The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

For discussion of specific patterns or specific families of patterns, both newly-discovered and well-known.
wwei23

Re: The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

Post by wwei23 » January 15th, 2021, 8:29 pm

I don't think that there's a thread for periodic elementary conduits yet?

Code: Select all

x = 66, y = 15, rule = B3/S23
41b3o13b2o$40b2o14bo2bo$2o39b2o13bobobo$bo53b2obobo$bobo24b2o27bobob2o
$2b2o24b2o22b2o2b2obo2bo$58bobobob2o$55b2obob3o2bo$56bo2bo3b2o$56bob5o
$57bo4bo$8b2o21b2o15b2o8b4o$8b2o22bo15b2o10bo$31bo30bo$31b2o28b2o!
EDIT: I managed to get a century out, without even needing to use any sparkers! Yay!

Code: Select all

x = 55, y = 15, rule = B3/S23
41b3o$40b2o$2o39b2o$bo$bobo24b2o$2b2o24b2o5$51b2o$8b2o21b2o13b2o3bo$8b
2o22bo13bo5b3o$31bo15bo6bo$31b2o13b2o!

User avatar
creeperman7002
Posts: 262
Joined: December 4th, 2018, 11:52 pm

Re: The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

Post by creeperman7002 » January 15th, 2021, 8:43 pm

wwei23 wrote:
January 15th, 2021, 8:29 pm
I don't think that there's a thread for periodic elementary conduits yet?
There is such a thread:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4790
B2n3-jn/S1c23-y is an interesting rule. It has a replicator, a fake glider, an OMOS and SMOS, a wide variety of oscillators, and some signals. Also this rule is omniperiodic.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4856

MathAndCode
Posts: 4486
Joined: August 31st, 2020, 5:58 pm

Re: The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

Post by MathAndCode » January 15th, 2021, 8:57 pm

yujh wrote:
January 15th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Just replace the block with an eater1
I used a block instead of a fishhook because the conduit is supposed to accept an E−B, not an E, although I suppose that it's a technicality.
wwei23 wrote:
January 15th, 2021, 8:29 pm
I managed to get a century out, without even needing to use any sparkers! Yay!
If the B is not perturbed, the century cleanly annihilates the block, resulting in a clean Herschel output (although this is unnecessary because a spark from the next E would delete the block if it remained).
I have historically worked on conduits, but recently, I've been working on glider syntheses and investigating SnakeLife.

User avatar
dvgrn
Moderator
Posts: 7856
Joined: May 17th, 2009, 11:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

Post by dvgrn » January 15th, 2021, 9:40 pm

MathAndCode wrote:
January 15th, 2021, 9:50 am
Edit: Here's a near-miss way to turn it into a pi:

Code: Select all

x = 31, y = 14, rule = B3/S23
29b2o$15b3o10bobo$14b2o12bo$15b2o10b2o2$27b2o$2o24bobo$2o25bo$28b3o$30b
o3$22b2o$22b2o!
That looks like MikeP's near-miss Snark, from way back in 2010:

Code: Select all

x = 18, y = 22, rule = B3/S23
2bo$2b3o$5bo$4b2o3$7bo$6bo$6b3o2$14b2o$7b2o5bobo$7b2o7bo$16b2o3$6bo$2o
bobobo2bo$ob2obob4o$6bo$8bo$7b2o!
The superficial similarity doesn't seem to mean that a Snark catalyst can be successfully substituted into the new near-miss reaction, though.

wwei23

Re: The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

Post by wwei23 » January 15th, 2021, 10:05 pm

creeperman7002 wrote:
January 15th, 2021, 8:43 pm
There is such a thread:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4790
That's for Herschel conduits, not for conduits accepting other inputs.

