Suggested LifeWiki edits

For discussion directly related to ConwayLife.com, such as requesting changes to how the forums or wiki function.
User avatar
Ian07
Posts: 703
Joined: September 22nd, 2018, 8:48 am

Re: Suggested LifeWiki edits

Post by Ian07 » May 28th, 2021, 8:21 am

GUYTU6J wrote:
May 27th, 2021, 4:27 am
Is it only me, or the navigation bar on the Special:Preferences page for a login-ed (how to say that) user is generally broken? Compared with other pages including Special:Watchlist, the bar there has no background color and the texts are smaller.
Nope, I see it too. Not sure why the CSS isn't doing anything there.
GUYTU6J wrote:
May 27th, 2021, 4:27 am
login-ed (how to say that)
"Logged-in", probably.
GUYTU6J wrote:
May 27th, 2021, 4:27 am
Also, I would dig out some of my previous proposals and questions, but there are many such posts so just look at older posts please.
Apologies, I'll take a look at them this weekend since I should have time, for once.
GUYTU6J wrote:
May 27th, 2021, 4:27 am

I hold some objections for this matter, particularly after CG made too many edits of this type which cluttered up in the Recent Changes. Can anyone clarify why exactly it is a good idea to do so?
The idea of this appears to be to allow easier navigation to, for example, oscillators that are notable enough to be mentioned on the wiki and may have unique properties compared to the other patterns they're based on. My own feelings are somewhat mixed about it, but I decided to go along with it just to make sure things are at least cleaned up. I also have a list of categorized redirects in my userspace, so we can keep track of them in case we come to a consensus to decategorize them.

hotdogPi
Posts: 455
Joined: August 12th, 2020, 8:22 pm

Re: Suggested LifeWiki edits

Post by hotdogPi » May 28th, 2021, 11:17 am

Ian07 wrote:
May 28th, 2021, 8:21 am
GUYTU6J wrote:
May 27th, 2021, 4:27 am

I hold some objections for this matter, particularly after CG made too many edits of this type which cluttered up in the Recent Changes. Can anyone clarify why exactly it is a good idea to do so?
The idea of this appears to be to allow easier navigation to, for example, oscillators that are notable enough to be mentioned on the wiki and may have unique properties compared to the other patterns they're based on. My own feelings are somewhat mixed about it, but I decided to go along with it just to make sure things are at least cleaned up. I also have a list of categorized redirects in my userspace, so we can keep track of them in case we come to a consensus to decategorize them.
I feel like I'm actually the one who made it standard. I only did so after you suggested it with the pre-pulsar and two pond and two block hasslers.
User:HotdogPi/My discoveries

Periods discovered: 6,8,10-16,18,20,21G,22,24,25,27-31,32SG,35,36,40,42,45,48,50,54G,55G,57G,60,63-66,70,74S,75,76S,84,96S,100,117G,120,126,128S,138,147,156,196S,217,486,576

S: SKOP
G: gun

ColorfulGabrielsp138
Posts: 288
Joined: March 29th, 2021, 5:45 am

Re: Suggested LifeWiki edits

Post by ColorfulGabrielsp138 » May 30th, 2021, 6:59 am

GUYTU6J wrote:
May 27th, 2021, 4:27 am
Is it only me, or the navigation bar on the Special:Preferences page for a login-ed (how to say that) user is generally broken? Compared with other pages including Special:Watchlist, the bar there has no background color and the texts are smaller.
Also, I would dig out some of my previous proposals and questions, but there are many such posts so just look at older posts please.
---
ColorfulGabrielsp138 wrote:
May 8th, 2021, 11:03 pm
Also redirect pages should be added to categories
I hold some objections for this matter, particularly after CG made too many edits of this type which cluttered up in the Recent Changes. Can anyone clarify why exactly it is a good idea to do so?
The wiki article on "Help redirect" says that redirects can't include anything else except categories, if I remember correctly. Goldenratio once removed the categories from my edits to the tetradecathlon page, but then undid it saying "never mind".
The category "patterns that can not be constructed with gliders" has too few pages because the garden of eden pages became redirect pages.
The Category:UserImages also contains too few pages.
By the way, many of my posts on my previous account went missing.

