The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

For discussion of specific patterns or specific families of patterns, both newly-discovered and well-known.
MathAndCode
Posts: 5141
Joined: August 31st, 2020, 5:58 pm

Re: The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

Post by MathAndCode » December 4th, 2020, 11:10 pm

Kazyan wrote:
December 4th, 2020, 3:13 pm
A Herschel that comes out of a conduit will transports its 'explosion' in a distinct path and direction, and this path vacates the place where it first appeared, without flailing about in such a way that it is nigh-guaranteed to knock over catalysts from the conduit it came from. (Looking at you, century and Pi, but I'm also giving hard side-eye at R.)
This is an advantage in some ways, but it's a disadvantage in others, as it's harder to perturb an active object that is only moving forwards without disrupting its forwards movement mechanism than to perturb an active object that is moving both forwards and outwards. However, to be fair, only some conduits maintain the forward movement mechanism of the active region. Also, it is possible to turn an R−B or R−H into useful signals.
Kazyan wrote:
December 4th, 2020, 3:13 pm
For any new conduit, if the input is an H, it is almost guaranteed to be able to connect to something as long as you don't put a catalyst directly behind the Herschel. If its output in a Herschel, it has probably (but not always) formed by launching itself 20 cells away from an active region via B-heptomino. It has also probably formed in a way such that it's pointing away from your new conduit, rather than an R or C, which like to do the opposite of that.
While there is a commonly edgeshot predecessor of an R-sequence that goes back the way it came, the same is not true of the century. The century typically comes out either pointing forwards or sideways (specifically, turning to the right), which, in my opinion, is better than the Herschel, which typically only comes from one direction, because this allows one to place catalysts behind or to the right of the input century, just not both. On the other hand, I don't think that there are any conduits forming Herschels forming the front or the side. This isn't very much of a problem for in terms of making conduits that input Herschels because the Herschel only expands in all directions for about 10–12 generations before switching to directed movement, so there weren't many opportunities to perturb the Herschel from behind in the first place, but it is a problem in terms of making/finding conduits that output Herschels that can fit into some input conduit, such as this H→L.
R-sequences sometimes form from the side, although that doesn't occur nearly as often. However, even R-sequences that travel backwards can still be extracted. There are several conduits that accept an R from behind, such as RFx36R and RR73H. In addition, I have found several examples of partial conduits intaking backward-forming R-sequences which use a sacrificial object that looks like it can be replaced by a permanent catalyst. Here is a partial RB42R:

Code: Select all

x = 8, y = 9, rule = TripleB3S23
.2D3.2B$.D.2A2.B$2.DEFCB$4.G3$G$3G$.G!
Here is a partial RB34R:

Code: Select all

x = 8, y = 8, rule = TripleB3S23
6.2D$5.CE$4.G.G$4.2G2$.2G$2G$.G!
Each looks promising in terms of being completable because the interaction is brief, multiple sacrificial objects work, and there is ample space for a large catalyst. The RB34R would probably be more useful than the RB42R if completed.
If nothing else, one can have the B-sequence or Herschel sequence crash into junk that the reaction also created then extract a signal from the R−B or R−H, each of which we know how to do.
Kazyan wrote:
December 4th, 2020, 3:13 pm
This is part of the motivation behind the (unnecessary) packaging of elementary conduits into Herschel conduits. Once you prove that you can get back to a Herschel, you're home free to connect that to whatever you want.
While Herschels tend to have better output clearance than other active regions, simply ending in a Herschel is not a proof of connectability. For example, consider this periodic conduit.

Code: Select all

x = 45, y = 46, rule = LifeHistory
7$2A$.A$.A.A$2.2A12.3D$17.D$15.3D8$18.C15.2A$18.3C13.A$19.C15.A$34.2A
2$41.2A$41.A$42.A$41.2A2$28.A2.A9.2A$26.2A4.2A6.A.A$28.A2.A9.A$31.2A.
2A6.3A$33.2A.2A6.A$31.A2.A$29.3A3.3A$31.A$17.2A12.2A.A$17.2A13.A2.A$35.
A$32.A2.A$33.2A2.2A$37.A.A$39.A$39.2A!
It's possible to get that R in there, and there's a way to use a twin bees shuttle's V spark to clean up the block and beehive that also creates an extra glider and a blinker that annihilates the Herschel's first natural glider, but I doubt that it is possible to hook up a conduit to the output Herschel. Even if there somehow is, I'm sure that there is a way to make a Herschel with even worse clearance (even if confined to stable conduits), like this example except elementary.