MathAndCode
Posts: 4486
Joined: August 31st, 2020, 5:58 pm

Re: The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

Post by MathAndCode » January 16th, 2021, 12:15 am

wwei23 wrote:
January 15th, 2021, 10:05 pm
That's for Herschel conduits, not for conduits accepting other inputs.
I have created another thread.
dvgrn wrote:
January 15th, 2021, 9:40 pm
That looks like MikeP's near-miss Snark, from way back in 2010:

Code: Select all

x = 18, y = 22, rule = B3/S23
2bo$2b3o$5bo$4b2o3$7bo$6bo$6b3o2$14b2o$7b2o5bobo$7b2o7bo$16b2o3$6bo$2o
bobobo2bo$ob2obob4o$6bo$8bo$7b2o!
The superficial similarity doesn't seem to mean that a Snark catalyst can be successfully substituted into the new near-miss reaction, though.
I went through the same thought process. However, it turns out that that Payle's near-miss catalyst doesn't even fail in the same way here.

Code: Select all

x = 32, y = 14, rule = B3/S23
29b2o$15b3o10bobo$14b2o12bo$15b2o10b2o2$27b2o$2o24bo2bo$2o25b2o2bo$28b
ob2o$28bo$27b2o2$22b2o$22b2o!
It is possible to restore the catalyst's original state by having it undergo the same reaction in the opposite orientation.

Code: Select all

x = 31, y = 13, rule = B3/S23
15b3o12bo$14b2o12b3o$15b2o10bo$28bo$27b2o$2o24bo$2o25b2o$28bo$28bobo$
29b2o2$22b2o$22b2o!
However, this is not practical for anything besides making shuttles. I've seen that catalyst fail in the exact same way at least once before when trying to use it, so I wonder if anyone has looked into finding replacement catalysts for that particular type of situation.



Edit: In general, the two are interchangeable, which will occasionally be useful to know for welding purposes.

Code: Select all

x = 20, y = 20, rule = B3/S23
3b2o6b2o$4bo7bo$4bob2ob3o6b2o$5bobobo7bobo$8bo8bo$16b2o2$16b2o$o10bo3b
obo$3o7b3o3bo$3bo6bobo4b3o$2bobo14bo$2b2o2$2b2o$2bo8bo$obo7bobobo$2o6b
3ob2obo$7bo7bo$7b2o6b2o!
I have historically worked on conduits, but recently, I've been working on glider syntheses and investigating SnakeLife.

User avatar
bubblegum
Posts: 895
Joined: August 25th, 2019, 11:59 pm
Location: click here to do nothing

Re: The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

Post by bubblegum » January 16th, 2021, 2:40 am

MathAndCode wrote:
January 16th, 2021, 12:15 am
I have created another thread.
Well, the conduit network is already very overcomplicated and I don't really want a four-way general/Herschel periodic/stable split so I think the best course of action is to ask @dvgrn to merge the threads and take Herschel out of the thread topic.
Each day is a hidden opportunity, a frozen waterfall that's waiting to be realised, and one that I'll probably be ignoring
sonata wrote:
July 2nd, 2020, 8:33 pm
conwaylife signatures are amazing[citation needed]
anything

User avatar
dvgrn
Moderator
Posts: 7856
Joined: May 17th, 2009, 11:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

Post by dvgrn » January 16th, 2021, 8:39 am

bubblegum wrote:
January 16th, 2021, 2:40 am
Well, the conduit network is already very overcomplicated and I don't really want a four-way general/Herschel periodic/stable split so I think the best course of action is to ask @dvgrn to merge the threads and take Herschel out of the thread topic.
I don't think I'll merge any threads at the moment. If there's some interest in these various conduit subtopics, it seems to me the forums can support a few separate threads to keep them organized.

I do have a sneaking suspicion that some of these threads won't end up collecting very many actual posts, or many usable conduits. "Dirty" conduits are orders of magnitude more common than clean conduits, for example, but in the painfully rare cases where you can stick two of them together and produce something that works, you usually just end up with a combined conduit that's too big to be usable in practice -- and then everyone has to argue about whether the combination counts as "elementary" or not, since its made up of pieces and yet you can't really take the pieces apart.

But my judgment on this kind of thing often isn't very good, so let's give this a try. I'll go through and edit the first post of each of these threads, to put in a header that gives links to all the other related threads; that way at least it shouldn't be such a pain to figure out where to post things.