Sorry for such a long "Trumpish" post like this

Code: Select all

x = 21, y = 21, rule = LifeColorful
11.E$10.3E$10.E.2E$13.E4$2.2B$.2B$2B$.2B15.2D$19.2D$18.2D$17.2D4$7.C$
7.2C.C$8.3C$9.C!
I have reduced the glider cost of quadratic growth to eight and probably to seven. Looking for conduits...

User avatar
wwei47
Posts: 1006
Joined: February 18th, 2021, 11:18 am

Re: Suggested LifeWiki edits

Post by wwei47 » June 21st, 2021, 10:04 am

Can we change this?
The lifesrc algorithm is only useful for very small periods, as the amount of computing power required rises rapidly with increasing period. For most purposes, period 7 is the practical limit with current hardware.
Here are some higher-period oscillators that have been discovered or rediscovered at least in part with the lifesrc algorithm, to prove my point.

Code: Select all

x = 170, y = 46, rule = B3/S23
2obob2o9b2obob2o12b2o9b2o8b2o3b2o13b2obob2o15b2o40b2o18b2o$3bo15bo16b
o9bo8bobo3bobo15bo14b2o6b2o14bo19bo4bo14bo4bo$o5bo9bo5bo13bob2o3b2obo
8bo7bo12bo5bo10bo10bo11bo3bo33b2o10b2o$b5o11b5o15b2obobob2o6b2obo7bob
2o10b5o11bobo6bobo33bo4bo10bo2bo6bo2bo$39b2ob2o9bobob2ob2obobo26b2obo
b4obob2o6bo2bo5bo2bo13bo4bo11b3ob4ob3o$33b2o13b2o3bobob2ob2obobo29bob
4obo9b4ob3ob4o13bo4bo14bo4bo$3ob3o9b3ob3o10bo2b2o7b2o2bo2b2ob4ob4ob2o
9b3ob3o9b2obo6bob2o4b2o4bo3bo4b2o11bo4bo11b3o6b3o$34b3o9b3o5bo9bo28bo
bo2b2o2bobo4bo3bob3ob3obo3bo10bo4bo10bo12bo$37bo7bo8bo9bo7b2o11b2o6bo
2bob2obo2bo5b3obo2bobo2bob3o12bo2bo12b5o2b5o$34b4o7b4o4b2obobobobob2o
6bobo9bobo7bob2o2b2obo8bobo7bobo14bo2bo17b2o$34bo2bobo3bobo2bo6bob2ob
2obo10bo9bo8b2ob2o2b2ob2o8b2o7b2o10b2o4b2o4b2o9b2o4b2o$16b2o3b2o12bob
ob2ob2obobo7bo7bo9b2ob2o3b2ob2o24bo6bobo6bo7bobo2bo2bo2bobo8bobo4bobo
$14b3ob3ob3o7b3o2bo7bo2b3o3b2o7b2o8bo2bob3obo2bo7b2o2b4o2b2o5b7o3b7o5b
obo12bobo6b2o6b2o$13bo4bobo4bo6bo4b2obobob2o4bo24bo2bobo2bo8bobo2bo2b
o2bobo26b2obo4b2o4bob2o$14b5ob5o15bobo33b3ob3o10bo10bo7b2o9b2o10bobo6b
obo$37b3o3b3o66bobobo3bobobo7b2obobobo2bobobob2o8b2o2b2o$14b11o12bo7b
o28b11o24b2obo11bob2o3bobob2ob2o2b2ob2obobo6bo2b2o2bo$13bo5bo5bo47bo5b
o5bo23bo2bob4ob4obo2bo3bobobo2bo4bo2bobobo4bobob4obobo$12bobob2o3b2ob
obo45bobob2o3b2obobo24bob2o2bobo2b2obo6bo2b2o8b2o2bo3b3obobo2bobob3o$
12bobobob3obobobo45bobobob3obobobo20b5o3bobobobo3b5o3b2o2bo6bo2b2o3bo
3b2ob4ob2o3bo$11b2o2bo7bo2b2o43b2o2bo7bo2b2o19bo4bob2obobob2obo4bo5b2o
