Spaceship Discussion Thread
- Entity Valkyrie 2
- Posts: 1758
- Joined: February 26th, 2019, 7:13 pm
- Contact:
Re: Spaceship Discussion Thread
Based on Caterloopilar?
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
Please click here for my own pages.
My recent rules:
StateInvestigator 3.0
B3-kq4ej5i6ckn7e/S2-i34q6a7
B3-kq4ej5y6c/S2-i34q5e
Move the Box
Re: Spaceship Discussion Thread
Well, it's best if the period is a factor of 96 so that it works well with Corderships.
EDIT: From JSeeker, an even longer c/4 partial:
EDIT: From JSeeker, an even longer c/4 partial:
Code: Select all
.O.O..
.O....
.O....
...OO.
.....O
...O..
...OOO
...OO.
.O.OO.
.O.OO.
O.....
OOO...
...O..
O.O...
O..O..
.OOO..
..OO..
..O.O.
..O.O.
......
..O...
......
.OO...
..O...
.O.O..
.O....
OO.O.O
.OO.O.
....O.
...OOO
...OOO
......
Re: Spaceship Discussion Thread
Sure -- that would certainly allow for a lower-period rake than an Orthogonoid-type design.
- Entity Valkyrie 2
- Posts: 1758
- Joined: February 26th, 2019, 7:13 pm
- Contact:
Re: Spaceship Discussion Thread
But I don't think that period 48 is possible at the moment. (Switchwave extender)
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
Please click here for my own pages.
My recent rules:
StateInvestigator 3.0
B3-kq4ej5i6ckn7e/S2-i34q6a7
B3-kq4ej5y6c/S2-i34q5e
Move the Box
Re: Spaceship Discussion Thread
96 would also work.Entity Valkyrie 2 wrote: ↑October 6th, 2020, 9:05 pmBut I don't think that period 48 is possible at the moment. (Switchwave extender)
On the other hand, the unit tile for switchwave is 27 by 27 if I remember correctly, we might be able to get away with period 768 if that was the case.
-
- Posts: 5143
- Joined: August 31st, 2020, 5:58 pm
Re: Spaceship Discussion Thread
Has anyone followed my advice to search for spaceships with speeds between c/2 and c/3? Here are some forward movement mechanisms in that range.
2c/5:
4c/11 (first similar to here):
5c/12:
9c/21:
3c/7:
4c/9:
Also, the right side of this pattern through generation 18 might be useful for an oblique spaceship.
In addition, while searching for forward movement mechanisms between c/2 and c/3, I found one at 2c/7.
2c/5:
Code: Select all
x = 16, y = 13, rule = B3/S23
6bo$2bo4bo$b2o3bo$obo4b2o$o5bobo$bo5bob2o$5bob2o$5bobo$5bo$6b2o$6b2o6b2o$11b2ob2o$13bo!
Code: Select all
x = 6, y = 9, rule = B3/S23
2b4o$bo3bo$o3b2o$3bo$o$3bo$o3b2o$bo3bo$2b4o!
Code: Select all
x = 8, y = 10, rule = B3/S23
5b2o$5b3o$bo3b2o$3ob3o$5b2o$b3ob2o$2bo2bo2$3bo2bo$4b3o!
Code: Select all
x = 5, y = 6, rule = B3/S23
2b3o$2bobo$bo2bo$bobo$b3o$o!
Code: Select all
x = 7, y = 8, rule = B3/S23
2b3o$2bo2bo$2o$o2bo2bo$4ob2o$2bob3o$4b2o$4bo!
Code: Select all
x = 15, y = 12, rule = B3/S23
6bo$2bo3bo$3bobo7b2o$9b3o$6bo4bob2o$o3b2ob3o3bo$o5b2ob2ob2o$2o4bobobo$3b7o$6b2obo$8bo$7b3o!
Code: Select all
x = 7, y = 17, rule = B3/S23
3bo$2bobo$bo3bo$4bo2$o2bo$bo$3b2o2$2bo2b2o$6bo$6bo$bo3bo$bob2o$obo$bo$bo!