Have I missed any? Again, "speculative" generally means that a conduit can successfully convert reaction A to reaction B, but there's no known way to chain other conduits together from an arbitrary input X to an arbitrary output Y, using this conduit. I.e., there's no general X -> ?* -> A -> B -> ?* -> Y -- yet -- but it seems possible that that may change in the future, for some of these As and Bs!

MathAndCode
Posts: 4486
Joined: August 31st, 2020, 5:58 pm

Re: The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

Post by MathAndCode » January 16th, 2021, 11:59 am

bubblegum wrote:
January 16th, 2021, 2:40 am
Well, the conduit network is already very overcomplicated and I don't really want a four-way general/Herschel periodic/stable split so I think the best course of action is to ask @dvgrn to merge the threads and take Herschel out of the thread topic.
I already posted non-Herschel periodic conduits in that thread, but in situations like this, it's typically faster to create a new thread than to convince someone that it's okay to post non-Herschel conduits in a thread whose title says Herschel conduits.


dvgrn wrote:
January 16th, 2021, 8:39 am
Have I missed any?
Should this thread be included?



Edit: This thread should be included in the list.
I have historically worked on conduits, but recently, I've been working on glider syntheses and investigating SnakeLife.

User avatar
Entity Valkyrie 2
Posts: 1040
Joined: February 26th, 2019, 7:13 pm
Location: Hijuatl, Zumaland
Contact:

Re: The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

Post by Entity Valkyrie 2 » January 16th, 2021, 8:10 pm

MathAndCode wrote:
January 15th, 2021, 8:57 pm
wwei23 wrote:
January 15th, 2021, 8:29 pm
I managed to get a century out, without even needing to use any sparkers! Yay!
If the B is not perturbed, the century cleanly annihilates the block, resulting in a clean Herschel output (although this is unnecessary because a spark from the next E would delete the block if it remained).
By not perturbing the B, the conduit becomes identical (output) to the right one:

Code: Select all

x = 46, y = 32, rule = B3/S23
12b2o$12bo31b2o$10bobo31bo$10b2o30bobo$42b2o3$11bob2o$11b2obo3$o33bo$o
bo31bobo$3o31b3o$bo33bo4$37b2o$37b2o10$b3o31b3o$3bo33bo$3b2o32b2o!
Bx222 IS MY WORST ENEMY.

Please click here for my own pages.

My recent rules:
StateInvestigator 3.0
B3-kq4ej5i6ckn7e/S2-i34q6a7
B3-kq4ej5y6c/S2-i34q5e
Move the Box

MathAndCode
Posts: 4486
Joined: August 31st, 2020, 5:58 pm

Re: The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

Post by MathAndCode » January 19th, 2021, 5:10 pm

Here's a P→G:

Code: Select all

x = 15, y = 27, rule = B3/S23
8b2o$8b2o6$o$3o$3bo$2bo$2b2o4$6b3o4b2o$8bo4b2o$6b3o7$4bo$3bobo$3b2o!
I have historically worked on conduits, but recently, I've been working on glider syntheses and investigating SnakeLife.

User avatar
dvgrn
Moderator
Posts: 7856
Joined: May 17th, 2009, 11:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

Post by dvgrn » January 19th, 2021, 8:37 pm

MathAndCode wrote:
January 19th, 2021, 5:10 pm
Here's a P→G...
What can it connect to?

EDIT: Argh. Why not start conduit searches with actual working input conduits, rather than vague memories or hopes? It's hard to connect up a conduit when one of the stages is a rumor.

MathAndCode
Posts: 4486
Joined: August 31st, 2020, 5:58 pm

Re: The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

Post by MathAndCode » January 19th, 2021, 8:44 pm

dvgrn wrote:
January 19th, 2021, 8:37 pm
What can it connect to?
I think that I figured out how to get the pi input in a while ago.
I have historically worked on conduits, but recently, I've been working on glider syntheses and investigating SnakeLife.

