoting my own point of view, and that I'm constantly accusing you of misbehavior.

In my opinion, what I'm doing is politely asking you to stop a certain well-defined type of LifeWiki editing (i.e., removing existing uses of the term "signal") until you can recruit another uninvolved long-term member of the community to moderate the issue.

I've asked you this three times now. I haven't intentionally insulted you in the process. However, the request still stands.

If you continue to ignore my request, obviously I will have to continue to repeat it. Conversely, as soon as you stop removing instances of "signal", or succeed in finding someone willing to moderate the dispute, I'll be able to stop pointing out instances where you're doing this. This is not "constantly accusing" -- this is simply documenting the fact that you're continuing to make edits in line with your own preferences, on a topic that is very clearly still a matter of contention.

... let's try to avoid any further discussion about whether or not users are being rude. Everyone should try from here on to use a careful and polite tone (sometimes hard to achieve with text over the internet, I know). Remember rule 1(a): assume the best of others. I don't think anyone here is trying to be rude. If we all take extra care to be respectful going forward, I think that we can avoid any more negative feelings over our disagreements.

[confocaloid]

That implies

• known input signals (that can be produced by some other known elementary conduit that can actually be connected to the new conduit),
• known output signals (that can actually be consumed by some other known elementary conduit), and
• no leftover junk that would prevent repeated uses.

Those are active objects, rather than signals. A conduit takes an active object as input, and produces an active object as output.

A B-to-H converter (e.g. Conduit 1) takes one active object, and transforms it into another different active object.

However, if that B-to-H converter is used in an engineered pattern to carry some timed piece of information from one place to another, then the information carried by the input B-heptomino is the same signal as the information carried by the output Herschel. It's the same piece of information, carried through the conduit.

That's an example of why it is misleading to use the word "signal" to refer to the input and output active objects (as was done in the quote above).

I disagree. The definition and common usage of signal makes the distinction between moving information of interest (which can be carried in many different ways) and moving objects (which may or may not be described as "signals").

If you assert that the definition "requires only a moving active object", you implicitly assert that it's a correct usage of terminology to describe every moving object in a pattern as a signal -- every single glider, every single Herschel, and so on. But that's not a correct usage of terminology -- "signal" is commonly used only when one wants to emphasize that there's some information movement of interest, and other words are commonly used in other cases.

A description/discussion/explanation where "signal" is not used at all would be much much better, compared to a description/discussion/explanation where "signal" is used to describe every single moving pattern. When everything that moves is described as a "signal", "signal" loses its meaning and becomes a jargon word.

[dvgrn]

That implies

• known input signals (that can be produced by some other known elementary conduit that can actually be connected to the new conduit),
• known output signals (that can actually be consumed by some other known elementary conduit), and
• no leftover junk that would prevent repeated uses.

Those are active objects, rather than signals. A conduit takes an active object as input, and produces an active object as output.

Your opinion on this topic is very clear by this point.

However, I've been using the word "signal" in the precise sense that I used it above, for roughly two decades now. As I mentioned above, it's possible that if a lot of people asked me politely to change my usage, and nobody said that "there's nothing wrong with calling them that"... then I would consider trying to remember to make that change in my standard wording.

So far, over the course of twenty years, I think that exactly one person has ever objected to my using "signal" in cases where I think the term is appropriate -- as a shorthand for "active object moving through signal circuitry", and in line with uses like "p6 signal source and sink" as well as everything that has been said on these forums about signal circuitry ... currently 660 matches, lots of false positives of course, but lots of real matching uses. The majority of them are my posts, for sure! But there are quite a few other people using "signal" in this sense as well.

"Active object" seems to me like a terrible substitute for "signal", for reasons that I've already outlined multiple times on this thread. So I'm unlikely to start using "active object" when I mean "signal", myself. Other people are of course free to use whatever term they see fit to use.

Long story short, I'm currently fairly sure that your attempt to restrict my use of the term "signal" is akin to trying to lock the barn door twenty years after the horse has been stolen. It seems to me that there are many other projects that would be a much better use of all of our time.

I'm still perfectly willing to be persuaded that I'm wrong, but that would require much more of a community consensus than I've seen so far.

[confocaloid]

Long story short, I'm currently fairly sure that your attempt to restrict my use of the term "signal" is akin to trying to lock the barn door twenty years after the horse has been stolen. It seems to me that there are many other projects that would be a much better use of all of our time.

To be clear, I'm not trying to "restrict" anyone's personally preferred use of the word "signal". In discussions, people can use whatever wording they prefer.

Instead, what I am suggesting is that

* As a community resource, LifeWiki should strive to avoid ill-defined jargon that may be confusing or misleading (as in the example I quoted above). In particular, I suggest that LifeWIki should avoid using the word "signal" to refer to active objects. The preference should be to clearly distinguish the concept "signal" from the concept "moving object".