8b2o6b2o3bo4bo3b2o$13bobobo3bobobo47bobobo3bobobo22bo2bo2bob2ob2obo2b
o2bo6bo10bo8b2o2bo2bo2b2o$11b2obobo5bobob2o43b2obobo5bobob2o19b2o2b3o
3bobo3b3o2b2o2b2obo2b6o2bob2o5bob2o4b2obo$8bobo3bobobobobobo3bobo39bo
3bobobobobobo3bo25b2obobob2o9b2obobo6bobob2o$8b2obobobo2bobo2bobobob2o
37bo2bobobo2bobo2bobobo2bo20b5obobob5o9bobo6bobo$11bo15bo40b2obo15bob
2o19bo4bobobobo4bo5b2obo2bo4bo2bob2o$11bobo2bob3obo2bobo43bobo2bob3ob
o2bobo22b2o4bo3bo4b2o5b2ob2o8b2ob2o$8b2obob2ob2obob2ob2obob2o40bob2ob
2obob2ob2obo26b2o5b2o12bo10bo$8b2ob2obo2bo3bo2bob2ob2o37b2ob2obo2bo3b
o2bob2ob2o44bobo6bobo$11bo2b4obob4o2bo40b2obo2b4obob4o2bob2o42b2o2bo6b
o2b2o$11bobo4b3o4bobo43bobo4b3o4bobo25bo9bo8bo2b2o8b2o2bo$12bob2o7b2o
bo44bobobo7bobobo24bobo7bobo6bobobo10bobobo$13bo3b5o3bo44b2obo2b7o2bo
b2o22bo3bo5bo3bo5bobobob2o4b2obobobo$14b2o7b2o49b2o7b2o25bo3bo7bo3bo5b
2obob2o4b2obob2o$16b7o50b3o2b3o2b3o23bo3bo9bo3bo7bob2o4b2obo$16bo2bo2b
o48b2o4bo3bo4b2o20bo3bo11bo3bo3b2obobo6bobob2o$70bo2b2o2b2ob2o2b2o2bo
20bobo13bobo4bobobo3b2o3bobobo$69bobob2ob2obob2ob2obobo20bo15bo7bo5b2o
5bo$70bo3bo2bo3bo2bo3bo45b2o10b2o$71b2o2bo7bo2b2o52b2o$72bo2bob5obo2b
o52bo2bo$70bo5bobobobo5bo50bo2bo$70b2o5bo3bo5b2o49b6o$74b3o5b3o$74bo9b
o52bo2b2o2bo$137b2ob2ob2o!
Self-proclaimed synthesis "expert"

Naszvadi
Posts: 850
Joined: May 7th, 2016, 8:53 am
Contact:

Re: Suggested LifeWiki edits

Post by Naszvadi » July 6th, 2021, 4:42 am

Adjustable glider loop wiki entry has an only example pattern with many miscalculated periods, but I might be wrong.

User avatar
dvgrn
Moderator
Posts: 8195
Joined: May 17th, 2009, 11:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Suggested LifeWiki edits

Post by dvgrn » July 6th, 2021, 5:08 am

Naszvadi wrote:
July 6th, 2021, 4:42 am
Adjustable glider loop wiki entry has an only example pattern with many miscalculated periods, but I might be wrong.
You're not wrong -- the p47, p49, and p51 loops were all slightly the wrong size. I've corrected them in RLE:Loops43to54, if anyone wants to triple-check.

hotdogPi
Posts: 455
Joined: August 12th, 2020, 8:22 pm

Re: Suggested LifeWiki edits

Post by hotdogPi » July 7th, 2021, 1:09 pm

Is there still a rule against adding your own discoveries? I have 7 entries on the 2021 category page plus several in the honey farm hassler page. Since there's no problem with what I'm doing (as far as I know), there must be something wrong with the rule itself.

