LifeWiki Did-You-Knows

For discussion directly related to LifeWiki.
User avatar
bubblegum
Posts: 959
Joined: August 25th, 2019, 11:59 pm
Location: click here to do nothing

Re: LifeWiki Did-You-Knows

Post by bubblegum » October 20th, 2020, 9:08 pm

ColorfulGalaxy wrote:
October 20th, 2020, 5:22 pm
Did you know that the smallest oscillator that is completely asymmetric (not even glide) is... (not sure yet)
Tie between caterer, cis-beacon on table, fox, trans-beacon on table, all with population 12.
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
ColorfulGalaxy
Posts: 407
Joined: July 16th, 2020, 3:37 am
Location: Hacked by Trump {Bot}

Re: LifeWiki Did-You-Knows

Post by ColorfulGalaxy » October 21st, 2020, 1:49 pm

There is a spaceship named Wing and another named Wings.

ENORMOUS_NAME
Posts: 311
Joined: August 8th, 2020, 6:39 pm
Location: idk

Re: LifeWiki Did-You-Knows

Post by ENORMOUS_NAME » October 30th, 2020, 10:36 am

... that the O quad loaf, the most common 28-cell still life, is over 756 times more common than the second most common 28-cell still life?
https://www.conwaylife.com/forums/viewt ... 34#p111934

Code: Select all

x = 12, y = 5, rule = Symbiosis
10.B$10.A$3A6.A.A$A.A7.A$A.A7.B! 

Code: Select all

x = 10, y = 13, rule = Symbiosis
BA$.A$2.B2$3.B$3.A$3.A$2.B2A2.2A$4.A2.A.A$.B2A3.A$2.A$2.A$2.B! 

MathAndCode
Posts: 5141
Joined: August 31st, 2020, 5:58 pm

Re: LifeWiki Did-You-Knows

Post by MathAndCode » November 1st, 2020, 4:21 pm

Did you know that any glider-constructible pattern can be made with at most forty-seven initial cells due to the reverse caber-tosser?
Did you know that although there are no known stable 5x pulse dividers, any glider stream with a constant period can be divided by five?
Did you know that the repeat time of a stable glider reflector has been reduced by over two orders of magnitude since the first was created?
Did you know that stable reflectors were known to exist for over two decades before the first was created?
Did you know that despite MWSSes being larger and about four times as rare as LWSSes, it is easier to convert a glider signal into the former than the latter?
Did you know that despite being over nine times as large as a clock, a pulsar is over 150 times as common and requires less gliders?
Did you know that the fishhook is cheaper (in terms of gliders) than nine more common objects?
Did you know that despite sparks always dying by themselves, it is possible to preserve certain sparks forever using only other sparks of the same type?
Did you know that it is possible to construct patterns that temporarily exhibit cubic growth?
I am tentatively considering myself back.

GUYTU6J
Posts: 2200
Joined: August 5th, 2016, 10:27 am
Location: 拆哪!I repeat, CHINA! (a.k.a. 种花家)
Contact:

Re: LifeWiki Did-You-Knows

Post by GUYTU6J » February 12th, 2022, 1:37 am

...that despite 22P36 having been known since 1995, one half of it was not generalized to a versatile three-quarters traffic light catalyst until 26 years later?
...that Merzenich's p64 and 32P21 are both hassling two beehives and two R-pentominoes, and 56P27 are hassling four of each?
...that the smallest periodic pattern by population that is isotropically endemic to Life consists of a p196 pi-heptomino hassler and a pentadecathlon?
...that the extra transition of Pedestrian Life (B38/S23) from Life leads to several non-pedestrian linear growth patterns, including a reflectorless rotating glider gun, a set of (5,2)c/190 technology and a messy oblique p1884 puffer?
...that there are two unrelated composite Herschel conduits with systematic label L156 and repeat time 62 ticks? (The first one consists of HLx69R, RF28B and BFx59H, whereas the second one consists of HL75P, PF35W and WFx46H, but for brevity they need not to be listed in the entry.)
EDIT one day later: thanks to dvgrn who has just added these!

