"Signal circuitry" terminology

[dvgrn]

The "Dependent Reflector Terminology and Analysis" thread has gotten quite long, and has discussed several distinct topics. Continuing the attempt to collect opinions on one subject at a time, here's a question from Jormungant on that thread that I'd like to hear the community's opinions on, related to the term "signal circuitry" rather than "dependent reflector".

Anyways, it is not as pretty, and feels like I am digging dirt to engineer some bizarre thing, but I got the following...

Code: Select all

x = 143, y = 128, rule = LifeHistory
8$83.A$83.3A$74.A11.A$74.3A8.2A5.4B$77.A7.11B$60.2A14.2A3.B5.11B$59.B
2AB13.8B2.11B2A$60.2B16.19B2A$55.B3.2B17.20B$54.2AB.4B15.20B$54.2A8B
11.21B$55.B.B2A6B2.2B2.25B$58.2A15BD14B4.4B$58.17BDBD4B.6B6.4B$54.21B
3D4B2.B.5B5.4B$54.23BD4B7.2A6.4B$53.2A26B8.A8.4B$53.2A14B.4B16.3A6.4B
$54.B.11B2.4B19.A7.4B$56.10B2.4B29.4B$57.14B31.4B$56.14B33.4B$57.13B
34.4B$57.13B35.4B$59.2B.4B3DB36.4B$62.5BD2B37.4B$61.4B3D2B38.4B$61.9B
39.4B$59.2CB2.7B39.4B$58.C.CB2.8B39.4B$58.C6.8B39.4B13.A$57.2C6.8B40.
4B10.3A$64.6B2.B2A39.4B8.A$64.7B.BA.A23.2A14.4B7.2A$65.6B4.A4.2A.A.2A
11.B2AB14.4B3.5B$65.6B4.2A2.A2.2A.A2.A.2A.A4.3B16.4B2.3B$65.6B7.A.A4.
A.2A.A.2A5.B.B16.9B7.2A$64.8B7.A.5A2.B8.5B17.8B8.A$63.8B10.A4.AB2A6.
6B18.10B3.B.A.2A$32.2A29.9B8.A2.BA.A.2A4.8B18.4BD2B2A2B.B3A2.A$32.A.A
28.9B7.A.2BA.A2.13B19.2BDBD2B2A3BAB2.2A$34.A4.2A21.10B7.2A.2BA5.13B
17.3B2D7B4A$30.4A.2A2.A2.A19.3B2A5B11.3B3.15B14.2AB.7B3.2B.A$30.A2.A.
A.A.A.2A18.4B2A5B12.4B.15B13.A.AB.7B2.B3A$32.BABABA.A21.11B11.4B.17B
12.A5.4B4.A$33.B2ABA.A16.2A.A7BD4B4.29B11.2A5.4B5.5A$34.2B.BA17.A.2A
2.4B3DB5.4BC11B2A2BD10B16.4B10.A$33.3B27.2B2D2BD3B2.4B3C9B2A2BD11B2.
2A10.4B9.A$24.2A6.4B28.10B.4BCBC13BD6B3.B2A2.A9.4B10.2A$25.A6.B2A3B
26.17BC19B4.A.B2A9.4B$25.A.AB3.B2A3B25.22B2.2B2.B3.6B5.A11.4B$26.2AB.
10B23.19B14.6B5.3A7.4B$28.13B18.2B.20B12.9B7.A5.4B$28.5B3D6B16.2C24B
10.2A4.4B5.2A4.4B$28.7BD7B15.2C25B10.A5.4B4.9B$30.8B2.4B10.A4.27B6.3A
7.4B5.6B$30.6B5.4B7.3A6.27B4.A10.4B2.8B$29.9B4.4B5.A10.25B2C15.7BD7B$
28.4B4.2A5.4B4.2A10.24B2C16.6B3D5B$27.4B5.A7.9B12.20B.2B18.13B$26.4B
7.3A5.6B14.19B23.10B.B2A$25.4B11.A5.6B3.B2.2B2.22B25.3B2AB3.BA.A$24.
4B9.2AB.A4.19BC17B26.3B2AB6.A$11.2A10.4B9.A2.2AB3.6BD13BCBC4B.10B28.
4B6.2A$12.A9.4B10.2A2.11BD2B2A9B3C4B2.3BD2B2D2B27.3B$10.A10.4B16.10BD
2B2A11BC4B5.B3D4B2.2A.A17.AB.2B$10.5A5.4B5.2A11.29B4.4BD7BA.2A16.A.AB
2AB$15.A4.4B5.A12.17B.4B11.11B21.A.ABABAB$12.3AB2.7B.BA.A13.15B.4B12.
5B2A4B18.2A.A.A.A.A2.A$11.A.2B3.7B.B2A14.15B3.3B11.5B2A3B19.A2.A2.2A.
4A$11.4A7B2D3B17.13B5.A2B.2A7.10B21.2A4.A$9.2A2.BA3B2A2BDBD2B19.13B2.
A.A2B.A7.9B28.A.A$8.A2.3AB.2B2A2BD4B18.8B4.2A.A.AB2.A8.9B29.2A$8.2A.A
.B3.10B18.6B6.2ABA4.A10.8B$11.A8.8B17.5B8.B2.5A.A7.8B$11.2A7.9B16.B.B
5.2A.A.2A.A4.A.A7.6B$21.3B2.4B16.3B4.A.2A.A2.A.2A2.A2.2A4.6B$19.5B3.
4B14.B2AB11.2A.A.2A4.A4.6B$19.2A7.4B14.2A23.A.AB.7B$20.A8.4B39.2AB2.
6B$17.3A10.4B40.8B6.2C$17.A13.4B39.8B6.C$32.4B39.8B2.BC.C$33.4B39.7B
2.B2C$34.4B39.9B$35.4B38.2B3D4B$36.4B37.2BD5B$37.4B36.B3D4B.2B$38.4B
35.13B$39.4B34.13B$40.4B33.14B$41.4B31.14B$42.4B29.4B2.10B$43.4B7.A
19.4B2.11B.B$44.4B6.3A16.4B.14B2A$45.4B8.A8.26B2A$46.4B6.2A7.4BD23B$
47.4B5.5B.B2.4B3D21B$48.4B6.6B.4BDBD17B$49.4B4.14BD15B2A$50.25B2.2B2.
6B2AB.B$51.21B11.8B2A$50.20B15.4B.B2A$49.20B17.2B3.B$48.2A19B16.2B$
48.2A11B2.8B13.B2AB$49.11B5.B3.2A14.2A$51.11B7.A$51.4B5.2A8.3A$60.A
11.A$61.3A$63.A!