Code: Select all

x = 23, y = 36, rule = LifeHistory
16.2A$15.A2.A$15.A.A$16.A11$2.C$3C$C.C$C8$10.3D$12.D$11.3D2$16.2A.A$16.
2A.3A$22.A$16.2A.3A$17.A.A$17.A.A$18.A!
On the other hand, while not all R-making or ∏-making conduits have great output clearance, some do, and I believe that ending with one of those, e.g. BR184P, should be sufficient proof for connectability.
Kazyan wrote:
December 4th, 2020, 3:13 pm
The "no connections" graveyard is built on centuries, Pi heptominos, B heptminos, and Rs. It is not built on Herschels. The only signals that do better in this respect are gliders.
As I have stated before, Herschels may be more likely to be outputted with good clearance than some other regions, but there are Herschel-making conduits whose outputs are inaccessible, and there are also Herschel-intaking conduits whose inputs are inaccessible. Some conduits that accept other active regions but don't connect to any preceding conduits are genuinely unrealistic (although I can think of a ∏→B that ordinarily falls under those lines but is still very useful), but for many, the problem is not that the input is unrealistic but that not enough research has been done into searching for conduits that make those input regions. For example, I found a partial CFx112 that makes a forwards century with wonderful clearance. All that it needs is a catalyst that can replace the sacrificial block.



Edit: gmc_nxtman found a H→B that can be turned into an H→H that is definitely unconnectable because the output Herschel's first natural glider would destroy a fishhook, and any catalyst that suppressed it would block the input Herschel.

Code: Select all

x = 58, y = 46, rule = LifeHistory
47.A$47.3A$37.2A11.A$38.A10.2A$38.A.AB7.5B$39.2AB.3B5.4B$41.7B2.6B$
41.16B$42.15B$41.15B$39.17B$32.2A3.D18B$32.2A2.B2DC16B$36.BDBCBC15B$
29.2A5.3B3C15B$28.B2AB4.5BC15B$29.3B3.13B.6B$28.B.B3.4B5.4B.6B.2B$27.
10B5.4B3.7B2A$25.11B5.4B4.7B2A$24.11B5.4B5.6B.B$22.12B5.4B5.6B$21.12B
5.4B6.6B$3.A16.14B3.4B8.B.B$2.A.A13.17B.4B10.3B$2.A.A12.22B10.B2AB$.
2A.2A10.6B2A14B12.2A$4.B9.8B2A16B$.2AB2AB6.27B$2.A.2A32B.B2A$A3.31B4.
BA.A$2A4.29B7.A$4.29B9.2A$4.28B$4.4B2A22B$2.2AB.2B2A21B$.A.AB.5B.15B.
B.B2A$.A5.3B2.16B2.BA.A$2A6.3B.12B.2B6.A$7.B2AB.11B10.2A$8.2A3.9B$14.
3B.B$13.2B$12.2BAB$13.A.A$14.A!
I am tentatively considering myself back.

User avatar
bubblegum
Posts: 959
Joined: August 25th, 2019, 11:59 pm
Location: click here to do nothing

Re: The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

Post by bubblegum » December 5th, 2020, 1:51 am

MathAndCode wrote:
December 4th, 2020, 11:10 pm
This is an advantage in some ways, but it's a disadvantage in others, as it's harder to perturb an active object that is only moving forwards without disrupting its forwards movement mechanism than to perturb an active object that is moving both forwards and outwards. However, to be fair, only some conduits maintain the forward movement mechanism of the active region. Also, it is possible to turn an R−B or R−H into useful signals.
A lot of Herschel conduits abuse this and interrupt every forward movement mechanism of a Herschel like Fx77 or (more extreme) F166. Moving forwards and outwards is easier to perturb but 1) diagonally-moving areas tend to be annoying to catalyse and 2) they have a tendency to move backward a bit too much (especially X->forward pi).
MathAndCode wrote:
December 4th, 2020, 11:10 pm
While Herschels tend to have better output clearance than other active regions, simply ending in a Herschel is not a proof of connectability. For example, consider this periodic conduit.