* In many cases, the concept "signal" is redundant to the discussion, and can be removed. In LifeWiki, that amounts to eliminating unnecessary dependencies that do not add clarity and can be confusing.

* Life Lexicon has a number of entries where the word "signal" was not used before the most recent update, and was added in the recent update. As far as I can understand, in many of those changed entries, the change was performed more or less mechanically. I believe in many of those changes, addition of the word 'signal' does not contribute anything to the clarity. See my post for suggested changes to some of those entries: viewtopic.php?p=163914#p163914

[dvgrn]

To be clear, I'm not trying to "restrict" anyone's personally preferred use of the word "signal". In discussions, people can use whatever wording they prefer.

Your quotation above was just me using "signal" in a discussion here on the forums, not anything to do with the LifeWiki or the Life Lexicon. If you thought that it was perfectly okay for me to use "signal" in that context, then it would have been helpful to me if you had made that clear in your response.

Instead, what I am suggesting is that

* As a community resource, LifeWiki should strive to avoid ill-defined jargon that may be confusing or misleading (as in the example I quoted above). In particular, I suggest that LifeWIki should avoid using the word "signal" to refer to active objects. The preference should be to clearly distinguish the concept "signal" from the concept "moving object".

As an alternative, I'm continuing to suggest that

* My current usage of "signal" does in fact have a clear definition -- "an active object moving through signal circuitry" -- and is therefore not particularly ill-defined. It's in common use. In my opinion it's not jargon. I think that this is a usage that should be documented in a short additional paragraph in the signal article -- no need for a disambiguation page, just a slight clarification of the existing definition.

* Given the extent to which it has been used in this community for the last decade or two, "signal" seems like a much less confusing or misleading term than this replacement phrase "active object". When "signal" is used, it immediately clarifies that this particular active object is intended to be used in signal circuitry. "Active object" could refer to lots of things that aren't signals in the signal-circuitry sense, so it's too vague to be an adequate substitute.

* I don't see any need to remove "signal" from existing LifeWiki articles, because I think that replacement terms suggested so far are longer and vaguer, and therefore potentially more confusing than the status quo.

* It's not clear to me that there's any kind of support for changing the Life Lexicon entries pointed out above. So far, nobody at all has spoken up to either support or oppose that request. Until now, no one has ever mentioned that the addition of the term "signal" to those definitions caused anyone any actual confusion.

At the moment I don't think that any of those entries should be changed. In each case, the term "signal" seems to me to be useful shorthand to clarify that the definition in question is related to signal circuitry.

Until some new voices join this discussion, I think that that's all that I have to say on the subject.

[confocaloid]

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?titl ... did=127610

Linked above is an attempt to make the discussion more specific -- a proposed change to the LifeWiki article elementary conduit, closely following the change proposed 2023-07-19 in forum post viewtopic.php?p=163870#p163870 :

Change as proposed 2023-07-19 in viewtopic.php?p=163870#p163870 (while the larger set of issues is still open, I think there were no objections to this suggestion). In particular wording '"Fx" means the signal moves forward and produces a mirror-image output' is meaningless because there can be no mirror image of a signal; if a conduit like Fx77 is used to transmit some information, then the output Herschel carries the same information as the input Herschel.

I'm making this edit, because I believe it to be an improvement. If it's not, I would be very interested in knowing why -- especially opinions from people who didn't yet participate in this discussion.

[dvgrn]

I'm making this edit, because I believe it to be an improvement. If it's not, I would be very interested in knowing why -- especially opinions from people who didn't yet participate in this discussion.

I added a "like" to the post because it seems like a fine example to try to get the community's feedback on (not because I agree with the edit -- I'd much prefer that "signal" continue to be used in that article, rather than "object").

EDIT:

Change as proposed 2023-07-19 in viewtopic.php?p=163870#p163870 (while the larger set of issues is still open, I think there were no objections to this suggestion). In particular wording '"Fx" means the signal moves forward and produces a mirror-image output' is meaningless because there can be no mirror image of a signal.

In case it wasn't clear, I do object to this suggestion. In my view, since a "signal" in this context is whatever recognizable active object is moving through signal circuitry, it's not true in the least that "there can be no mirror image of a signal". If the signal in question is a Herschel, B, R, or any non-symmetric active object, then it has a distinct mirror image -- and of course those are the cases where the "Fx" designator is applied.

I'd like to have the term "signal" continue to be used on the LifeWiki in this sense, because it matches the hundreds of uses in this same sense on the forums. Removing references to "signal" related to signal circuitry in the LifeWiki and Life Lexicon, it seems to me, would only make the term "signal" more confusing and harder to figure out, in the context of the last decade's worth of forum posts.