So now, you cannot remove only 1 signal (unless you plan to destroy the whole thing with a "blank signal" I guess), so I just wonder if people are comfortable calling this a "signal circuit". I personally would just call it a circuit or an oscillator.

@Jormungant, thanks for posting this! I was confused a little bit too much by the previous example.

[dvgrn]

Here's my own response to the question:

I'd certainly be comfortable if someone called the above pattern a "signal circuit". Personally I'd be more likely to say it's "signal circuitry" or "an example of signal circuitry". I don't use "circuit" very much at all, because exactly like "track" and unlike "loop", it's not clear if the one word "circuit" actually implies "closed circuit"/"closed track", or if it's just being used generically to mean a section of signal-carrying conduit.

However, I would certainly know what it meant if someone said the above pattern was a "signal circuit": I'd expect to find in it things like Snarks, syringes, Herschel conduits, H-to-Gs, etc., conveying active objects (which I'm now temporarily referring to as "dvgrn-signals") in a repeatable way from one place to another in the Life universe.

That's exactly what I do find in the pattern, so it's unambiguously "signal circuitry", in my terminology, as distinct from "one-time circuitry".

If I wanted to describe the pattern more specifically, I might say that it's "two synchronized signal loops" or maybe "two mutually dependent p624 signal loops" -- something like that. But clearly there are signals -- dvgrn-signals -- moving through the circuitry here.

For most of the 624 ticks, those dvgrn-signals are locally indistinguishable from "active objects carrying confocaloid-signals". I really want to continue to call these types of moving objects just plain "signals". As far as I can tell, I've been using "signal" consistently in this sense for the last two decades, without anyone reporting any confusion until very recently.

"Signal circuitry" vs. "circuitry"
I gave my definition of "signal circuitry" in this post, explaining how I've generally intended "signal circuitry" to indicate a reduced set compared to "circuitry" in general.

In the next post, confocaloid responded to this. I won't venture to try to summarize confocaloid's views, so anyone who wants to understand the issue should please read those posts and maybe some of the posts leading up to them.

I think that the above two linked posts are a fairly good representation of the basic problem we're running into. To summarize my half of the problem:

I can't find a usable replacement for my current term "signal" in the sense of "dvgrn-signal". So I strongly prefer the more general "dvgrn-signal" meaning of the term. It's hard for me to see how it will work well in practice to try to use "signal" only in cases where it means "confocaloid-signal". These days I keep having to go back and replace "signal" in my writing with "dvgrn-signal", and of course that's just plain terrible as a long-term solution.

[confocaloid]

I do not really care either way, but this is definitely confusing, I guess I shared a weird pattern for some thought, I did put a p128 oscillator first in this thread, but I later realized (thanks to dvgrn's) that it could indeed host 2 signal independently, and is hence a true signal circuit, so I did not provide a good counter example. I falsely remembered that both signal stabilizes the other, and needs to be both in or out. Anyways, it is not as pretty, and feels like I am digging dirt to engineer some bizarre thing, but I got the following:

Code: Select all

x = 143, y = 128, rule = LifeHistory
8$83.A$83.3A$74.A11.A$74.3A8.2A5.4B$77.A7.11B$60.2A14.2A3.B5.11B$59.B
2AB13.8B2.11B2A$60.2B16.19B2A$55.B3.2B17.20B$54.2AB.4B15.20B$54.2A8B
11.21B$55.B.B2A6B2.2B2.25B$58.2A15BD14B4.4B$58.17BDBD4B.6B6.4B$54.21B
3D4B2.B.5B5.4B$54.23BD4B7.2A6.4B$53.2A26B8.A8.4B$53.2A14B.4B16.3A6.4B
$54.B.11B2.4B19.A7.4B$56.10B2.4B29.4B$57.14B31.4B$56.14B33.4B$57.13B
34.4B$57.13B35.4B$59.2B.4B3DB36.4B$62.5BD2B37.4B$61.4B3D2B38.4B$61.9B
39.4B$59.2CB2.7B39.4B$58.C.CB2.8B39.4B$58.C6.8B39.4B13.A$57.2C6.8B40.
4B10.3A$64.6B2.B2A39.4B8.A$64.7B.BA.A23.2A14.4B7.2A$65.6B4.A4.2A.A.2A
11.B2AB14.4B3.5B$65.6B4.2A2.A2.2A.A2.A.2A.A4.3B16.4B2.3B$65.6B7.A.A4.
A.2A.A.2A5.B.B16.9B7.2A$64.8B7.A.5A2.B8.5B17.8B8.A$63.8B10.A4.AB2A6.
6B18.10B3.B.A.2A$32.2A29.9B8.A2.BA.A.2A4.8B18.4BD2B2A2B.B3A2.A$32.A.A
28.9B7.A.2BA.A2.13B19.2BDBD2B2A3BAB2.2A$34.A4.2A21.10B7.2A.2BA5.13B
17.3B2D7B4A$30.4A.2A2.A2.A19.3B2A5B11.3B3.15B14.2AB.7B3.2B.A$30.A2.A.
A.A.A.2A18.4B2A5B12.4B.15B13.A.AB.7B2.B3A$32.BABABA.A21.11B11.4B.17B
12.A5.4B4.A$33.B2ABA.A16.2A.A7BD4B4.29B11.2A5.4B5.5A$34.2B.BA17.A.2A
2.4B3DB5.4BC11B2A2BD10B16.4B10.A$33.3B27.2B2D2BD3B2.4B3C9B2A2BD11B2.
2A10.4B9.A$24.2A6.4B28.10B.4BCBC13BD6B3.B2A2.A9.4B10.2A$25.A6.B2A3B
26.17BC19B4.A.B2A9.4B$25.A.AB3.B2A3B25.22B2.2B2.B3.6B5.A11.4B$26.2AB.
10B23.19B14.6B5.3A7.4B$28.13B18.2B.20B12.9B7.A5.4B$28.5B3D6B16.2C24B
10.2A4.4B5.2A4.4B$28.7BD7B15.2C25B10.A5.4B4.9B$30.8B2.4B10.A4.27B6.3A
7.4B5.6B$30.6B5.4B7.3A6.27B4.A10.4B2.8B$29.9B4.4B5.A10.25B2C15.7BD7B$
28.4B4.2A5.4B4.2A10.24B2C16.6B3D5B$27.4B5.A7.9B12.20B.2B18.13B$26.4B
7.3A5.6B14.19B23.10B.B2A$25.4B11.A5.6B3.B2.2B2.22B25.3B2AB3.BA.A$24.
4B9.2AB.A4.19BC17B26.3B2AB6.A$11.2A10.4B9.A2.2AB3.6BD13BCBC4B.10B28.
4B6.2A$12.A9.4B10.2A2.11BD2B2A9B3C4B2.3BD2B2D2B27.3B$10.A10.4B16.10BD
2B2A11BC4B5.B3D4B2.2A.A17.AB.2B$10.5A5.4B5.2A11.29B4.4BD7BA.2A16.A.AB
2AB$15.A4.4B5.A12.17B.4B11.11B21.A.ABABAB$12.3AB2.7B.BA.A13.15B.4B12.
5B2A4B18.2A.A.A.A.A2.A$11.A.2B3.7B.B2A14.15B3.3B11.5B2A3B19.A2.A2.2A.
4A$11.4A7B2D3B17.13B5.A2B.2A7.10B21.2A4.A$9.2A2.BA3B2A2BDBD2B19.13B2.
A.A2B.A7.9B28.A.A$8.A2.3AB.2B2A2BD4B18.8B4.2A.A.AB2.A8.9B29.2A$8.2A.A
.B3.10B18.6B6.2ABA4.A10.8B$11.A8.8B17.5B8.B2.5A.A7.8B$11.2A7.9B16.B.B
5.2A.A.2A.A4.A.A7.6B$21.3B2.4B16.3B4.A.2A.A2.A.2A2.A2.2A4.6B$19.5B3.
4B14.B2AB11.2A.A.2A4.A4.6B$19.2A7.4B14.2A23.A.AB.7B$20.A8.4B39.2AB2.
6B$17.3A10.4B40.8B6.2C$17.A13.4B39.8B6.C$32.4B39.8B2.BC.C$33.4B39.7B
2.B2C$34.4B39.9B$35.4B38.2B3D4B$36.4B37.2BD5B$37.4B36.B3D4B.2B$38.4B
35.13B$39.4B34.13B$40.4B33.14B$41.4B31.14B$42.4B29.4B2.10B$43.4B7.A
19.4B2.11B.B$44.4B6.3A16.4B.14B2A$45.4B8.A8.26B2A$46.4B6.2A7.4BD23B$
47.4B5.5B.B2.4B3D21B$48.4B6.6B.4BDBD17B$49.4B4.14BD15B2A$50.25B2.2B2.
6B2AB.B$51.21B11.8B2A$50.20B15.4B.B2A$49.20B17.2B3.B$48.2A19B16.2B$
48.2A11B2.8B13.B2AB$49.11B5.B3.2A14.2A$51.11B7.A$51.4B5.2A8.3A$60.A
11.A$61.3A$63.A!

So now, you cannot remove only 1 signal (unless you plan to destroy the whole thing with a "blank signal" I guess), so I just wonder if people are comfortable calling this a "signal circuit". I personally would just call it a circuit or an oscillator.

The pattern is an engineered p624 oscillator, made out of several general-purpose conduits and a central 'interesting' reaction.
In the central symmetric reaction catalysed by blocks, two colliding Herschels are transformed into two B-heptominoes in 90 ticks.
The two B-heptominoes are sent to two separate tracks, each made of BFx59H, R64, a Herschel-to-glider converter, two Snarks and the syringe. After 534 more ticks, the B-heptominoes are transformed into two Herschels in the original locations, completing one cycle.

[confocaloid]

I don't use "circuit" very much at all, because exactly like "track" and unlike "loop", it's not clear if the one word "circuit" actually implies "closed circuit"/"closed track", or if it's just being used generically to mean a section of signal-carrying conduit.

"Closedness" is an irrelevant distraction. 'Signal circuit' does not imply closedness, either -- there's no difference here between writing 'signal circuit' versus plain 'circuit'.

However, I would certainly know what it meant if someone said the above pattern was a "signal circuit": I'd expect to find in it things like Snarks, syringes, Herschel conduits, H-to-Gs, etc., conveying active objects (which I'm now temporarily referring to as "dvgrn-signals") in a repeatable way from one place to another in the Life universe.

Using 'signal circuit' the way you're proposing has no advantages over using 'circuit'.
In the Game of Life context, 'circuit' already would suggest that one can expect to see "things like Snarks, syringes, Herschel conduits, H-to-Gs, etc., conveying active objects".