Code: Select all
x = 10, y = 15, rule = B3/S23
4b3o$4bo2bo$4bob2o$4bob2o$4b2o$2o4bo$2b3ob3o$6bo2bo$7bobo$7b2o$3b5o$3b4obo$2bo5bo$3b5o$3b2o!
Code: Select all
x = 9, y = 15, rule = B3/S23
4bo$3b3o$3bob2o$7bo$o2b2o$o2b2o3bo$ob2obo$6b3o$6b2o2$6bo$b5obo$5bobo$bob2obo$2bo!
Code: Select all
x = 11, y = 13, rule = B3/S23
3b2o$3b2o2$10bo$b2o5b2o$o2bob2o3bo$bobo2bob2o$2bo4bo$6bo$5bo$5b2o$5b2o$6bo!
Code: Select all
x = 4, y = 4, rule = B3/S23
b2o$2b2o$3o$o!
I am tentatively considering myself back.
- yujh
- Posts: 3068
- Joined: February 27th, 2020, 11:23 pm
- Location: I'm not sure where I am, so please tell me if you know
- Contact:
Re: Spaceship Discussion Thread
Are there any elemantary c/12 orthorgonal ships?Entity Valkyrie 2 wrote: ↑October 6th, 2020, 8:11 pmAre there any c/12 orthogonal glider rakes (forward and backward)?
Rule modifier
B34kz5e7c8/S23-a4ityz5k
b2n3-q5y6cn7s23-k4c8
B3-kq6cn8/S2-i3-a4ciyz8
B3-kq4z5e7c8/S2-ci3-a4ciq5ek6eik7
Bored of Conway's Game of Life? Try Pedestrian Life -- not pedestrian at all!
B34kz5e7c8/S23-a4ityz5k
b2n3-q5y6cn7s23-k4c8
B3-kq6cn8/S2-i3-a4ciyz8
B3-kq4z5e7c8/S2-ci3-a4ciq5ek6eik7
Bored of Conway's Game of Life? Try Pedestrian Life -- not pedestrian at all!
-
- Posts: 1334
- Joined: July 1st, 2016, 3:58 pm
Re: Spaceship Discussion Thread
You are very far from the first to suggest that. If you look earlier in this thread, there are tons of wide searches for those exact speeds, done at widths that make the searches take weeks to months.MathAndCode wrote: ↑October 6th, 2020, 10:55 pmHas anyone followed my advice to search for spaceships with speeds between c/2 and c/3?
I manage the 5S project, which collects all known spaceship speeds in Isotropic Non-totalistic rules. I also wrote EPE, a tool for searching in the INT rulespace.
Things to work on:
- Find (7,1)c/8 and 9c/10 ships in non-B0 INT.
- EPE improvements.
Things to work on:
- Find (7,1)c/8 and 9c/10 ships in non-B0 INT.
- EPE improvements.
Re: Spaceship Discussion Thread
I'm throwing this one into JLS. It looks the most promising.MathAndCode wrote: ↑October 6th, 2020, 10:55 pmCode: Select all
x = 6, y = 9, rule = B3/S23 2b4o$bo3bo$o3b2o$3bo$o$3bo$o3b2o$bo3bo$2b4o!
Edit: JLS isn't done yet.
-
- Posts: 5143
- Joined: August 31st, 2020, 5:58 pm
Re: Spaceship Discussion Thread
Then how do we not have more spaceships at those speeds?AforAmpere wrote: ↑October 7th, 2020, 12:09 amYou are very far from the first to suggest that. If you look earlier in this thread, there are tons of wide searches for those exact speeds, done at widths that make the searches take weeks to months.MathAndCode wrote: ↑October 6th, 2020, 10:55 pmHas anyone followed my advice to search for spaceships with speeds between c/2 and c/3?
Also, I just noticed that the 2c/7 example that I posted also has a 2c/5 downward movement mechanism from generation 12 to generation 20.