(Note that simply having a whole bunch discovered by the same person for one year isn't unusual — see carybe's symmetric soup search in 2018 and the bumpers in 2016.)
User:HotdogPi/My discoveries

Periods discovered: 6,8,10-16,18,20,21G,22,24,25,27-31,32SG,35,36,40,42,45,48,50,54G,55G,57G,60,63-66,70,74S,75,76S,84,96S,100,117G,120,126,128S,138,147,156,196S,217,486,576

S: SKOP
G: gun

User avatar
dvgrn
Moderator
Posts: 8195
Joined: May 17th, 2009, 11:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Suggested LifeWiki edits

Post by dvgrn » July 7th, 2021, 4:30 pm

hotdogPi wrote:
July 7th, 2021, 1:09 pm
Is there still a rule against adding your own discoveries? I have 7 entries on the 2021 category page plus several in the honey farm hassler page. Since there's no problem with what I'm doing (as far as I know), there must be something wrong with the rule itself.

(Note that simply having a whole bunch discovered by the same person for one year isn't unusual — see carybe's symmetric soup search in 2018 and the bumpers in 2016.)
The rule in question looks like this:

"To prevent overenthusiastic edits and conflicts of interest, a commonly accepted rule is that the discoverer of a pattern, inventor of new terminology, writer of a program, etc., etc., should not be the one to document that pattern, term, or program on the LifeWiki."

This is a rule that we're going to keep, because it's so useful to be able to point to it when somebody who is very new and enthusiastic discovers a methuselah or an interesting shape or something, and really really wants to enshrine its name in the LifeWiki because it's such an irresistibly good name.

So there's nothing wrong with the rule, it's just that there's an unmentioned part of it, which is that if you ignore the rule and create an article about a discovery of yours, and nobody bothers you about it, then your judgment was correct that the pattern in question is an exception to that rule.

If somebody does complain about you creating the article, then it's time to think about whether you judged incorrectly, or whether the complainer is judging incorrectly. Both things happen. The more complainers there are, the more likely it is that you should have just been patient and waited for somebody else to make the article.

I personally take the rule fairly seriously. For example, I've wanted a "loopship" LifeWiki article for years, but nobody has ever made one. So apparently nobody thinks it's a notable name, or else nobody understands it well enough to write the article. Rather than write it myself, I'm continuing to wait patiently, while occasionally writing plaintive little notes like this one and hoping someone takes up the challenge.

User avatar
Ian07
Posts: 703
Joined: September 22nd, 2018, 8:48 am

Re: Suggested LifeWiki edits

Post by Ian07 » July 7th, 2021, 5:09 pm

dvgrn wrote:
July 7th, 2021, 4:30 pm
I personally take the rule fairly seriously. For example, I've wanted a "loopship" LifeWiki article for years, but nobody has ever made one. So apparently nobody thinks it's a notable name, or else nobody understands it well enough to write the article. Rather than write it myself, I'm continuing to wait patiently, while occasionally writing plaintive little notes like this one and hoping someone takes up the challenge.
I probably would have written the loopship article if I understood it better. If it means anything, I as a fellow admin hereby give you permission to write it yourself. :P

hotdogPi
Posts: 455
Joined: August 12th, 2020, 8:22 pm

Re: Suggested LifeWiki edits

Post by hotdogPi » July 18th, 2021, 9:08 am

One issue I encountered about a week ago, but it might come up again: should discovery dates be determined by what day it is in UTC? (No need to change them retroactively.) If it's the discoverer's local time zone, there could be a pattern that gets reduced or synthesized the day before it's discovered.
User:HotdogPi/My discoveries

Periods discovered: 6,8,10-16,18,20,21G,22,24,25,27-31,32SG,35,36,40,42,45,48,50,54G,55G,57G,60,63-66,70,74S,75,76S,84,96S,100,117G,120,126,128S,138,147,156,196S,217,486,576