The obvious disadvantages of 'signal circuit' are:
- 'signal circuitry' is longer.
- 'signal circuit' is much more confusing than 'circuit', because it unnecessarily drags the concepts of signals/logic/information, even though one could do merely with active objects.

(Obligatory clarification. Even if phrases 'signal circuitry' / 'signal circuit' / 'signal' do not drag information-theoretic concepts to dvgrn specifically, I'm certain that these phrases do carry such implications to a significant number of people, including both experienced members and novices, and including myself.)

I won't venture to try to summarize confocaloid's views, [...]

Using 'signal' to mean 'moving object' / 'active object' is technically incorrect, according to the existing definition of signal.
A signal is information carried by an object -- not the object itself.

Now, of course in conversations the word 'signal' is used informally to refer to objects carrying signals. However, in the above pattern (proposed for discussion), the Herschels don't carry any signals. The pattern is an oscillator, with a central "interesting" symmetric 2H-to-2B reaction and two separate tracks made out of general-purpose elementary conduits.

If one really wants to see 'signals' in the pattern, then one could say that the pair of symmetrically positioned Herschels carries a single signal, which circulates through the pattern, carried sometimes by two Herschels, sometimes by two B-heptominoes, sometimes by two gliders, sometimes by a phase of the central active reaction, etc. There would be only one signal in the pattern -- it is misleading to describe individual Herschels as 'signals' here.

It is much more natural to describe the pattern as an oscillator, without referring to the concept 'signal'.
My view is that using 'signal' to describe things that don't carry any signals is wrong, because it is confusing/misleading. I already stated this in the previous discussion and I repeat it here.

[confocaloid]

If I wanted to describe the pattern more specifically, I might say that it's "two synchronized signal loops" or maybe "two mutually dependent p624 signal loops" -- something like that.

I think you are not really describing how the pattern works, by saying or writing that it is "two synchronized signal loops" or "two mutually dependent p624 signal loops".
Neither of two "descriptions" is detailed enough (saying "engineered p624 oscillator" carries about the same amount of information).
Both "descriptions" are misleading (if you want to see signals, then there is only one signal in the pattern, not two).

Neither of two "descriptions" explains why the oscillator is interesting. It is dishonest to reduce it to 'signal circuitry' -- that misses the point.

As far as I can tell, I've been using "signal" consistently in this sense for the last two decades, without anyone reporting any confusion until very recently.

My take on this: probably nobody was reporting any confusion, because many people (especailly newcomers) did never really understand what is going on and why the word 'signal' is used to describe things that are not signals and do not carry signals, while other people probably were too polite to point out that the wording is misleading.

[dvgrn]

Using 'signal circuit' the way you're proposing has no advantages over using 'circuit'.

In the Game of Life context, 'circuit' already would suggest that one can expect to see "things like Snarks, syringes, Herschel conduits, H-to-Gs, etc., conveying active objects".

I've been using the term "signal circuitry" (not "signal circuit", for the reasons that I mentioned) for a couple of decades now. So it doesn't seem like a "proposal" to me. I've found that there are advantages to using it.

Plain "circuit", without the word "signal", does not in fact allow me to expect to see signal circuitry. One-time circuitry is a disjoint subset of circuitry that does not include Snarks or syringes or any of those things. So I've always tended to specify "signal circuitry" in preference to the too-vague term "circuit".

Using 'signal' to mean 'moving object' / 'active object' is technically incorrect, according to the existing definition of signal.
A signal is information carried by an object -- not the object itself.

Now, of course in conversations the word 'signal' is used informally to refer to objects carrying signals. However, in the above pattern (proposed for discussion), the Herschels don't carry any signals.

To avoid assuming the conclusion you're arguing toward here, you could say "the Herschels don't carry any confocaloid-signals". The Herschels certainly are dvgrn-signals. It would usually be conversationally awkward to mention that they might or might not be "carrying" something.

The LifeWiki definition of "signal" currently doesn't clarify the informal conversational use of "signal" that you've acknowledged above. I think that it should do this. In my view, that would actually reduce confusion, whereas attempting to restrict "signal" to mean only "confocaloid-signal" would completely ignore existing conversational usage.

If one really wants to see 'signals' in the pattern, then one could say that the pair of symmetrically positioned Herschels carries a single signal, which circulates through the pattern, carried sometimes by two Herschels, sometimes by two B-heptominoes, sometimes by two gliders, sometimes by a phase of the central active reaction, etc. There would be only one signal in the pattern -- it is misleading to describe individual Herschels as 'signals' here.

It is much more natural to describe the pattern as an oscillator, without referring to the concept 'signal'.

Here again, you're describing the potential confocaloid-signal that could be found in the pattern. I do not, in fact, want to see or even think about confocaloid-signals here. The concept doesn't seem to result in a particularly short or clear or useful description in this case.

What you claim is "more natural" is not at all in line with my past experience. In conversations on the forums, I frequently find I'm reaching for a term that means "active object traveling through reusable circuitry", where I don't care if it's capable of carrying confocaloid-signals or not.

The term "signal" is what I've always used for this. It seems perfectly possible to explain this existing conversational usage better, in the LifeWiki definition of "signal". If this is done, then I think a lot of other proposed changes to LifeWiki and Life Lexicon articles will be unnecessary.

[confocaloid]

...
The LifeWiki definition of "signal" currently doesn't clarify the informal conversational use of "signal" that you've acknowledged above. I think that it should do this. In my view, that would actually reduce confusion, whereas attempting to restrict "signal" to mean only "confocaloid-signal" would completely ignore existing conversational usage.
...
The term "signal" is what I've always used for this. It seems perfectly possible to explain this existing conversational usage better, in the LifeWiki definition of "signal". If this is done, then I think a lot of other proposed changes to LifeWiki and Life Lexicon articles will be unnecessary.

I disagree. The definition of the term shouldn't be mixed with informal conversational usage.