User avatar
dvgrn
Moderator
Posts: 7856
Joined: May 17th, 2009, 11:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

Post by dvgrn » January 20th, 2021, 7:20 am

MathAndCode wrote:
January 19th, 2021, 8:44 pm
I think that I figured out how to get the pi input in a while ago.
Okay, so your source was probably the relevant 2G->P collision:

Code: Select all

x = 104, y = 36, rule = LifeHistory
5.A69.A$4.2BA67.2BA$4.3AB66.3AB$5.4B4.2A5.2B53.4B$6.4B3.A.A2.4B54.4B$
7.4B3.A8B54.4B13.A$8.4B4.7B55.4B10.3A$9.4B3.6B57.4B8.A$10.4B.6B59.4B
7.2A$11.11B59.4B3.5B$12.10B60.4B2.3B$13.8B62.9B7.2A$11.5B3D2B.2B60.8B
8.A$10.8BD4B2A60.10B3.B.A.2A$9.7B3D2B.B2A60.7B2A2B.B3A2.A$8.4B2.7B2.B
61.7B2A3BAB2.2A$7.4B4.7B63.12B4A$6.4B5.7B61.2AB.7B3.2B.A$5.4B3.2A.6B
55.A5.A.AB.7B2.B3A$4.4B4.A.7B53.3AB4.A5.4B4.A$3.4B6.A.7B51.A.2B4.2A5.
4B5.5A$2.4B4.3A2.7B50.B2AB11.4B10.A$.4B5.A4.6B50.4B11.4B9.A$3AB11.6B
49.3AB11.4B10.2A$2BA11.6B50.2BA11.4B$.A11.7B51.A11.4B$12.4B.2B63.4B$
11.4B3.2B61.4B$10.4B3.B2AB59.4B$9.4B5.2A59.4B$8.4B66.4B$7.4B66.4B$6.
4B66.4B$5.BD2B66.BD2B$4.2D2B66.2D2B$5.2D68.2D!
It doesn't seem to me that a 2G->G reaction really counts as an elementary conduit. You might as well just block off one of the gliders and reflect the other one -- that way you don't have to bother synchronizing gliders. The output timing is different, but until there's some known use for that output on that lane, this seems like a solution in search of a problem.

... Sure, it's not impossible that some future compact conduit will be found that produces those colliding gliders, or else a direct X-to-P with that improbable amount of clearance. Either of those would totally revolutionize pi conduits -- all kinds of new conduits and connection options would open up. But until then, this P->G seems way to me to be too speculative for this thread, and would just clutter up the Elementary Conduits Collection if it were added.

-- That's just me, though. I'm known to be conservative and grumpy about these things... I might start complaining even more about conduits getting posted that have zero normal conduit input connections, now that there are eleven other threads to choose from, all neatly summarized in the first post in each of these threads.

MathAndCode
Posts: 4486
Joined: August 31st, 2020, 5:58 pm

Re: The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

Post by MathAndCode » January 20th, 2021, 9:52 am

dvgrn wrote:
January 20th, 2021, 7:20 am
Okay, so your source was probably the relevant 2G->P collision:
No, I was thinking about this.
I have historically worked on conduits, but recently, I've been working on glider syntheses and investigating SnakeLife.

User avatar
dvgrn
Moderator
Posts: 7856
Joined: May 17th, 2009, 11:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

Post by dvgrn » January 20th, 2021, 12:14 pm

MathAndCode wrote:
January 20th, 2021, 9:52 am
dvgrn wrote:
January 20th, 2021, 7:20 am
Okay, so your source was probably the relevant 2G->P collision:
No, I was thinking about this.
Aha, yet another category of conduit, where examples have been cropping up for decades, but we don't have a dedicated collection thread.

I've been calling them "stop-and-go" or "stop-and-restart" conduits -- usually they're Herschel-to-stable-object converters, such that a single glider hitting the stable object will allow a clean signal to escape. Dozens of these have showed up in the last 25 years, but they're not in an organized stamp collection anywhere, I don't think.

Mostly this is because they tend to be fairly big and ugly, and usually they're not safe for different signal orders -- if you try to consume the stable object when the signal that creates it hasn't come in yet, the whole thing explodes. In most cases it's much simpler to just use a standard demultiplexer plus a syringe on the output glider lane.