[confocaloid]

To respond to the edited-in part of the above reply:

EDIT:

Change as proposed 2023-07-19 in viewtopic.php?p=163870#p163870 (while the larger set of issues is still open, I think there were no objections to this suggestion). In particular wording '"Fx" means the signal moves forward and produces a mirror-image output' is meaningless because there can be no mirror image of a signal.

In case it wasn't clear, I do object to this suggestion. In my view, since a "signal" in this context is whatever recognizable active object is moving through signal circuitry, it's not true in the least that "there can be no mirror image of a signal". If the signal in question is a Herschel, B, R, or any non-symmetric active object, then it has a distinct mirror image -- and of course those are the cases where the "Fx" designator is applied.

I'd like to have the term "signal" continue to be used on the LifeWiki in this sense, because it matches the hundreds of uses in this same sense on the forums. Removing references to "signal" related to signal circuitry in the LifeWiki and Life Lexicon, it seems to me, would only make the term "signal" more confusing and harder to figure out, in the context of the last decade's worth of forum posts.

I think I could state my objections a little clearer.

The signal does not change as it moves. That's what makes it useful as a concept.

In contrast, an active object (carrying some signal) can transform into another active object (carrying the same signal), or it can transform e.g. into a set of gliders (and that set of gliders will carry the same signal), or it can transform into a mirror image of itself (carrying the same signal), and so on.

• I believe the concept signal defines / requires a distinction between (a) moving object and (b) information carried by the moving object.
• I believe that distinction is very useful. Trying to "sweep it under the carpet" would make matters more confusing, not less.
• Example: when the conduit BFx59H is used somewhere in logic circuitry to carry information from one place to another, the signal carried by the input B-heptomino at time T is exactly the same as the signal carried by the output Herschel at time (T + 59).
• Example: when the conduit Fx77 is used somewhere in logic circuitry to carry information from one place to another, the signal carried by the input Herschel at time T is exactly the same as the signal carried by the output Herschel at time (T + 77), even though the output Herschel is a relocated mirror image of the input Herschel.
• The input active object is frequently different from the output active object -- but the signal is preserved.

If you refer to active objects as "signals", then those "signals" are not preserved anymore as they move. An input glider entering the Snark reflector is different from the output glider -- it's not the same active object, even though it might happen to carry some signal (and that signal would make it past the Snark).

Mixing "active object" with "signal" increases confusion. The distinction is important and helpful, whenever you want to understand how things work.

A jargon can be documented -- but it should be very clearly documented as a jargon -- not as something supposedly consistent. What's needed is a proper disambiguation page Signal (disambiguation), listing and explaining all existing usages.

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.

EDIT: for the record, here's the current definition of "signal", copied here:

A signal is the movement of information through the Life universe. Signals can be carried by spaceships, fuses, drifters, or conduits. Spaceships can only transfer a signal at the speed of the spaceship, while fuses can transfer a signal at speeds up to the speed of light.

In practice, many signals are encoded as the presence or absence of a glider (or other spaceship) at a particular point at a particular time. Such signals can be combined by the collision of gliders to form logic operations such as AND, OR, and NOT gates. Signals can be duplicated using glider duplicators or other fanout devices, and can be used up by causing perturbations on other parts of the Life object.

Signals are used in pseudo-random glider generators, the unit Life cell and the Fermat prime calculator, among others.

[dvgrn]

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".

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.

[hotdogPi]

Another point of contention: Confocal doesn't like the term "active region". While I coined it, he prefers one of several other terms, such as "active object" above; "evolutionary sequence" is also fine but a bit unwieldy.

[confocaloid]

I disagree with the dvgrn's post above.
I would strongly prefer to avoid discussion of "moving information", unless such a discussion is useful/necessary for understanding.

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".

The rule "if it's moving through signal circuitry, then it can be safely called a signal" [...]

Then what is "signal circuitry", exactly? That notion is not defined.
I think I understand the general notion "circuitry". If you want to restrict it somehow and use "signal circuitry" to describe the thing, then that restriction will depend on the concept "signal". Then the definition of "signal" cannot depend on the definition of "signal circuitry", to avoid circularity.

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:

(viewer tags omitted for brevity)

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.

However, unlike the case above, I think that maybe these are also confocaloid-signals. The memory loop is emitting copies of the ten signals:

(viewer tags omitted for brevity)

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.

I disagree.
My point is that the word "signal" should not be used for the circulating gliders in either of the above cases -- unless it's somehow useful otherwise.

In the second case, if you want to describe the thing as a memory loop (which can be filled in more than one way), then the extracted gliders that leave the region in question can be conveniently described as signals -- in fact, they are meant to be signals.