The usage where the word 'signal' is used informally to refer to a moving object carrying information (rather than to the information itself) shouldn't be in the definition of 'signal' -- it is logically separate, so it should appear separately, on a disambiguation page, along with other meanings such as in the context of wires.

Further, I believe that using the word 'signal' to refer to active objects that don't carry information is misleading -- such uses shouldn't be mentioned on LifeWiki at all, even as "informal" usage. To me, they are confusing jargon.

[dvgrn]

I disagree. The definition of the term shouldn't be mixed with informal conversational usage.

This is indeed where we disagree. For me, conversational usage is precisely the usage that should be documented in the LifeWiki definition of "signal". If someone wants to look up "signal" in the context of Life due to seeing it in a conversation, and the definition doesn't match how the term is actually being used, then that's a problem.

No matter how mathematically correct and self-consistent a "confocaloid-signal" definition might be, it's not how the term "signal" has actually been used, and it doesn't seem to me to be what the term "signal" is really useful for.

The usage where the word 'signal' is used informally to refer to a moving object carrying information (rather than to the information itself) shouldn't be in the definition of 'signal' -- it is logically separate, so it should appear separately, on a disambiguation page, along with other meanings such as in the context of wires.

That implies separating out the "dvgrn-signal" meaning on a disambiguation page (or whatever). Another option would be to separate out the more restrictive "confocaloid-signal" meaning, and acknowledge clearly in the LifeWiki definition that "confocaloid-signals" and general "signals" do not always mean the same thing in conversation.

What would the rest of the community like to see happen here?

EDIT: Sorry, this last line was an attempt to direct the question to the rest of the community, not aimed at confocaloid.

[confocaloid]

(edited 11:43)

This is indeed where we disagree.
...
What would the rest of the community like to see happen here?

I cannot answer what would the rest of the community like to see happen here.

Before trying to document any informal way of discussing some concept (such as signal), you should first define the concept -- what it is, exactly? The concept has to be meaningful.
The definition of signal is already there. A signal is information moving through Life universe; signals can be carried by moving things; signals can be encoded in different ways.
Description of legitimate informal usage of the word 'signal' should come later, and it should be clearly separated from the definition.

Further, definitions of other terms that logically depend on the concept signal should not rely on informal meanings of the word 'signal'.
(And definitions of concepts that don't rely on the concept signal should not refer to it.)

...
One-time circuitry is a disjoint subset of circuitry that does not include Snarks or syringes or any of those things. So I've always tended to specify "signal circuitry" in preference to the too-vague term "circuit".
...
In conversations on the forums, I frequently find I'm reaching for a term that means "active object traveling through reusable circuitry", where I don't care if it's capable of carrying confocaloid-signals or not.
....

That's confusing. If one means 'reusable circuitry', one should write 'reusable circuitry'.

[Pavgran]

If one really wants to see 'signals' in the pattern, then one could say that the pair of symmetrically positioned Herschels carries a single signal, which circulates through the pattern, carried sometimes by two Herschels, sometimes by two B-heptominoes, sometimes by two gliders, sometimes by a phase of the central active reaction, etc. There would be only one signal in the pattern -- it is misleading to describe individual Herschels as 'signals' here.

It is much more natural to describe the pattern as an oscillator, without referring to the concept 'signal'.
My view is that using 'signal' to describe things that don't carry any signals is wrong, because it is confusing/misleading. I already stated this in the previous discussion and I repeat it here.

That's one of the points where I strongly disagree.
As I understand it, you are viewing signals and information-carrying capabilities more from the top-down perspective, while I see it from the bottom-up perspective. You say that the pattern as a whole is an oscillator and carries no signals, but if one really wants to see signals, there would be only one signal, carried by two separated active objects moving. I would say that what the pattern is as a whole has no effect whatsoever on whether do we say there's a signal carried by an active object or not.

Code: Select all

x = 19, y = 7, rule = LifeHistory
7D5.7D$D5.D5.D5.D$D5.D5.D5.D$D5.D5.D5.D$2D3C2D5.2D3C2D$14.A.A$14.A.A!
#C [[ AUTOSTART ]]
#C [[ LOOP 2 ]]
#C [[ GPS 1 ]]

In this example, the same information propagates from the red boundary inside into the box in the form of a birth of a single cell. What happens after or what the pattern was or will become has no effect on if we call that single birth an example of information propagation.
However, it's generally not very useful to pay attention to intricate details on how exactly active objects or oscillators move or behave, and so we generally step a bit back and describe a single moving object as a signal (Yes, techincally it's incorrect to call a moving object itself a signal, but as soon as we adapt more high-level view, I see no problem pointing at a moving object and saying 'signal', because we operate sings at a higher level anyway).
So, about you saying that there's at maximum a single signal carried by two objects.
I strongly disagree with that particular point, because I view signals more as local things. If you zoom in on one of the Herschels, see it moving and propagating a signal and say: "Of course there is another Herschel at such-and-such location carrying that very signal", you could say that there's one signal. But you can't do that (after zooming in and losing the whole pattern context, as I would do to view at things from local point of view).

Life universe is inherently local and has local rules. It makes more sense to describe information movement and signals from local point of view, at least to me.

[confocaloid]

(edited 2023-08-20 21:31)

That's one of the points where I strongly disagree.
As I understand it, you are viewing signals and information-carrying capabilities more from the top-down perspective, while I see it from the bottom-up perspective. You say that the pattern as a whole is an oscillator and carries no signals, but if one really wants to see signals, there would be only one signal, carried by two separated active objects moving. I would say that what the pattern is as a whole has no effect whatsoever on whether do we say there's a signal carried by an active object or not.