GUYTU6J
Posts: 2200
Joined: August 5th, 2016, 10:27 am
Location: 拆哪!I repeat, CHINA! (a.k.a. 种花家)
Contact:

Re: LifeWiki Did-You-Knows

Post by GUYTU6J » March 21st, 2022, 12:30 am

One month has passed so a new post for two issues:
LifeWiki:Did_you_know/56&oldid=61721 and LifeWiki:Did_you_know/96&oldid=50601 conflict subtly and may be outdated.
LifeWiki:Did_you_know/154&oldid=103010 is more or less a duplicate of LifeWiki:Did_you_know/100&oldid=62073, and the same topic (stable glider reflector) has LifeWiki:Did_you_know/18&oldid=35847 and LifeWiki:Did_you_know/155&oldid=103011 as well which seems a bit too many.
Also, the DYK column on the wiki main page is significantly longer than other sections - maybe we can display less items, or make it wider?

User avatar
dvgrn
Moderator
Posts: 10612
Joined: May 17th, 2009, 11:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: LifeWiki Did-You-Knows

Post by dvgrn » March 21st, 2022, 4:14 am

GUYTU6J wrote:
March 21st, 2022, 12:30 am
One month has passed so a new post for two issues:
LifeWiki:Did_you_know/56&oldid=61721 and LifeWiki:Did_you_know/96&oldid=50601 conflict subtly and may be outdated.
I don't see a conflict there. The 0E0P was made public on 12 November 2018, enabling an infinite series of (ridiculously huge and un-runnable) strictly volatile oscillators that are powers of its period... whereas the first infinite series of Golly-verifiable strictly volatile oscillators didn't show up until 21 November.

I did change "3506909" to "3506905", but it was technically true before the change too...!
GUYTU6J wrote:
March 21st, 2022, 12:30 am
LifeWiki:Did_you_know/154&oldid=103010 is more or less a duplicate of LifeWiki:Did_you_know/100&oldid=62073, and the same topic (stable glider reflector) has LifeWiki:Did_you_know/18&oldid=35847 and LifeWiki:Did_you_know/155&oldid=103011 as well which seems a bit too many.
Also, the DYK column on the wiki main page is significantly longer than other sections - maybe we can display less items, or make it wider?
Yup, #154 was just a less-specific version of #100. I've replaced it with some 2022 news (Game of Life Fun's gliderless GGG puffer).

User avatar
confocaloid
Posts: 2729
Joined: February 8th, 2022, 3:15 pm

Re: LifeWiki Did-You-Knows

Post by confocaloid » November 24th, 2023, 3:09 am

Could someone other than myself review recent additions to LifeWiki:Did_you_know_archive?
In particular, which of these additions will likely need updates over time? Do all of these even make sense as DYK items? Do these items pass the unstated interestingness criteria?
127:1 B3/S234c User:Confocal/R (isotropic rules, incomplete)
Unlikely events happen.
My silence does not imply agreement, nor indifference. If I disagreed with something in the past, then please do not construe my silence as something that could change that.

Haycat2009
Posts: 738
Joined: April 26th, 2023, 5:47 am
Location: Bahar Junction, Zumaland

Re: LifeWiki Did-You-Knows

Post by Haycat2009 » November 28th, 2023, 1:55 am

There is a error, where "10 of 170" dyks are shown, but only 161 of them are actually shown. Can an admin correct this?
~ Haycat Durnak, a hard-working editor
Also, support Conway and Friends story mode!
I mean no harm to those who have tested me. But do not take this for granted.

User avatar
dvgrn
Moderator
Posts: 10612
Joined: May 17th, 2009, 11:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: LifeWiki Did-You-Knows

Post by dvgrn » November 28th, 2023, 8:15 am

Haycat2009 wrote:
November 28th, 2023, 1:55 am
There is a error, where "10 of 170" dyks are shown, but only 161 of them are actually shown. Can an admin correct this?
Are you sure that that's still a problem anywhere? I'm not seeing it. Ian07 made the relevant update four days ago.
confocaloid wrote:
November 24th, 2023, 3:09 am
Could someone other than myself review recent additions to LifeWiki:Did_you_know_archive?
For what it's worth, I went through just now and made a minor change to the "wing" DYK item. Something more radical could be done, since "wing" has been used to refer to the lateral edges of a lot of different spaceships, not just Corderships specifically. It's kind of complicated and the full story doesn't boil down to a reasonable-sized DYK. A couple of the other new DYKs might go out of date at some point, but that's not uncommon among DYK's (cf. DYK 88, 89, 90).