Thank you.wwei23 wrote: ↑October 7th, 2020, 12:30 amI'm throwing this one into JLS. It looks the most promising.MathAndCode wrote: ↑October 6th, 2020, 10:55 pmCode: Select all
x = 6, y = 9, rule = B3/S23 2b4o$bo3bo$o3b2o$3bo$o$3bo$o3b2o$bo3bo$2b4o!
I am tentatively considering myself back.
Re: Spaceship Discussion Thread
We have a lot of 2c/5s. How many do you want?MathAndCode wrote: ↑October 7th, 2020, 9:37 amThen how do we not have more spaceships at those speeds?
We don't have a lot of spaceships with speeds c/7 or above, because every time you add one tick to the period, the search difficulty increases exponentially. It's just plain harder to find a complete period-7 spaceship than to find a complete period-5 one, by several orders of magnitude.
So... your period 11, 12, and 21 suggestions aren't going to be too interesting to most people, because they're so incredibly far beyond what it's practical to search for. A period-12 spaceship might actually show up using current search technology sometime before the Sun burns out, but for p21 the odds would be heavily in favor of the Sun winning the race.
However, please feel free to try some period 11/12/21/whatever searches! It's very helpful for building intuition on the difficulty of these problems, to run p3 and p4 searches and get results back just about instantly, run p5 searches and get results pretty quick, run p6 searches and have to wait a while, and run p7 searches for months and be lucky to get anything at all. It's also a fine idea to write new search programs, if you think you can improve on existing ones.
Just be warned that there are lots of ideas floating around about better search programs. Writing a lot of hand-waving description about an idea is not a useful way to prove that it's a good idea. The most likely way for an idea to get much attention around here is if you write the search program and use it to find something new.
Here's a link to Sokwe's LifeWiki table of spaceship searches already done or in progress.
Re: Spaceship Discussion Thread
I'd like to disagree with that. I don't get P5 results "pretty quick", and P4 is definitely not instant.dvgrn wrote: ↑October 7th, 2020, 10:59 amIt's very helpful for building intuition on the difficulty of these problems, to run p3 and p4 searches and get results back just about instantly, run p5 searches and get results pretty quick, run p6 searches and have to wait a while, and run p7 searches for months and be lucky to get anything at all. It's also a fine idea to write new search programs, if you think you can improve on existing ones.
Re: Spaceship Discussion Thread
It's all a matter of perspective, I guess. Any search that gets results in less than a day is "pretty quick" in my book, and less than an hour is "just about instant" -- at least compared to the Sun-will-burn-out-first searches that we're talking about for higher periods.
-
- Posts: 5143
- Joined: August 31st, 2020, 5:58 pm
Re: Spaceship Discussion Thread
Yes, but there is only one other speed between c/2 and c/3 that we have spaceships for, and that speed only has one elementary spaceship, which is rather large.dvgrn wrote: ↑October 7th, 2020, 10:59 amWe have a lot of 2c/5s. How many do you want?MathAndCode wrote: ↑October 7th, 2020, 9:37 amThen how do we not have more spaceships at those speeds?
But then how do c/7 orthogonal and 2c/7 orthogonal each have more elementary spaceships than 3c/7 orthogonal, all of which are smaller than 3c/7 orthogonal's only known elementary spaceship? Also, we have many p96 (and multiples) diagonal spaceships, largely thanks to wwei23.dvgrn wrote: ↑October 7th, 2020, 10:59 amWe don't have a lot of spaceships with speeds c/7 or above, because every time you add one tick to the period, the search difficulty increases exponentially. It's just plain harder to find a complete period-7 spaceship than to find a complete period-5 one, by several orders of magnitude.
Also, why does the search difficulty increase exponentially and not linearly (or possibly quadratically) as a function of period?
I am tentatively considering myself back.
Re: Spaceship Discussion Thread
Why is that surprising, exactly? These are all period-7 searches, so they're about the same amount of work for a search utility. But Life patterns on average tend to stay roughly in the same place and maybe wobble around a bit. Things that keep themselves going at a speed very close to the maximum c/2 spaceship speed limit are apparently rarer than things that move at a more reasonable speed -- more options to work with.MathAndCode wrote: ↑October 7th, 2020, 1:24 pmBut then how do c/7 orthogonal and 2c/7 orthogonal each have more elementary spaceships than 3c/7 orthogonal, all of which are smaller than 3c/7 orthogonal's only known elementary spaceship?