If I understood correctly, what was suggested to discuss here is how to describe a specific pattern ( viewtopic.php?p=165370#p165370 ).
I tried to write my description of that pattern here: viewtopic.php?p=165449#p165449

I believe that, when giving a human-readable description / explanation of a specific engineered pattern, there is (should be) a distinction between moving objects that carry signals [signals that are needed to explain / understand the pattern], versus moving objects that don't carry such signals.

For the example p624 oscillator above, I think the pattern does not contain any signals needed to explain how it works.
Yes, one could view individual Herschels as signals locally [*] -- but I believe that would not help to explain the p624 oscillator pattern.

[*] [edit: "view individual Herschels as signal-carrying objects locally".]

For another example, I believe the dependent reflector article should not refer to signals, because that does not help to explain what is a dependent reflector. Those period-N elementary reactions given on the wiki page don't transmit information, as long as they are dependent reflectors.
(If someone used a dependent reflector in a larger pattern so that it self-destructs by design in a controlled fashion, that would be a different device -- not the subject of the Dependent reflector article.)
I believe a periodic dependent reflector is a "spaceship stream redirecting device".

An independent reflector like Snark can optionally be used (and is often used) in reusable circuitry to transmit information. However, on the basic level, the Snark is a stable glider reflector -- it can be used in simple glider loop oscillators.
I think signals shouldn't be presented as something that is necessary to understand the Snark.

Code: Select all

x = 19, y = 7, rule = LifeHistory
7D5.7D$D5.D5.D5.D$D5.D5.D5.D$D5.D5.D5.D$2D3C2D5.2D3C2D$14.A.A$14.A.A!
#C [[ AUTOSTART ]]
#C [[ LOOP 2 ]]
#C [[ GPS 1 ]]

In this example, the same information propagates from the red boundary inside into the box in the form of a birth of a single cell. What happens after or what the pattern was or will become has no effect on if we call that single birth an example of information propagation.
However, it's generally not very useful to pay attention to intricate details on how exactly active objects or oscillators move or behave, and so we generally step a bit back and describe a single moving object as a signal (Yes, techincally it's incorrect to call a moving object itself a signal, but as soon as we adapt more high-level view, I see no problem pointing at a moving object and saying 'signal', because we operate sings at a higher level anyway).
So, about you saying that there's at maximum a single signal carried by two objects.
I strongly disagree with that particular point, because I view signals more as local things. If you zoom in on one of the Herschels, see it moving and propagating a signal and say: "Of course there is another Herschel at such-and-such location carrying that very signal", you could say that there's one signal. But you can't do that (after zooming in and losing the whole pattern context, as I would do to view at things from local point of view).

Life universe is inherently local and has local rules. It makes more sense to describe information movement and signals from local point of view, at least to me.

I think a description should be at a specific level. If one is describing the p43 Snark loop oscillator, then it is about the p43 oscillator and not about individual gliders or individual Snarks.

[dvgrn]

I think signals shouldn't be presented as something that is necessary to understand the Snark.

Follow-up questions below.

I'd certainly agree that confocaloid-signals are absolutely not necessary to understand Snarks or syringes or other such circuitry. I also agree that there are no confocaloid-signals in a p43 Snark loop. 43 is the minimum repeat time, so the moment you adjust any gliders in a way that might make the loop into a useful memory loop, it's no longer a p43 Snark loop. This all makes perfect sense.

However, that doesn't imply to me that "signals shouldn't be presented" in the context of Snark loops. Signals certainly aren't absolutely necessary to a definition, but they seem like a very handy generalization -- as long as they're dvgrn-signals, not confocaloid-signals!.

Example
In 2018 I added a mention of "signal path length" to the p43 Snark loop article. This was uncontroversial and not confusing to anyone at the time, as far as I know. The signal path length is well-defined for any Snark loop; it's just the period of the oscillator if there's only one glider in the loop. You need to know the signal path length -- 344 = 43*8 in the case of the p43 Snark loop -- if you want to adjust the oscillator to produce a different period.

Now, you've made LifeWiki edits recently on the grounds that your "confocaloid-signal" interpretation of the current signal article is the correct one. You've said several times that there are no signals in a p43 Snark loop, and you've suggested that a large number of additional non-conforming uses of "signal" should be removed from various places.

Questions
Do you still believe the active objects traveling around a p43 Snark loop should not be referred to as "signals"? Would you therefore want to remove the term "signal" from the p43 Snark loop article? What should it say instead, to convey the same idea?

-- This is just me wishing for something that may or may not happen, but I'd be very interested to hear community reactions to your answers to this.

[confocaloid]

In 2018 I added a mention of "signal path length" to the p43 Snark loop article. This was uncontroversial and not confusing to anyone at the time, as far as I know.

As a guess, one possibility is that it only appeared to not be confusing, because there was no sufficient attention to this part of terminology.
In my opinion, it is confusing.

Do you still believe the active objects traveling around a p43 Snark loop should not be referred to as "signals"? Would you therefore want to remove the term "signal" from the p43 Snark loop article? What should it say instead, to convey the same idea?

The gliders in the p43 Snark loop should not be described as "signals" in that article, since the p43 Snark loop is a simple oscillator.
Invoking signals is misleading, because it suggests that there ought to be some information processing, or computation, or decision-making, or choices of some kind.
A reader is misled to search for something that is not there.

Instead of the phrase "total signal path length", one should refer to track length. The former is a confusing phrase. The latter is reasonably well-understood.
I believe this agrees with what is said in Chapter 3 in Conway's Game of Life: Mathematics and Construction.

[Pavgran]

The gliders in the p43 Snark loop should not be described as "signals" in that article, since the p43 Snark loop is a simple oscillator.

At what point between (or including) "p43 Snark loop has no signals, as it's just an oscillator" and "Reverse caber-tosser has no signals, as it's just a 15-glider decimal counter predecessor" would you draw the line?

[confocaloid]

The gliders in the p43 Snark loop should not be described as "signals" in that article, since the p43 Snark loop is a simple oscillator.