So the new additions seem to be passing my personal DYK criteria for the moment. Not saying that I didn't miss something, though -- other reviews are welcome.

Haycat2009
Posts: 738
Joined: April 26th, 2023, 5:47 am
Location: Bahar Junction, Zumaland

Re: LifeWiki Did-You-Knows

Post by Haycat2009 » November 28th, 2023, 10:10 pm

dvgrn wrote:
November 28th, 2023, 8:15 am
Haycat2009 wrote:
November 28th, 2023, 1:55 am
There is a error, where "10 of 170" dyks are shown, but only 161 of them are actually shown. Can an admin correct this?
Are you sure that that's still a problem anywhere? I'm not seeing it. Ian07 made the relevant update four days ago.
Only 161 dyks in https://conwaylife.com/wiki/LifeWiki:Did_you_know
~ Haycat Durnak, a hard-working editor
Also, support Conway and Friends story mode!
I mean no harm to those who have tested me. But do not take this for granted.

User avatar
confocaloid
Posts: 2729
Joined: February 8th, 2022, 3:15 pm

Re: LifeWiki Did-You-Knows

Post by confocaloid » November 28th, 2023, 11:49 pm

https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=113030
Likely copy&paste error. All added links on the left lead to LifeWiki:Did you know/161
127:1 B3/S234c User:Confocal/R (isotropic rules, incomplete)
Unlikely events happen.
My silence does not imply agreement, nor indifference. If I disagreed with something in the past, then please do not construe my silence as something that could change that.

User avatar
dvgrn
Moderator
Posts: 10612
Joined: May 17th, 2009, 11:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: LifeWiki Did-You-Knows

Post by dvgrn » November 29th, 2023, 12:07 am

confocaloid wrote:
November 28th, 2023, 11:49 pm
https://conwaylife.com/w/index.php?diff ... did=113030
Likely copy&paste error. All added links on the left lead to LifeWiki:Did you know/161
Fixed -- thanks!

User avatar
confocaloid
Posts: 2729
Joined: February 8th, 2022, 3:15 pm

Re: LifeWiki Did-You-Knows

Post by confocaloid » December 17th, 2023, 12:43 pm

LifeWiki:Did you know/177 wrote:... that [https://conwaylife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=3943 B2ein3cijn4cnrwy5cnq6e/S1c2-ai3acny4anqy5c6ek8] is the first known two-state [[INT]] cellular automaton (that is not [[Life]]) with an explicitly constructed [[Orthogonoid]]?
The first completed orthogonoid in a two-state isotropic alien rule might be the Dominoplex orthogonoid (January 2019).

Suggested replacement text:
... that [https://conwaylife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=67929#p67929 Dominoplex] and [https://conwaylife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=3943 B2ein3cijn4cnrwy5cnq6e/S1c2-ai3acny4anqy5c6ek8] are first two-state alien [[Isotropic non-totalistic rule|isotropic non-totalistic rules]] with an explicitly constructed [[orthogonoid]]?
EDIT by dvgrn: Done.
127:1 B3/S234c User:Confocal/R (isotropic rules, incomplete)
Unlikely events happen.
My silence does not imply agreement, nor indifference. If I disagreed with something in the past, then please do not construe my silence as something that could change that.

User avatar
confocaloid
Posts: 2729
Joined: February 8th, 2022, 3:15 pm

Re: LifeWiki Did-You-Knows

Post by confocaloid » December 17th, 2023, 4:05 pm

Misleading DYK item:
LifeWiki:Did you know/176 wrote:...that the first [[G-to-LWSS]] took 1973 ticks to produce the [[LWSS]] from the initial reaction, and that has been improved to 73 ticks by the [[G-to-LWSS (2023)|fastest G-to-LWSS]]; which is more than 27 times faster?
Claims about the exact number of ticks to produce the output object from the input object are false precision, when the input and/or the output is a spaceship. (When the input spaceship is consumed? when the output spaceship is produced?)
In this case, I do not see a single simple method to calculate "the number of ticks" that would give 1973 for the first G-to-LWSS posted in Thread for basic questions, and give 73 for the recent G-to-LWSS (G-to-LWSS (2023)).
After said claims about the number of ticks are removed, there's not much left for a DYK item.
127:1 B3/S234c User:Confocal/R (isotropic rules, incomplete)
Unlikely events happen.
My silence does not imply agreement, nor indifference. If I disagreed with something in the past, then please do not construe my silence as something that could change that.