S: SKOP
G: gun

Qyz
Posts: 3
Joined: August 24th, 2018, 11:27 pm

Re: Suggested LifeWiki edits

Post by Qyz » July 27th, 2021, 10:43 am

The final population of E-heptomino was not correct on its page.
It should be 52, so F/I=7.4, F/L=0.152.
*EDIT: corrected.
Last edited by Qyz on July 27th, 2021, 9:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
yujh
Posts: 2425
Joined: February 27th, 2020, 11:23 pm
Location: Toronto, On, Canada (加拿大,安大略省,多伦多)
Contact:

Re: Suggested LifeWiki edits

Post by yujh » July 27th, 2021, 2:27 pm

Qyz wrote:
July 27th, 2021, 10:43 am
The final population of E-heptomino is not correct on its page (July 27th 2021 14:40).
It should be 52, so F/I=7.4, F/L=0.152.
Done!
Nothing to apgsearch? Try b38s23/C1!

B34kz5e7c8/S23-a4ityz5k!!!

b2n3-q5y6cn7s23-k4c8

B3-kq6cn8/S2-i3-a4ciyz8

B3-kq4z5e7c8/S2-ci3-a4ciq5ek6eik7

wiki

Rule modifier

Bored of Conway's Game of Life? Try Pedestrian Life -- not pedestrian at all!

User avatar
muzik
Posts: 4267
Joined: January 28th, 2016, 2:47 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: Suggested LifeWiki edits

Post by muzik » August 10th, 2021, 10:26 am

Can the 2016 version of https://www.conwaylife.com/wiki/Honey_factory be restored for a userspace move?

User avatar
dvgrn
Moderator
Posts: 8195
Joined: May 17th, 2009, 11:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Suggested LifeWiki edits

Post by dvgrn » August 11th, 2021, 6:18 am

muzik wrote:
August 10th, 2021, 10:26 am
Can the 2016 version of https://www.conwaylife.com/wiki/Honey_factory be restored for a userspace move?
You seem to have done this already, so the answer seems to be "yes", but it's kind of mysterious why this request is still here.

User avatar
muzik
Posts: 4267
Joined: January 28th, 2016, 2:47 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: Suggested LifeWiki edits

Post by muzik » August 11th, 2021, 12:22 pm

dvgrn wrote:
August 11th, 2021, 6:18 am
muzik wrote:
August 10th, 2021, 10:26 am
Can the 2016 version of https://www.conwaylife.com/wiki/Honey_factory be restored for a userspace move?
You seem to have done this already, so the answer seems to be "yes", but it's kind of mysterious why this request is still here.
I'd think otherwise, as the revision history of the version in question only goes back to 2017, considerably after the 2016 deletion date.

User avatar
Ian07
Posts: 703
Joined: September 22nd, 2018, 8:48 am

Re: Suggested LifeWiki edits

Post by Ian07 » August 11th, 2021, 2:02 pm

muzik wrote:
August 10th, 2021, 10:26 am
Can the 2016 version of https://www.conwaylife.com/wiki/Honey_factory be restored for a userspace move?
Done.

User avatar
GUYTU6J
Posts: 1469
Joined: August 5th, 2016, 10:27 am
Location: 拆哪!I repeat, CHINA! (a.k.a. 种花家)
Contact:

Re: Suggested LifeWiki edits

Post by GUYTU6J » August 13th, 2021, 2:33 am

Is the displacement of Fx119 (20, -14), as in h-to-h-collection-26Aug2017.rle and the previous version of Bx106 article, or (20, 14), as in the Fx119 article, or (-20, 14), as in the Herschel conduit article? I've just edited the Bx106 to remove the weird wanted displacement category; for now the part about Fx119 is taken out due to the question above.
Reveal your devil secrets, Fort Detrick! The origin of COVID-19 is to be uncovered by science, not politics.