Anyway, other opinions will no doubt differ, but I think the key point remains: anything that needs a great big complicated composite input circuit to work ... is not really an elementary conduit, even if it might look like one.

MathAndCode
Posts: 4486
Joined: August 31st, 2020, 5:58 pm

Re: The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

Post by MathAndCode » February 2nd, 2021, 5:58 pm

Here is my draft for the next update of the Elementary Conduit Collection. Please keep in mind that is only a draft/work in progress and not intended to be the actual update.
Attachments
ECC update draft.txt
(428.84 KiB) Downloaded 30 times
I have historically worked on conduits, but recently, I've been working on glider syntheses and investigating SnakeLife.

MathAndCode
Posts: 4486
Joined: August 31st, 2020, 5:58 pm

Re: The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

Post by MathAndCode » February 11th, 2021, 6:56 pm

MathAndCode wrote:
February 2nd, 2021, 5:58 pm
Here is my draft for the next update of the Elementary Conduit Collection. Please keep in mind that is only a draft/work in progress and not intended to be the actual update.
I have added some more conduits (including some for the blonk-tie sequence), but I'm sure that there are at least several that are missing. If you know of any elementary conduits that are missing, please post a link, post the RLE, or add them yourself then post the modified file. (Be sure that you are only adding elementary conduits.) (I believe that the plan is that eventually, someone will update the compiling script, but I want to have all of the conduits in one place by the time that that happens so that we're not scrambling to find conduits then.) Also, I have some questions that I'd like feedback on:
  • What is the direction notation standard for the S-sequence?
  • What are the centers of the E-heptomino, I-heptomino, and stairstep hexomino for the purpose of glider lane and timing notation?
  • What letter should the blonk-tie sequence receive? (The current symbol is only intended to be a placeholder.)
  • Is HS1T322L correct?
  • Are the orientations of the new regions good? (The Herschel has the same orientation as the B-sequence that makes it, and the B-sequence has the same orientation as the R-sequence that makes it, so I chose to give the I-sequence the same orientation as the century sequence that makes it, give the S-sequence the same orientation as the dove sequence that it can make, and give the E-sequence and blonk-tie sequence the same orientation as the B-sequence that they make.)
Attachments
ECC update draft.txt
(478.38 KiB) Downloaded 16 times
I have historically worked on conduits, but recently, I've been working on glider syntheses and investigating SnakeLife.

Sphenocorona
Posts: 527
Joined: April 9th, 2013, 11:03 pm

Re: The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

Post by Sphenocorona » February 11th, 2021, 10:14 pm

Here's my current thoughts (admittedly I haven't looked over everything super thoroughly though). First, answers to some of the existing questions:
  1. See point 5, but... I'm not sure what names we should use when naming the directions it can go.
  2. I think the 5-neighbor cell in the E would be a reasonable canonical center, and I'll address the I later. The LoM is the most annoying here by far since it's rotationally symmetric around the edge *between* two cells, and the initial expansion suggests two other possible cells when you consider just one half. I feel like any canonical center is going to be unsatisfying and make a huge assumption about which direction the LoM is "coming from". I'm not sure what I feel is my preferred choice yet.
  3. Maybe "J"? That doesnt feel so great to me when we also have "I", but it *does* make a J shape on its first generation.
  4. I don't feel like I have the background knowledge to weigh in on whether this one is "good" or "correct"
  5. I think the "S" (I'll get to the abbreviation later) should have the "forwards"/"backwards" directions in the dimension it expands into, rather than perpendicular. There's only one complete stable X->LoM->X conduit chain that exists right now (other than the LoM hassler oscillator), and it ejects the LoM with the lobes pointed "forwards" and not "sideways" like most methods of producing them end up doing. Unfortunately this doesn't match with the D like you described, but I think it's also worth noting that the LoM doesn't actually produce the form of a D at all without some kind of catalysis (even if it is admittedly a very simple one). I think E and I have good orientations, though again I have comments about the I. Not sure on blonk-tie - it moves downwards, but its first few generations aren't very clear about what it's going to do.
Anyway, my added points:
  • I'm more partial to "Z" since "S" could also be taken to mean "swimmer" (switch engine) and while S describes both well, Z only works for LoM. Admittedly nobody has found a usable switch engine output so there isn't currently a problem here, but it's something I still worry about very slightly (and probably unnecessarily).
  • Probably the biggest point I want to make. As mentioned in the discord, I feel like this should be the canonical "generation 0" of the I sequence for the conduit collection:

    Code: Select all

    x = 5, y = 5, rule = LifeHistory
    2.C$.C.C$C3.C$.C2.C$3.2C!
    I find this form much more recognizable, understandable (you can quickly tell it is about to move right), natural (almost all I sequences that occur naturally pass through this bottleneck stage, whereas the I heptomino itself is incredibly rare. The method you used to get the canonical orientation only first enters the standard I sequence at this stage!), and honestly I think it just looks way nicer.
  • I've been wondering if it might make sense for there to be two official versions of the ECC: one that is focused more on conduits and signals that are known to be connectable, effective, and connect using good branch points (stuff like H, R, B, P, Q, G, and I guess C and M) - with useful composite conduits that can only be broken down using more exotic signals being included too (with the intermediates marked of course). The other one would be a more fully developed one that includes exotic signals as well as things that have genuine hope but aren't quite usable, or only work with periodic conduits (though it should make sure to distinguish those that are connectable from those that aren't). If there are eventually way too many composite conduits in the simplified ECC that use some particular "exotic" signal, then we can talk about letting it graduate out of the "exotic" category.
  • Is attention being paid to repeat time here? I think that ultra-high repeat times aren't necessarily bad if the output signal is really slow. But RR204P, as great as it is at injecting a Pi, still has a repeat time of 684 in the form shown in the draft. The old rule for maximum repeat times to be included was something in the range of 300 to 400 ticks as a hard cutoff I believe, but in the future it might make the most sense to have it be "less than X generations more than the travel time" so that conduits useful as extreme compact delays are still documented fairly. RR204P probably would end up failing that criterion in its current form, unfortunately.
Hopefully I didn't mess up editing my message anywhere, since that was a lot to get through...

MathAndCode
Posts: 4486
Joined: August 31st, 2020, 5:58 pm

Re: The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

Post by MathAndCode » February 11th, 2021, 11:28 pm

Sphenocorona wrote:
February 11th, 2021, 10:14 pm
I think the 5-neighbor cell in the E would be a reasonable canonical center, and I'll address the I later. The LoM is the most annoying here by far since it's rotationally symmetric around the edge *between* two cells.
Your proposal for the E's center sounds good. I'll probably use decimals as a placeholder for the S->G name until someone thinks of something better.
Sphenocorona wrote:
February 11th, 2021, 10:14 pm
Maybe "J"? That doesnt feel so great to me when we also have "I", but it *does* make a J shape on its first generation.
I don't think that the letters will be too hard to tell apart visually, so I'll assign it J. Thank you for the idea.
Sphenocorona wrote:
February 11th, 2021, 10:14 pm
I think the "S" (I'll get to the abbreviation later) should have the "forwards"/"backwards" directions in the dimension it expands into, rather than perpendicular. There's only one complete stable X->LoM->X conduit chain that exists right now (other than the LoM hassler oscillator), and it ejects the LoM with the lobes pointed "forwards" and not "sideways" like most methods of producing them end up doing. Unfortunately this doesn't match with the D like you described, but I think it's also worth noting that the LoM doesn't actually produce the form of a D at all without some kind of catalysis (even if it is admittedly a very simple one)
That's a good point about which way it expands, but that raises the question of which reflection should be its canonical orientation.