User avatar
squareroot12621
Posts: 614
Joined: March 23rd, 2022, 4:53 pm

Re: LifeWiki Did-You-Knows

Post by squareroot12621 » December 17th, 2023, 7:18 pm

I do agree that there isn't a consistent way to get 1,973 and 73, but I don't think the item should be scrapped altogether—it was probably intended to be 79.

Code: Select all

4b8o$4b8o$4b8o$4b8o$4o8b4o$4o8b4o$4o8b4o$4o8b4o$4o8b4o$4o8b4o$4o8b4o$4o8b4o$4b8o$4b8o$4b8o$4b8o![[ THEME 0 AUTOSTART GPS 8 Z 16 T 1 T 1 Z 19.027 T 2 T 2 Z 22.627 T 3 T 3 Z 26.909 T 4 T 4 Z 32 T 5 T 5 Z 38.055 T 6 T 6 Z 45.255 T 7 T 7 Z 53.817 LOOP 8 ]]

User avatar
confocaloid
Posts: 2729
Joined: February 8th, 2022, 3:15 pm

Re: LifeWiki Did-You-Knows

Post by confocaloid » December 17th, 2023, 11:10 pm

squareroot12621 wrote:
December 17th, 2023, 7:18 pm
I do agree that there isn't a consistent way to get 1,973 and 73, but I don't think the item should be scrapped altogether—it was probably intended to be 79.
I'm not sure if I agree with "79". Here is the pattern (G-to-LWSS (2023)):

Code: Select all

x = 65, y = 63, rule = B3/S23
obo$b2o$bo31$47b2o$47b2o2$56b2o$56bobob2o$58bobo$57b2obo$57bo2b2o$58b
2o2bo$59bobo$59bob2o$30b2o26b2obo2bo$30b2o29bob2o$61bo$26bo20bobo10b2o
$26b3o19b2o$29bo18bo$28b2o31b2o$48b2o6b2obo2bo$47bobo5bobob3o$34b2o12b
o6bobo$34bobo16b3ob5o$35bo16bo3bo4bo$52b2o2bobo$43bo13b2o$42bobo2b2o$
31b2o10bo3bobo$32bo16bo$29b3o17b2o$29bo!
T = 0 is the latest generation which could be obtained from any earlier generation (with the glider rewound back) either
(a) by evolving the whole pattern, or
(b) by evolving separately the glider and the stationary device and then combining the results via cellwise "OR" or "XOR",
with identical results.

At T = 79, the output LWSS does indeed appear. However, if you remove the LWSS from that generation, then the temporary beehive does not get restored to the boat. The spark produced by the LWSS at T = 82 is necessary. So maybe it would make sense to say "83 ticks" rather than "79 ticks".
T = 83 is the earliest generation such that for this or any later generation, you can choose either
(a) to evolve the entire pattern for n ticks, or
(b) to evolve separately the output LWSS for n ticks and the rest for n ticks and then combine the results via cellwise "OR" or "XOR",
with identical results.

To define "the number of ticks" for such cases, one would need precise explanations to choose the initial generation and the final generation. I don't think the resulting numbers are going to be particularly intuitive to someone reading a "did you know?" item.

Note also that the documentation of Template:Conduit on LifeWiki directly states that parameters "m" (output orientation), "step", "dx", "dy" should only be specified if neither the input object nor the output object is a spaceship. These values are undefined when a spaceship is consumed and/or produced.
127:1 B3/S234c User:Confocal/R (isotropic rules, incomplete)
Unlikely events happen.
My silence does not imply agreement, nor indifference. If I disagreed with something in the past, then please do not construe my silence as something that could change that.