At what point between (or including) "p43 Snark loop has no signals, as it's just an oscillator" and "Reverse caber-tosser has no signals, as it's just a 15-glider decimal counter predecessor" would you draw the line?

There might be no useful clear way to draw the line.
I believe there is a useful distinction.
Some gliders are "choices", i.e. are carrying information that will affect how the pattern behaves (affect in some important way that should be mentioned when explaining the pattern).
Other gliders are simply there (e.g. suppressed first natural gliders), and don't carry any information about choices to be made.

For oscillators (p67 Snark loop, p61 Herschel loop 1, ...) and guns (period-59 glider gun, guntrue_2023, ...), I wouldn't want to invoke the concept of signal when trying to explain what the pattern is / what it does.

[confocaloid]

Either of two "options" mixes several different issues in a misleading way.

The question of whether or not the p43 Snark loop contains any signals is different from the questions regarding the content of the entry signal. What should or should not be considered a "mainstream use" of words is another different question. How to word articles that rely on the concept of signals is yet another different question.

This poll thread fails to distinguish different issues, and it ignores previous discussion with existing feedback. You cannot resolve these issues by making a poll and scattering discussion over multiple places. It would be more sensible to keep discussion in a single place.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6100
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6059
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6099

Edit: add another link viewtopic.php?p=163902#p163902

[confocaloid]

I think the following is a good example of a bad wording.

I concede that this example is not part of an actual LifeWiki article. However, I believe it does illustrate [effects of] the confusion between reactions and signals and the ambiguity of the word 'signal'.

dx / dy, m, step -- relevant only for conduits that don't start or end with a glider. We _could_ measure from the last tick where the signal was a glider, and/or measure to the first tick where the signal becomes a glider. But at least the second part of that gets ugly. For example, a glider might be created but not usable for 50 ticks because it shows up in the middle of the converter's reaction envelope. Or it might show up on the edge in a non-standard form, for a tick or two, but it's perfectly normal when it comes to interactions -- can be eaten by an eater1, for example.

The most confusing part is "the first tick where the signal becomes a glider". It is not just "ugly" or "awkward" -- it is not even well-defined.

Suppose the following Herschel-to-glider converter appears somewhere in circuitry, as part of a mechanism to carry some signals from one place to another:

Code: Select all

#C The input Herschel appears at time T
x = 51, y = 39, rule = LifeHistory
6.4B33.2B$7.4B7.A23.5B$8.4B6.3A20.7B$9.4B8.A18.8B$10.4B6.2A18.9B$11.
4B5.6B14.10B$12.4B6.5B14.8BA$13.4B4.7B12.8BABA$14.4B2.8B10.10BABA$15.
14B2.2B2.14BAB$16.34B$12.2A3.33B$13.A4.30B$13.A.AB.30B$14.2A28B2.B$
15.17B.4B$17.19B$8.A10.16B$8.3A8.15B$11.A7.14B$10.2A3.B3.13B$10.8B.
12B$12.18B$12.17B$11.17B$9.18B$7.19B$7.2BC15B$6.3BCBC4B.9B$7.2B3C4B2.
7B$6.5BC4B4.5B$5.10B3.5B$4.4B10.2A$4.3B12.A$2.4B10.3A$2.2A12.A$3.A$3A
$A!

At time T, the signal is carried by the input Herschel, as shown above.
The output glider is created at time T+151; from that point, the rest of the active reaction can be ignored, because it does not do any logic beyond simple cleanup of the blinker, and does not interact with the output glider. Hence (apparently) "the signal becomes a glider" at time T+151:

Code: Select all

#C T + 151
x = 51, y = 39, rule = LifeHistory
6.4B33.2B$7.4B7.A23.5B$8.4B6.3A20.7B$9.4B8.A18.8B$10.4B6.2A18.9B$11.
4B5.6B14.10B$12.4B6.5B14.8BA$13.4B4.7B12.8BABA$14.4B2.8B10.10BABA$15.
14B2.2B2.14BAB$16.2B2A3B2A5BA19B$12.2A3.2A3B2ABA5BA18B$13.A4.BA2B2ABA
5B2A15B$13.A.AB.7B2A3B2A16B$14.2A10BA3BA13B2.B$15.17B.4B$17.19B$8.A
10.16B$8.3A8.15B$11.A7.14B$10.2A3.B3.13B$10.8B.12B$12.18B$12.17B$11.
17B$9.18B$7.19B$7.2BD15B$6.3BDBD4B.9B$7.2B3D4B2.7B$6.5BD4B4.B3AB$5.
10B3.5B$4.4B10.2A$4.3B12.A$2.4B10.3A$2.2A12.A$3.A$3A$A!

However, the above relies on the obvious reading of the existing long-standing definition of signal, which explicitly makes a helpful distinction between signals and mechanisms for delivering those signals across the universe.

If someone does not want to have that distinction, and instead chooses to use the word 'signal' to refer to the reaction passing through a circuit, then things fundamentally change in a measurable way.

Even though the output glider (carrying the signal) is created at time T+151, the active reaction (presumably referred to using the word 'signal') "becomes a glider" only at time T+260, when the leftover blinker is deleted and the rest of the active reaction vanishes:

Code: Select all

#C T + 260
x = 61, y = 56, rule = LifeHistory
3A$A3B$.A3B$2.4B$3.4B$4.4B$5.4B$6.4B$7.4B$8.4B$9.4B$10.4B$11.4B$12.4B
$13.4B$14.4B$15.4B$16.4B33.2B$17.4B7.A23.5B$18.4B6.3A20.7B$19.4B8.A
18.8B$20.4B6.2A18.9B$21.4B5.6B14.10B$22.4B6.5B14.8BA$23.4B4.7B12.8BAB
A$24.4B2.8B10.10BABA$25.14B2.2B2.14BAB$26.34B$22.2A3.33B$23.A4.30B$
23.A.AB.30B$24.2A28B2.B$25.17B.4B$27.19B$18.A10.16B$18.3A8.15B$21.A7.
14B$20.2A3.B3.13B$20.8B.12B$22.18B$22.17B$21.17B$19.18B$17.19B$17.2BD
15B$16.3BDBD4B.9B$17.2B3D4B2.7B$16.5BD4B4.5B$15.10B3.5B$14.4B10.2A$
14.3B12.A$12.4B10.3A$12.2A12.A$13.A$10.3A$10.A!