Code: Select all

x = 15, y = 4, rule = B3/S23
2bo9bo$b2o9b2o$2o11b2o$o13bo!
[[ VIEWONLY ]]
Also, I'm wondering whether instead of using forward (F), left (L), right (R), and backwards (B) for describing the relative orientation of S-creating and S-accepting conduits, we should use straight (S) and turned (T) or something similar in order to reflect its twofold rotational symmetry. As before, x would denote a reflection. Of course, we would need a different system for gliders, and an S-accepting conduit with multiple non-S outputs would use the standard nomenclature.
Sphenocorona wrote:
February 11th, 2021, 10:14 pm
I'm more partial to "Z" since "S" could also be taken to mean "swimmer" (switch engine) and while S describes both well, Z only works for LoM. Admittedly nobody has found a usable switch engine output so there isn't currently a problem here, but it's something I still worry about very slightly (and probably unnecessarily).
The main reason that I chose S over other rotationally symmetric letters is because stairstep begins with S. Also, hearing the letter Z in the context of branch points brings to my mind the Z-hexomino, which is somewhat common, for example occurring when half of a forming traffic light interacts with a preexisting blinker. I've found two conduits accepting it so far, and more may be possible.

Code: Select all

x = 67, y = 21, rule = B3/S23
2o11b2o34b2o14b2o$2o11bo35b2o14bo$11bobo49bobo$4bo6b2o40bo9b2o$3b3o46b
3o2$8bo48bo$8bo48bo$8bo48bo6b2o$64b2o8$58b2o$58bobo$60bo$60b2o!
However, despite the LWSS, the Z-hexomino's small range makes it not very useful as a branch region for catalysts, so there's probably not much danger in that respect. However, as far as I know, switch engines are pretty uncommon, and I don't want to keep getting confused with the Z-hexomino, so I would prefer S over Z.
Sphenocorona wrote:
February 11th, 2021, 10:14 pm
Probably the biggest point I want to make. As mentioned in the discord, I feel like this should be the canonical "generation 0" of the I sequence for the conduit collection:

Code: Select all

x = 5, y = 5, rule = LifeHistory
2.C$.C.C$C3.C$.C2.C$3.2C!
I find this form much more recognizable, understandable (you can quickly tell it is about to move right), natural (almost all I sequences that occur naturally pass through this bottleneck stage, whereas the I heptomino itself is incredibly rare. The method you used to get the canonical orientation only first enters the standard I sequence at this stage!), and honestly I think it just looks way nicer.
Personally, when I look at that, I think that it's going to go up instead of to the right due to its similarity with generation six of the pi-heptomino, while the I-heptomino looks to me like it's going to go in the direction that it ends up going it. Also, I would prefer the canonical form to be more compact. However, because someone else (I think BlinkerSpawn) agreed with you on Discord, I'm going to acknowledge consensus and change it.
Sphenocorona wrote:
February 11th, 2021, 10:14 pm
I've been wondering if it might make sense for there to be two official versions of the ECC: one that is focused more on conduits and signals that are known to be connectable, effective, and connect using good branch points (stuff like H, R, B, P, Q, G, and I guess C and M) - with useful composite conduits that can only be broken down using more exotic signals being included too (with the intermediates marked of course). The other one would be a more fully developed one that includes exotic signals as well as things that have genuine hope but aren't quite usable, or only work with periodic conduits (though it should make sure to distinguish those that are connectable from those that aren't). If there are eventually way too many composite conduits in the simplified ECC that use some particular "exotic" signal, then we can talk about letting it graduate out of the "exotic" category.
I think that that would be a good idea. For example, a while ago, I found two ways to make a procrestinator, but I didn't save them because I didn't know that we already had a many to turn it into a B-sequence. The two-glider octomino, the heavyweight spaceship, and probably at least a few other regions could also go there.
Sphenocorona wrote:
February 11th, 2021, 10:14 pm
Is attention being paid to repeat time here? I think that ultra-high repeat times aren't necessarily bad if the output signal is really slow. But RR204P, as great as it is at injecting a Pi, still has a repeat time of 684 in the form shown in the draft. The old rule for maximum repeat times to be included was something in the range of 300 to 400 ticks as a hard cutoff I believe, but in the future it might make the most sense to have it be "less than X generations more than the travel time" so that conduits useful as extreme compact delays are still documented fairly. RR204P probably would end up failing that criterion in its current form, unfortunately.
Whoops; I had forgotten about that. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I'll remove it (and the other conduits with that same beginning). Hopefully, however, a version with a faster repeat time will be found soon.