Haycat2009
Posts: 738
Joined: April 26th, 2023, 5:47 am
Location: Bahar Junction, Zumaland

Re: LifeWiki Did-You-Knows

Post by Haycat2009 » December 18th, 2023, 1:28 am

confocaloid wrote:
December 17th, 2023, 11:10 pm
squareroot12621 wrote:
December 17th, 2023, 7:18 pm
I do agree that there isn't a consistent way to get 1,973 and 73, but I don't think the item should be scrapped altogether—it was probably intended to be 79.
I'm not sure if I agree with "79". Here is the pattern (G-to-LWSS (2023)):

Code: Select all

x = 65, y = 63, rule = B3/S23
obo$b2o$bo31$47b2o$47b2o2$56b2o$56bobob2o$58bobo$57b2obo$57bo2b2o$58b
2o2bo$59bobo$59bob2o$30b2o26b2obo2bo$30b2o29bob2o$61bo$26bo20bobo10b2o
$26b3o19b2o$29bo18bo$28b2o31b2o$48b2o6b2obo2bo$47bobo5bobob3o$34b2o12b
o6bobo$34bobo16b3ob5o$35bo16bo3bo4bo$52b2o2bobo$43bo13b2o$42bobo2b2o$
31b2o10bo3bobo$32bo16bo$29b3o17b2o$29bo!
T = 0 is the latest generation which could be obtained from any earlier generation (with the glider rewound back) either
(a) by evolving the whole pattern, or
(b) by evolving separately the glider and the stationary device and then combining the results via cellwise "OR" or "XOR",
with identical results.

At T = 79, the output LWSS does indeed appear. However, if you remove the LWSS from that generation, then the temporary beehive does not get restored to the boat. The spark produced by the LWSS at T = 82 is necessary. So maybe it would make sense to say "83 ticks" rather than "79 ticks".
T = 83 is the earliest generation such that for this or any later generation, you can choose either
(a) to evolve the entire pattern for n ticks, or
(b) to evolve separately the output LWSS for n ticks and the rest for n ticks and then combine the results via cellwise "OR" or "XOR",
with identical results.

To define "the number of ticks" for such cases, one would need precise explanations to choose the initial generation and the final generation. I don't think the resulting numbers are going to be particularly intuitive to someone reading a "did you know?" item.

Note also that the documentation of Template:Conduit on LifeWiki directly states that parameters "m" (output orientation), "step", "dx", "dy" should only be specified if neither the input object nor the output object is a spaceship. These values are undefined when a spaceship is consumed and/or produced.
I meant "Starting from the initial catalysis" and "Ending when it first appears"

Step for spaceship conduits is actually an important concept, like it or not.
~ Haycat Durnak, a hard-working editor
Also, support Conway and Friends story mode!
I mean no harm to those who have tested me. But do not take this for granted.

User avatar
confocaloid
Posts: 2729
Joined: February 8th, 2022, 3:15 pm

Re: LifeWiki Did-You-Knows

Post by confocaloid » December 18th, 2023, 1:40 am

Haycat2009 wrote:
December 18th, 2023, 1:28 am
I meant "Starting from the initial catalysis" and "Ending when it first appears"
Then both "73 ticks" and "78 ticks" are wrong. There is no LWSS at T = 78 in the above pattern - only a predecessor that lacks the spark. (And later the LWSS interacts again, so it cannot be removed yet.)
Haycat2009 wrote:
December 18th, 2023, 1:28 am
Step for spaceship conduits is actually an important concept, like it or not.
Why, exactly? Right now it is an unexplained assertion.

I already explained in my post above, why I consider "the number of ticks from input to output" meaningless when the input object and/or the output object is a spaceship. In these cases, there is no single natural choice for the initial/final generations (especially taking into account actual connections with other conduits in a track).

Template:Conduit says that "step" should not be used when spaceships are involved. In other words there's no concept to begin with (unless you precisely define it for these cases).
127:1 B3/S234c User:Confocal/R (isotropic rules, incomplete)
Unlikely events happen.
My silence does not imply agreement, nor indifference. If I disagreed with something in the past, then please do not construe my silence as something that could change that.

Haycat2009
Posts: 738
Joined: April 26th, 2023, 5:47 am
Location: Bahar Junction, Zumaland

Re: LifeWiki Did-You-Knows

Post by Haycat2009 » December 18th, 2023, 1:53 am

confocaloid wrote:
December 18th, 2023, 1:40 am
Haycat2009 wrote:
December 18th, 2023, 1:28 am
Step for spaceship conduits is actually an important concept, like it or not.
Why, exactly? Right now it is an unexplained assertion.

I already explained in my post above, why I consider "the number of ticks from input to output" meaningless when the input object and/or the output object is a spaceship. In these cases, there is no single natural choice for the initial/final generations (especially taking into account actual connections with other conduits in a track).