In the first case, what you have is an oscillator. The gliders form part of the rotor.

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.

I disagree.
You would not want to describe every single moving active object as a signal.

For example, when a signal carried by a glider enters a glider-to-copperhead converter that works via glider synthesis, the input glider (carrying a signal) is converted into several gliders (carrying the same signal, as a set of gliders), which then collide to initiate a reaction, which becomes a copperhead (carrying the same signal).

[confocaloid]

Another point of contention: Confocal doesn't like the term "active region". While I coined it, he prefers one of several other terms, such as "active object" above; "evolutionary sequence" is also fine but a bit unwieldy.

A few months ago I created active region, but I'm not really sure whether that page does justice to the idea.
Is "active region" meant to be a defined term, or just an informal convenience jargon?

[dvgrn]

My point is that the word "signal" should not be used for the circulating gliders in either of the above cases -- unless it's somehow useful otherwise.

In the second case, if you want to describe the thing as a memory loop (which can be filled in more than one way), then the extracted gliders that leave the region in question can be conveniently described as signals -- in fact, they are meant to be signals.

I find it very useful to apply the term "signal" to the active objects traveling through signal circuitry. This is a usage in line with traditional uses of "signal" for things like the p6 signal sources and sinks mentioned previously -- which are not confocaloid-signals.

@confocaloid, when you say "In fact, they are meant to be signals", you are confusing the issue by assuming that your definition of "signal" is the correct one. That is, you actually mean that "they are meant to be confocaloid-signals" -- and maybe you should start saying things that way, until this issue is actually settled.

In the conversational tradition of the forums and predecessor discussions, I think that "signal" does not mean the same thing as "confocaloid-signal" -- and I think that that's okay. The definition of "signal" in the LifeWiki needs to be clarified a bit, now that this "confocaloid-signal" idea has popped up. Once that's done, maybe some slightly confusing or unnecessary uses of "signal" could be cleaned up elsewhere -- but that's all that's needed in my view.

Your strong opinions on this subject are making you say things like 'the word "signal" should not be used...'. I want to continue to use that word. It's useful to me. It's a traditional usage. Switching to something different would mean a whole lot of work making changes to (in my view) perfectly good definitions, and a lot of unnecessary confusion as a result.

You would not want to describe every single moving active object as a signal.

On the contrary, I do want to be able to describe every moving active object in any given piece of signal circuitry as a signal, if I find it useful to do so.

For example, when a signal carried by a glider enters a glider-to-copperhead converter that works via glider synthesis, the input glider (carrying a signal) is converted into several gliders (carrying the same signal, as a set of gliders), which then collide to initiate a reaction, which becomes a copperhead (carrying the same signal).

That's not quite the way I describe that process. In practice, in my view, it would be very unwieldy to have to carefully say that a copperhead-making set of gliders in a G-to copperhead converter is all one signal.

Instead, I usually say that a glider-to-copperhead converter is designed to produce a set of synchronized signals that work together to build the copperhead. Your description is certainly technically true, and it works in practice when you're dealing with simple unidirectional stuff like tandem gliders, but it's not useful terminology when synchronized signals are being arranged to come in from every which way to participate in a synthesis, or some other complex controlled reaction.

[confocaloid]

@confocaloid, when you say "In fact, they are meant to be signals", you are confusing the issue by assuming that your definition of "signal" is the correct one.

I disagree. It is not "my definition" of signal. It's the LifeWiki definition of the concept signal:

EDIT: for the record, here's the current definition of "signal", copied here:

A signal is the movement of information through the Life universe. Signals can be carried by spaceships, fuses, drifters, or conduits. Spaceships can only transfer a signal at the speed of the spaceship, while fuses can transfer a signal at speeds up to the speed of light.

In practice, many signals are encoded as the presence or absence of a glider (or other spaceship) at a particular point at a particular time. Such signals can be combined by the collision of gliders to form logic operations such as AND, OR, and NOT gates. Signals can be duplicated using glider duplicators or other fanout devices, and can be used up by causing perturbations on other parts of the Life object.

Signals are used in pseudo-random glider generators, the unit Life cell and the Fermat prime calculator, among others.

------------------
Again,

I disagree with the dvgrn's post above.
I would strongly prefer to avoid discussion of "moving information", unless such a discussion is useful/necessary for understanding.

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".

The rule "if it's moving through signal circuitry, then it can be safely called a signal" [...]

Then what is "signal circuitry", exactly? That notion is not defined.

[hotdogPi]

Is "active region" meant to be a defined term, or just an informal convenience jargon?

It's not formal. There are edge cases, such as something that lasts 15 generations before becoming a beehive without really expanding.