Edit: I have given the blonk-tie sequence the letter J, named the E->G and S->G conduits, and made some other changes. I am attaching the most recent version to this post.
Attachments
ECC update draft.txt
(458.23 KiB) Downloaded 16 times
I have historically worked on conduits, but recently, I've been working on glider syntheses and investigating SnakeLife.

User avatar
Entity Valkyrie 2
Posts: 1040
Joined: February 26th, 2019, 7:13 pm
Location: Hijuatl, Zumaland
Contact:

Re: The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

Post by Entity Valkyrie 2 » February 12th, 2021, 8:48 pm

Just a small point: Maybe reserve the letter N for HWSS.
Bx222 IS MY WORST ENEMY.

Please click here for my own pages.

My recent rules:
StateInvestigator 3.0
B3-kq4ej5i6ckn7e/S2-i34q6a7
B3-kq4ej5y6c/S2-i34q5e
Move the Box

MathAndCode
Posts: 4486
Joined: August 31st, 2020, 5:58 pm

Re: The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

Post by MathAndCode » February 12th, 2021, 8:56 pm

Entity Valkyrie 2 wrote:
February 12th, 2021, 8:48 pm
Just a small point: Maybe reserve the letter N for HWSS.
Yes, I already planned to do that, although creating a collection of conduits with wannabe branch points would secure that.
I have historically worked on conduits, but recently, I've been working on glider syntheses and investigating SnakeLife.

User avatar
Entity Valkyrie 2
Posts: 1040
Joined: February 26th, 2019, 7:13 pm
Location: Hijuatl, Zumaland
Contact:

Re: The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

Post by Entity Valkyrie 2 » February 12th, 2021, 11:06 pm

And maybe reserve X for an "unidentified region"? (e.g. G-to-X, H-to-X)
Bx222 IS MY WORST ENEMY.

Please click here for my own pages.

My recent rules:
StateInvestigator 3.0
B3-kq4ej5i6ckn7e/S2-i34q6a7
B3-kq4ej5y6c/S2-i34q5e
Move the Box

MathAndCode
Posts: 4486
Joined: August 31st, 2020, 5:58 pm

Re: The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

Post by MathAndCode » February 13th, 2021, 12:01 am

Entity Valkyrie 2 wrote:
February 12th, 2021, 11:06 pm
And maybe reserve X for an "unidentified region"? (e.g. G-to-X, H-to-X)
I agree, although I don't think that there's a big chance of X being used for something anyway.
I have historically worked on conduits, but recently, I've been working on glider syntheses and investigating SnakeLife.

MathAndCode
Posts: 4486
Joined: August 31st, 2020, 5:58 pm

Re: The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

Post by MathAndCode » February 14th, 2021, 9:03 pm

Extrementhusiast wrote:
December 20th, 2020, 6:45 pm
RF12B from backwards R formation, complementing the known RFx10B:

Code: Select all

x = 17, y = 14, rule = LifeHistory
.2A$A2.A2.2A$A.A2.A.A$.A.2A$3.A$3.A2.A7.D$2.2A.A.A6.2D$.A2.A.A3.2C3.
2D$2.A.A6.2C.2D$3.A.A5.C$5.A$4.A.2A$4.A2.A$5.2A!
It might be possible to do the same thing from the side. Here's a close call:

Code: Select all

x = 12, y = 13, rule = LifeHistory
9.D$9.2D$5.2C3.2D$6.2C2.D$6.C2.D3$3.2A$2.A.A$2.A$3.A$3A$A!
[[ PASTEMODE COPY PASTET 12 PASTE D! 5 5 ]]


Edit: Here's another close call:

Code: Select all

x = 7, y = 8, rule = LifeHistory
4.2C$5.2C$5.C2$2.A$.A.A$A2.A$.2A!
[[ PASTEMODE COPY PASTET 13 PASTE D! 4 5 ]]
I have historically worked on conduits, but recently, I've been working on glider syntheses and investigating SnakeLife.

Post Reply