Template:Conduit says that "step" should not be used when spaceships are involved. In other words there's no concept to begin with (unless you precisely define it for these cases).
Yeah, but it allows for comparison - for example, the first G-LWSS is obviously slower than the smallest G-LWSS, but by your defination, I can swap both and not worry about LWSSes arriving too late, ruining a mechanism. The 1st generation is the first step of the initial catalysis. The last generation is when the spaceship/an equivalent form first appears.
~ Haycat Durnak, a hard-working editor
Also, support Conway and Friends story mode!
I mean no harm to those who have tested me. But do not take this for granted.

User avatar
confocaloid
Posts: 2729
Joined: February 8th, 2022, 3:15 pm

Re: LifeWiki Did-You-Knows

Post by confocaloid » December 18th, 2023, 2:02 am

Haycat2009 wrote:
December 18th, 2023, 1:53 am
Yeah, but it allows for comparison - for example, the first G-LWSS is obviously slower than the smallest G-LWSS, but by your defination, I can swap both and not worry about LWSSes arriving too late, ruining a mechanism.
That's another story. If you just want to be able to say that one device is much faster than another, then you don't need precise numbers like "1973" or "73" or "27" at all. For example I think LifeWiki:Did you know/176 could be rewritten along the lines of
...that the first stable [[G-to-LWSS]] took almost two thousand ticks to produce the output [[LWSS]] from the input [[glider]], and that has been improved to less than one hundred ticks by [[G-to-LWSS (2023)|a compact converter discovered in 2023]]?
Note that all the exact numbers are gone (with the exception of the year 2023). Putting those numbers is false precision when there's no single generally understood and accepted way to compute them.
Haycat2009 wrote:
December 18th, 2023, 1:53 am
The 1st generation is the first step of the initial catalysis. The last generation is when the spaceship/an equivalent form first appears.
There's still no explanation what counts as "equivalent form", and what counts as "first step of the initial catalysis". And either "78" or "1973" is going to be wrong.
Last edited by confocaloid on December 18th, 2023, 2:19 am, edited 2 times in total.
127:1 B3/S234c User:Confocal/R (isotropic rules, incomplete)
Unlikely events happen.
My silence does not imply agreement, nor indifference. If I disagreed with something in the past, then please do not construe my silence as something that could change that.

Haycat2009
Posts: 738
Joined: April 26th, 2023, 5:47 am
Location: Bahar Junction, Zumaland

Re: LifeWiki Did-You-Knows

Post by Haycat2009 » December 18th, 2023, 2:03 am

confocaloid wrote:
December 18th, 2023, 2:02 am
Haycat2009 wrote:
December 18th, 2023, 1:53 am
Yeah, but it allows for comparison - for example, the first G-LWSS is obviously slower than the smallest G-LWSS, but by your defination, I can swap both and not worry about LWSSes arriving too late, ruining a mechanism.
That's another story. If you just want to be able to say that one device is much faster than another, then you don't need precise numbers like "1973" or "73" or "27" at all.

For example I think LifeWiki:Did you know/176 could be rewritten along the lines of
...that the first stable [[G-to-LWSS]] took almost two thousand ticks to produce the output [[LWSS]] from the input [[glider]], and that has been improved to less than one hundred of ticks by the [[G-to-LWSS (2023)|a compact converter discovered in 2023]]?
Note that all the exact numbers are gone (with the exception of the year 2023). Putting those numbers is false precision when there's no single generally understood and accepted way to compute them.
People are just going to reinsert it anyway if you leave it like that. After all, newcomers want to help, but they might not understand.

EDIT by dvgrn: The DYK with the specific numbers has been completely replaced. Seems like confocaloid's version could still be added as a separate DYK item, if it seems like a good one. I've pretty much stopped trying to think about how to do quality control on the Did-You-Knows, and will instead leave it up to individual objections and suggested improvements like confocaloid's post.
Last edited by Haycat2009 on December 18th, 2023, 10:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
~ Haycat Durnak, a hard-working editor
Also, support Conway and Friends story mode!
I mean no harm to those who have tested me. But do not take this for granted.