Thanks mostly to Dean Hickerson and David Bell, I'd say, who built dozens or hundreds of switch-engine-based spaceships back in the 1990s.MathAndCode wrote: ↑October 7th, 2020, 1:24 pmAlso, we have many p96 (and multiples) diagonal spaceships, largely thanks to wwei23.
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. When there's a small cheap object that travels at some particular speed, then it's naturally much easier to build things that go that speed. This is completely independent of the question of how hard it is to do searches starting from a blank slate, for elementary spaceships of that period.
I think we've been over this ground before. It's very hard to imagine a search utility clever enough to find its way through an exponentially larger search space in only a linear or quadratic amount of time.MathAndCode wrote: ↑October 7th, 2020, 1:24 pmAlso, why does the search difficulty increase exponentially and not linearly (or possibly quadratically) as a function of period?
The search space is exponentially larger for a fairly simple reason: when you go from let's say c/7 to c/8, there isn't really anything in the search utility that you're "just adding 1" to. What you're adding is a whole MxN patch of additional cells whose states you don't know. If you're hunting for something loafer-sized, you had 9x9x7 = 567 unknown cells to fill in. Now at c/8 you suddenly have 81 more unknown cells, each of which can be either ON or OFF. Your search space didn't just get 81 more possibilities added, it got 2^81 times bigger.
Now, clearly there are all kinds of shortcuts that search utilities use, so that we're a long way from just enumerating 2^567 cell arrangements, vs. 2^(567+81) cell arrangements, and checking to see if any of them happen to be c/7 or c/8 spaceships. But the size of the search space is still a good basic measurement to look at. If you think you can describe a search method that reduces that exponential size increase down to something merely linear or quadratic, then ... well, you'll probably find out where your theory is wrong when you get to writing actual code.
Or possibly you'll have proved that P = NP, and everyone will be very very excited and amazed. Actually finding an elementary spaceship with a period higher than 10 is a hugely impressive feat of mathematical engineering, code optimization, reading tea leaves, or however you manage do it. There's been a lot of talking about doing this over the last decade or two, but that's not nearly as impressive.
Re: Spaceship Discussion Thread
How would increasing the period affect anything?
If I was searching for a period-137 spaceship in a 10 by 10 bounding box, I have the exact same number of ways to set the cells on or off as a period-2 spaceship in a 10 by 10 bounding box. Therefore, the search space is still the same size.
Re: Spaceship Discussion Thread
I really have no idea but you can always fire up a search utility and check.wwei23 wrote: ↑October 7th, 2020, 2:35 pmHow would increasing the period affect anything?
If I was searching for a period-137 spaceship in a 10 by 10 bounding box, I have the exact same number of ways to set the cells on or off as a period-2 spaceship in a 10 by 10 bounding box. Therefore, the search space is still the same size.
Each day is a hidden opportunity, a frozen waterfall that's waiting to be realised, and one that I'll probably be ignoring
anythingsonata wrote:July 2nd, 2020, 8:33 pmconwaylife signatures are amazing[citation needed]
Re: Spaceship Discussion Thread
Sure, if you're doing a brute-force search of possibilities for just one phase of spaceship, that's absolutely true.wwei23 wrote: ↑October 7th, 2020, 2:35 pmHow would increasing the period affect anything?
If I was searching for a period-137 spaceship in a 10 by 10 bounding box, I have the exact same number of ways to set the cells on or off as a period-2 spaceship in a 10 by 10 bounding box. Therefore, the search space is still the same size.
But if you try to do that brute-force enumeration on a 10x10 bounding box, you have 2^95-ish different patterns to run for 137 ticks each. There you really will have just a linear increase in difficulty if you bump up the target speed to 138 instead of 137. But on the other hand, if you try to run 2^95 patterns for 137 ticks each, you really won't be done by the time the Sun burns out.