User avatar
dvgrn
Moderator
Posts: 8195
Joined: May 17th, 2009, 11:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Suggested LifeWiki edits

Post by dvgrn » August 13th, 2021, 9:11 am

GUYTU6J wrote:
August 13th, 2021, 2:33 am
Is the displacement of Fx119 (20, -14), as in h-to-h-collection-26Aug2017.rle and the previous version of Bx106 article, or (20, 14), as in the Fx119 article, or (-20, 14), as in the Herschel conduit article? I've just edited the Bx106 to remove the weird wanted displacement category; for now the part about Fx119 is taken out due to the question above.
The old version of the Bx106 article was apparently using Cartesian coordinates. The old standard from the Hersrch database was to use Golly coordinates (increasing down and to the right, which is a very old screen-coordinates standard also shared by Life32, MCell, XLife and so on). The labels in the h-to-h-collection-26Aug2017.rle collection use Cartesian coordinates, but that's been a relatively rare choice in the Conway's Life world for the last several decades -- it probably makes more sense to change those h-to-h labels than to change everything else.

The Herschel conduit article uses standard Golly coordinates also, it just specifies a non-standard orientation of a Herschel as the starting point. The content of that article came from an old Life Lexicon entry, but that entry has since been patched to use the Hersrch-standard orientation of a Herschel which is also used by h-to-h-collection-26Aug2017.rle. I'd say we should update the table in the Herschel conduit article to match the Herschel orientation and coordinate system that is used by (almost?) all of the conduit articles that the table links to.

User avatar
GUYTU6J
Posts: 1469
Joined: August 5th, 2016, 10:27 am
Location: 拆哪!I repeat, CHINA! (a.k.a. 种花家)
Contact:

Re: Suggested LifeWiki edits

Post by GUYTU6J » August 13th, 2021, 12:29 pm

dvgrn wrote:
August 13th, 2021, 9:11 am
...I'd say we should update the table in the Herschel conduit article to match the Herschel orientation and coordinate system that is used by (almost?) all of the conduit articles that the table links to.
So after all the standard displacement (measured in screen coordinates with canonical orientation) of Fx119 is (20, 14), and that of Bx106 is (4, -20).

Code: Select all

x = 23, y = 24, rule = B3/S23
o$obo$3o$2bo12$9b2o11bo$4b2o3b2o9b3o$4b2o14bo$20bo2$3b2o$4bo4b2o$b3o5b
2o$bo!
#C [[ POLYLINE -0.5 -0.5 2.5 -0.5 2.5 3.5 -0.5 3.5 -0.5 -0.5 16 ]]
#C [[ POLYLINE 19.5 14.5 22.5 14.5 22.5 18.5 19.5 18.5 19.5 14.5 16 ]]
#C [[ POLYLINE 1 2 21 16 16 ]]
Maybe we should start from revising the RLEs and images of R-pentomino, B-heptomino and Herschel; currently they are all different from the conduit convention.

By the way, I'm not sure if we really need those Category:Conduits with specific offset, as none of the categories is containing two or more pages AFAIK. Is it a good idea to only leave the dx, dy parameters in infobox and remove the too many category pages?
Reveal your devil secrets, Fort Detrick! The origin of COVID-19 is to be uncovered by science, not politics.

User avatar
dvgrn
Moderator
Posts: 8195
Joined: May 17th, 2009, 11:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Suggested LifeWiki edits

Post by dvgrn » August 13th, 2021, 5:56 pm

GUYTU6J wrote:
August 13th, 2021, 12:29 pm
Maybe we should start from revising the RLEs and images of R-pentomino, B-heptomino and Herschel; currently they are all different from the conduit convention.
Sounds good to me! On the other hand, I was the one who chose the first set of arbitrary Elementary Conduits Collection canonical orientations -- so it seems like maybe someone else should also have to agree that it's a good idea to do the LifeWiki standardization. The orientation of the Life Lexicon Herschel has been changed to the ECC standard, by the way, but the others haven't yet.
GUYTU6J wrote:
August 13th, 2021, 12:29 pm
By the way, I'm not sure if we really need those Category:Conduits with specific offset, as none of the categories is containing two or more pages AFAIK. Is it a good idea to only leave the dx, dy parameters in infobox and remove the too many category pages?
I do like that idea. Neither the "Conduits with output offset (12, -33)" nor the "Conduits with recovery time 58" types of category seem to do any kind of useful grouping. Even if there were an R conduit and a B conduit (let's say) that both had an offset of (12,-33), they'd only have matching output orientations one time out of eight, and even if they did it's hard to see how that fact would ever be particularly useful.