hotdogPi
Posts: 1587
Joined: August 12th, 2020, 8:22 pm

Re: LifeWiki Did-You-Knows

Post by hotdogPi » December 18th, 2023, 12:08 pm

DYK 177 should not exist. This is the LifeWiki, and Dominoplex and B2ein3cijn4cnrwy5cnq6e/S1c2-ai3acny4anqy5c6ek8 are nowhere even close to Life.
User:HotdogPi/My discoveries

Periods discovered: 5-16,⑱,⑳G,㉑G,㉒㉔㉕,㉗-㉛,㉜SG,㉞㉟㊱㊳㊵㊷㊹㊺㊽㊿,54G,55G,56,57G,60,62-66,68,70,73,74S,75,76S,80,84,88,90,96
100,02S,06,08,10,12,14G,16,17G,20,26G,28,38,47,48,54,56,72,74,80,92,96S
217,486,576

S: SKOP
G: gun

User avatar
dvgrn
Moderator
Posts: 10612
Joined: May 17th, 2009, 11:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: LifeWiki Did-You-Knows

Post by dvgrn » December 18th, 2023, 2:58 pm

hotdogPi wrote:
December 18th, 2023, 12:08 pm
DYK 177 should not exist. This is the LifeWiki, and Dominoplex and B2ein3cijn4cnrwy5cnq6e/S1c2-ai3acny4anqy5c6ek8 are nowhere even close to Life.
My opinion on non-Life content in the Did-You-Knows has always been somewhat similar to this. A big part of keeping things strictly related to B3/S23 was that the alternative seemed to be opening the door to a potential avalanche of notability questions about OCA Did-You-Knows.

I guess I still wouldn't want to see OCA items become the majority of new DYK entries.

On the other hand, if it's just one DYK out of ten or so, that seems like we'll mostly get just a rare occasional OCA tidbit for variety, that ties back to Conway's Life somehow. In this case there's a link to the B3/S23 "Orthogonoid" article. The other two (#146 and #166 are the only other OCA items at the moment, right?) are comparisons with nearby Life-like rules that differ by just one outer-totalistic transition.

We do have the OCA namespace now, and it's starting to get a lot more attention. Maybe we should think about adding a separate OCA Did-You-Know list? Seems to me that idea came up at some point recently, but I'm not finding the reference at the moment.

User avatar
confocaloid
Posts: 2729
Joined: February 8th, 2022, 3:15 pm

Re: LifeWiki Did-You-Knows

Post by confocaloid » December 18th, 2023, 3:46 pm

DYK #179 overlaps with DYK #132 (both are about 12-bit oscillators). I think #179 should be merged into #132.
hotdogPi wrote:
December 18th, 2023, 12:08 pm
DYK 177 should not exist. This is the LifeWiki, and Dominoplex and B2ein3cijn4cnrwy5cnq6e/S1c2-ai3acny4anqy5c6ek8 are nowhere even close to Life.
Currently DYK items mentioning alien rules/objects are #61, #69, #146, #166, #174, #175, #177. Out of these, all but #177 mention Life-like cellular automata (square grid, two cellstates, range-1 Moore neighbourhood, outer-totalistic/neighbour-counting conditions for birth and survival), but not any other rulespaces.

On the other hand, both Dominoplex and B2ein3cijn4cnrwy5cnq6e/S1c2-ai3acny4anqy5c6ek8 are notable CA rules (OCA Discovery of the Year).
On the other hand, there are sufficiently many notable alien rules to turn the LifeWiki "Did you know?" into a CAWiki "Did you know?" where the majority of items would be on alien rules/patterns.
post173619 wrote:
December 18th, 2023, 6:10 am
EDIT by dvgrn: At least at a first glance, it looks to me like these three proofs are all easy to patch up, basically with the same trick in each case: "Then the dead cell to the left of C will be born in the next generation, via B3 (if the cell 'x' is dead) or B4 (if the cell 'x' is alive)." I've asked Haycat2009 to take responsibility for repairing these incomplete proofs before making any further edits -- and to use edit summaries more consistently instead of just leaving them blank.
I think at least two out of those cases need some other idea, due to absence of a certain neighbour-counting condition in the rule definition. But it would be better indeed if the errors were understood and corrected by their author.
127:1 B3/S234c User:Confocal/R (isotropic rules, incomplete)
Unlikely events happen.
My silence does not imply agreement, nor indifference. If I disagreed with something in the past, then please do not construe my silence as something that could change that.

Post Reply