And you might well not find anything more interesting than the loafer. So that seems like a waste of an awful lot of time.
Brute-force is not really viable for searches (that produce actual interesting results) except for very small sizes or special situations. Existing search utilities build a model of all phases of a spaceship, not just one phase, and then apply all kinds of clever logic to reduce the number of possibilities down to something much more tractable than 2^95. "If this cell is ON in this phase, than that cell and this other cell can't possibly be on in the next phase, ..." Every time a cell goes from unknown to known, you cut the remaining search space (in that branch of the search) in half -- and if you prove that a cell can't be either ON or OFF, then you can prune off that whole branch of the tree and backtrack to try your next option.
For that type of search -- which is pretty much what has found all the elementary spaceships that we know about that don't show up in random soup -- increasing the period by one adds some non-trivial number N of unknown cells to the spacetime search region, and therefore multiplies the size of the search space by 2^N... or rather, some tiny fraction of 2^N, thanks to all the clever shortcuts and optimizations, but you're still multiplying the size of the search space by some number, not just adding a constant to it.
Again, anyone is welcome to prove that all of the above is completely wrong -- but don't do it by arguing about it, do it by writing a better search program and finding something new with it.
Exactly right. What happens at small sizes is not really relevant to what works when you're trying really hard to push the boundaries of the field, and discover something new in search space that hasn't been looked at before. It's not clear what JSeeker is going to be able to find that other search utilities can't find as well or faster, just by searching much more efficiently at a slightly higher width setting.
Re: Spaceship Discussion Thread
On the other hand, that has its own downsides as well. My JSeeker search program is way slower than other search programs, but it only requires ONE phase of the spaceship to be at the width you're searching at. For example, it can find the LWSS at width 4.
-
- Posts: 841
- Joined: June 27th, 2009, 10:58 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Spaceship Discussion Thread
Dear Weiwei,
1) you'll hardly find too much spaceships in the 10x10 box.
2) You'll quickly get into combinatorial explosion if you increase searchspace
3) Current search programs thus try to restrict the search space by making clever use of the restriction that the pattern will repeat (with an offset) after n generations. The larger the n the less efficient are the restrictions. Generally they restrict width (or height) and number of generations and then work though the strip until the find a solution. This strip is not limited in theory in the other dimension
4) It is more efficient to develop the partial patterns in all generations in parallel (the exact optimal search strategy depends on the velocity), but this quickly breaks down if you increase the number of generations
1) you'll hardly find too much spaceships in the 10x10 box.
2) You'll quickly get into combinatorial explosion if you increase searchspace
3) Current search programs thus try to restrict the search space by making clever use of the restriction that the pattern will repeat (with an offset) after n generations. The larger the n the less efficient are the restrictions. Generally they restrict width (or height) and number of generations and then work though the strip until the find a solution. This strip is not limited in theory in the other dimension
4) It is more efficient to develop the partial patterns in all generations in parallel (the exact optimal search strategy depends on the velocity), but this quickly breaks down if you increase the number of generations
Re: Spaceship Discussion Thread
1. 10 by 10 was just an example.HartmutHolzwart wrote: ↑October 7th, 2020, 3:18 pm1) you'll hardly find too much spaceships in the 10x10 box.
2) You'll quickly get into combinatorial explosion if you increase searchspace
3) Current search programs thus try to restrict the search space by making clever use of the restriction that the pattern will repeat (with an offset) after n generations. The larger the n the less efficient are the restrictions. Generally they restrict width (or height) and number of generations and then work though the strip until the find a solution. This strip is not limited in theory in the other dimension
4) It is more efficient to develop the partial patterns in all generations in parallel (the exact optimal search strategy depends on the velocity), but this quickly breaks down if you increase the number of generations
2. I agree.
3. I have no idea how to implement that so I just wrote the best algorithm that I actually knew how to write, which works by looking at cells with exactly one unknown cell that could affect how they evolve after the period, and trying to set unknown cells.
4. Like I said, I have no idea how to implement this.
Alas, the irony. By increasing the search space into the time dimension, you actually narrow it down.