Conduits sorted by orientation make some kind of sense, I suppose, so it seems okay to leave those categories in. But in the long run, there are just too many conduits for each of them to get their own article -- there's really nothing much to say about each individual conduit, except for the really really common/useful/ancient/first-to-make-a-universal-set ones. To do any meaningful categorization and sorting we're going to need something like Meyrin.

User avatar
GUYTU6J
Posts: 1469
Joined: August 5th, 2016, 10:27 am
Location: 拆哪!I repeat, CHINA! (a.k.a. 种花家)
Contact:

Re: Suggested LifeWiki edits

Post by GUYTU6J » August 13th, 2021, 8:13 pm

On another topic, this post shows a new small c/5d spaceship that has 86 cells:

Code: Select all

x = 30, y = 28, rule = B3/S23
5b2o$4bo3b2o$3bo5bo$2bob2o$b2o4b2o$o2b2o4b2o$o2b4o2b2o$bo3bobo$3bob3o
$4bo16b2o$7b2o12bobo$5bo5bo8bobo$8b2obob4obobo$17b2obo$9bobo3b2o4b3o$
9b2o11b2o$22bo$23b2o$22b2o$22bo$22bo2bo$22bo3bo$26b3o$26b3o3$29bo$28b2o!
Should we rename 86P5H1V1 (an earlier spaceship) on LifeWiki to 86P5H1V1.1 and create a disambig page for these two?
Reveal your devil secrets, Fort Detrick! The origin of COVID-19 is to be uncovered by science, not politics.

ColorfulGabrielsp138
Posts: 288
Joined: March 29th, 2021, 5:45 am

Re: Suggested LifeWiki edits

Post by ColorfulGabrielsp138 » August 14th, 2021, 12:48 am

GUYTU6J wrote:
August 13th, 2021, 8:13 pm
On another topic, this post shows a new small c/5d spaceship that has 86 cells:

Code: Select all

x = 30, y = 28, rule = B3/S23
5b2o$4bo3b2o$3bo5bo$2bob2o$b2o4b2o$o2b2o4b2o$o2b4o2b2o$bo3bobo$3bob3o
$4bo16b2o$7b2o12bobo$5bo5bo8bobo$8b2obob4obobo$17b2obo$9bobo3b2o4b3o$
9b2o11b2o$22bo$23b2o$22b2o$22bo$22bo2bo$22bo3bo$26b3o$26b3o3$29bo$28b2o!
Should we rename 86P5H1V1 (an earlier spaceship) on LifeWiki to 86P5H1V1.1 and create a disambig page for these two?
Now the Category:Patterns that can not be constructed with gliders category is empty... ...

Code: Select all

x = 21, y = 21, rule = LifeColorful
11.E$10.3E$10.E.2E$13.E4$2.2B$.2B$2B$.2B15.2D$19.2D$18.2D$17.2D4$7.C$
7.2C.C$8.3C$9.C!
I have reduced the glider cost of quadratic growth to eight and probably to seven. Looking for conduits...

User avatar
Ian07
Posts: 703
Joined: September 22nd, 2018, 8:48 am

Re: Suggested LifeWiki edits

Post by Ian07 » August 14th, 2021, 3:13 pm

ColorfulGabrielsp138 wrote:
August 14th, 2021, 12:48 am
Now the Category:Patterns that can not be constructed with gliders category is empty... ...
Fixed.

Post Reply