In this case, the ambiguity could be resolved by writing either of the following:

• "measure to the first tick when the output glider is created" (which would give answer T+151)
• "measure to the first tick when the active reaction becomes a glider" (which would give answer T+260)

[confocaloid]

I think the linked forum threads should be moved to the LifeWiki Discussion subforum, since those threads are directly related to terminology to be used on LifeWiki, rather than threads for discussing patterns/discoveries on the forum.

[...]
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6100
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6059
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6099

Edit: add another link viewtopic.php?p=163902#p163902

EDIT by dvgrn: Done.

[confocaloid]

[...] "Reusable circuitry" is a recently invented phrase [...]

I disagree. Either the specific phrase, or simple variations implying the phrase, can be found in forum posts that are not very recent. (As well as in other places outside the forum.)
For the idea behind the words, the distinction between reusable circuitry and single-use circuitry is old.

[...]
Without those nasty extensible knightwaves, the three new minstrels actually look perfectly detectable. In fact the current Amazing Reusable circuitry actually succeeds in stripping off the ragged minstrel tagalong along with its optional errant- or wandering-minstrel tagalongs, leaving Sir Robin with attached lightweight minstrel intact. The circuitry in question doesn't survive, but that's only because it totally wasn't expecting a ragged minstrel to show up. [...]

[...] Be careful that the circutry does not even have to be reusable - two examples would be the one-time/burnt-after-using Rule 110 unit cell in LWoD or DotLife. [...]

While B4/S is capable of supporting periodicity, not in any finite way. Wicks and agars exist, but they cannot be stabilized. However, It is a good point that circuitry does not have to be reusable, as we can work around some of the constraints of a rule where no pattern can escape it's own bounding box. [...]

[dvgrn]

For the idea behind the words, the distinction between reusable circuitry and single-use circuitry is old.

None of the quotes that you've introduced to support your case actually use the phrase "reusable circuitry" to mean what "signal circuitry" is currently commonly used to mean.

The quote that has those two words next to each other,

"the current Amazing Reusable circuitry"

is short for

"the current Goldtiger997's Amazing Reusable Multipurpose Minstrel Remover and Detector™ circuitry"

-- "Reusable" is capitalized because it's part of a short form of a name, and it applies to the "minstrel remover", not so much to the word "circuitry".

[confocaloid]

For the idea behind the words, the distinction between reusable circuitry and single-use circuitry is old.

None of the quotes that you've introduced to support your case actually use the phrase "reusable circuitry" to mean what "signal circuitry" is currently commonly used to mean.

I think you're missing the point of the part of my post that you quoted.

I think the distinction between reusable circuitry (which can be used repeatedly) and single-use circuitry (which can be used only once, after which it gets destroyed/damaged) is old and useful. Both types of circuitry can be used to carry a signal from one place to another. The actual difference is not in "signal" versus "not signal", but instead in "reusable" versus "single-use".

A signal can be carried by a glider going through a chain of one-time turners separated by empty space. Such a chain of one-time turners is not reusable.

Again, I disagreed with your "recently invented phrase" claim, because the concept of reusability is old, and existing discussions and texts provide examples of corresponding wording ("reusable circuitry", "circutry does not have to be reusable"). The phrase is not recently invented. (And regardless, the more important issue is the concepts behind words and phrases, rather than words and phrases in themselves.)

[dvgrn]

I think you're missing the point of the part of my post that you quoted.
...
The actual difference is not in "signal" versus "not signal", but instead in "reusable" versus "single-use".
...
Again, I disagreed with your "recently invented phrase" claim, because the concept of reusability is old, and existing discussions and texts provide examples of corresponding wording ("reusable circuitry", "circutry does not have to be reusable"). The phrase is not recently invented. (And regardless, the more important issue is the concepts behind words and phrases, rather than words and phrases in themselves.)

Yup, all of that seems true enough. What I said about "reusable circuitry" being a recently invented phrase wasn't the best wording.

I meant to say that it's a recently invented phrase, as far as its application to this suggested usage (a folder label for a collection of reusable signal-processing circuitry).

It would have been clearer if I had said that the term "reusable circuitry" was only very recently offered as a possible substitute for the existing term "signal circuitry".

It's hard to find non-recent instances of people actually using the phrase "reusable circuitry" to refer to the same concept "signal circuitry" is currently used to refer to.

It's easy to find relevant uses of "signal circuitry". So far I've seen very little evidence that anyone is actually confused by that term, or that anyone is in desperate need of a new and different term that means the same thing.

So I'm not currently convinced that there's any need to change anything.

Maybe "reusable circuitry" would have been a better choice for the name of that folder back in 2008 or whenever. I'm not interested in arguing about that, because it seems totally irrelevant to the question of whether the name should be changed now. We're a long way from 2008. There's been a significant amount of common usage of the current term since 2008, there are various references here and there to the "Signal-Circuitry" folder in Golly, and so on. Why would it be worthwhile to change the name at this late date?

How would it not be confusing, to those same hypothetical easily-confused people that you seem to think might find the existing term confusing, if those existing "Signal-Circuitry" references suddenly didn't match anything in new versions of Golly?

At a minimum, before I'm likely to spend any more time thinking about renaming the Signal-Circuitry folder in Golly's pattern collection, at least one other person in the community would have to speak up to say that they think that it really ought to be changed.