-
- Posts: 5143
- Joined: August 31st, 2020, 5:58 pm
Re: Spaceship Discussion Thread
But wouldn't the pruning time be linear? If there are 2¹⁰⁰ or so times as many possibilities, then each time that a cell's state becomes known or a branch is eliminated, then about 2¹⁰⁰ many possibilities will be discarded on average.dvgrn wrote: ↑October 7th, 2020, 3:10 pmBrute-force is not really viable for searches (that produce actual interesting results) except for very small sizes or special situations. Existing search utilities build a model of all phases of a spaceship, not just one phase, and then apply all kinds of clever logic to reduce the number of possibilities down to something much more tractable than 2^95. "If this cell is ON in this phase, than that cell and this other cell can't possibly be on in the next phase, ..." Every time a cell goes from unknown to known, you cut the remaining search space (in that branch of the search) in half -- and if you prove that a cell can't be either ON or OFF, then you can prune off that whole branch of the tree and backtrack to try your next option.
For that type of search -- which is pretty much what has found all the elementary spaceships that we know about that don't show up in random soup -- increasing the period by one adds some non-trivial number N of unknown cells to the spacetime search region, and therefore multiplies the size of the search space by 2^N... or rather, some tiny fraction of 2^N, thanks to all the clever shortcuts and optimizations, but you're still multiplying the size of the search space by some number, not just adding a constant to it.
Also, the computational power required for any method that is cleverer than a brute force method should be bounded by the computational power for the brute force method, which is linear as a function of period.
I can't see any benefit to that unless the search program tries to use partials of the same speed to stabilize each other, which I doubt because that could violate the width constraint.HartmutHolzwart wrote: ↑October 7th, 2020, 3:18 pmIt is more efficient to develop the partial patterns in all generations in parallel (the exact optimal search strategy depends on the velocity), but this quickly breaks down if you increase the number of generations
I am tentatively considering myself back.
Re: Spaceship Discussion Thread
In its smallest phase, Sir Robin consists of 282 cells in a 31-by-79 box.
Suffice it to say, my search program didn't trawl through all (2449 choose 282) = 1816542579891561316295603424938029274802095354130525469758394163343550228141988777491556527148757232815365841439814075524609380448143349835366086222294538469451778290096666558439353121684851772080924374971250875587196201159927343699373816102263935421483779586294694267983046787036177074919515001221009282754607956760907861537317467526824613979214860525827624782038843939722869568 different ways to populate a 31-by-79 box with 282 live cells and run each of these patterns for 6 generations; this would have taken much longer than eight hours.
Instead, it does something more akin to what Dave and Hartmut have been suggesting: its search space consists of an interleaving of all phases, and it tries to find a solution to the resulting set of Boolean equations using a bunch of heuristics to guide the search.
I'd recommend reading David Eppstein's https://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0004003 article, since many of the ideas in that paper are incorporated into modern spaceship search programs.
Suffice it to say, my search program didn't trawl through all (2449 choose 282) = 1816542579891561316295603424938029274802095354130525469758394163343550228141988777491556527148757232815365841439814075524609380448143349835366086222294538469451778290096666558439353121684851772080924374971250875587196201159927343699373816102263935421483779586294694267983046787036177074919515001221009282754607956760907861537317467526824613979214860525827624782038843939722869568 different ways to populate a 31-by-79 box with 282 live cells and run each of these patterns for 6 generations; this would have taken much longer than eight hours.
Instead, it does something more akin to what Dave and Hartmut have been suggesting: its search space consists of an interleaving of all phases, and it tries to find a solution to the resulting set of Boolean equations using a bunch of heuristics to guide the search.
I'd recommend reading David Eppstein's https://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0004003 article, since many of the ideas in that paper are incorporated into modern spaceship search programs.
What do you do with ill crystallographers? Take them to the mono-clinic!
Re: Spaceship Discussion Thread
Yes, eight hours after feeding Tom Rokicki's partial as input to the original ikpx.
What do you do with ill crystallographers? Take them to the mono-clinic!