Code: Select all

x = 45, y = 46, rule = LifeHistory
7$2A$.A$.A.A$2.2A12.3D$17.D$15.3D8$18.C15.2A$18.3C13.A$19.C15.A$34.2A
2$41.2A$41.A$42.A$41.2A2$28.A2.A9.2A$26.2A4.2A6.A.A$28.A2.A9.A$31.2A.
2A6.3A$33.2A.2A6.A$31.A2.A$29.3A3.3A$31.A$17.2A12.2A.A$17.2A13.A2.A$35.
A$32.A2.A$33.2A2.2A$37.A.A$39.A$39.2A!
It's possible to get that R in there, and there's a way to use a twin bees shuttle's V spark to clean up the block and beehive that also creates an extra glider and a blinker that annihilates the Herschel's first natural glider, but I doubt that it is possible to hook up a conduit to the output Herschel. Even if there somehow is, I'm sure that there is a way to make a Herschel with even worse clearance (even if confined to stable conduits), like this example except elementary.

Code: Select all

x = 23, y = 36, rule = LifeHistory
16.2A$15.A2.A$15.A.A$16.A11$2.C$3C$C.C$C8$10.3D$12.D$11.3D2$16.2A.A$16.
2A.3A$22.A$16.2A.3A$17.A.A$17.A.A$18.A!
On the other hand, while not all R-making or ∏-making conduits have great output clearance, some do, and I believe that ending with one of those, e.g. BR184P, should be sufficient proof for connectability.
(with a better V-sparker so the glider eater can fit and the cleanup that can definitely be staged with a few conduits before or after it) Here's that first one with an F116 tacked onto the end.

Code: Select all

x = 45, y = 68, rule = LifeHistory
17.3D$18.D$16.3D6$24.2A$24.A.A$26.A$26.2A$28.A$26.3A$25.A$25.2A6$27.2A
$27.2A$3.2A26.2A$2.A.A26.A$2.A26.A.A$.2A26.2A3$2A$.A$.A.A$2.2A12.3D$17.
D$15.3D8$18.C15.2A$18.3C13.A$19.C8.2A5.A$28.2A4.2A2$41.2A$41.A$42.A$41.
2A2$28.A2.A9.2A$26.2A4.2A6.A.A$28.A2.A9.A$31.2A.2A6.3A$33.2A.2A6.A$31.
A2.A$29.3A3.3A$31.A$17.2A12.2A.A$17.2A13.A2.A$35.A$32.A2.A$33.2A2.2A$
37.A.A$39.A$39.2A!
Nobody said Herschel output was the only requirement, Herschel-connectivity was. The glider is the most effective form of signal transport over supremely long distances, and as the only fast (these are kind of disjoint but if you're throwing them at Herschels so they travel obliquely who cares) elementary G->!Gs are two G->Hs, the Herschel-connectivity requirement actually makes sense somewhat, but I think being able to route a glider through a G->X->G including the specified conduit is a better measure of usability.
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
Scorbie
Posts: 1692
Joined: December 7th, 2013, 1:05 am

Re: The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

Post by Scorbie » December 5th, 2020, 2:15 am

MathAndCode wrote:
December 4th, 2020, 2:38 pm
Scorbie wrote:
December 4th, 2020, 1:44 am
1. People have been looking through Herschels since a long time ago.
The first "conduit"s was B/R/H based. The field of "Stable signal circuitry" was probably made because of the H conduits and the first signal reflector(1996, I think). For quite a long time "Stable signal circuitry" just meant "Herschel circuitry" because these were the only ways to make reasonable-sized stable circuits.
I don't have a problem with the fact that people were looking for Herschel conduits. I have used Herschel conduits myself, e.g. here. My problem is when users practice Herschel-centrism to the detriment of non-Herschel conduits, including chaining them into composite Herschel conduits and refusing to acknowledge elementary conduits until they have been chained as such.
I see, thanks for clarifying. (Sorry for making a lot of posts in this topic :s care for discussion in the Discord Lounge?)

I would say that's a side effect of Glider-centralism (which is "THE Signal" for the current era; I doubt it would change for a long time)
i.e. people only care for duplicating and moving signals(currently gliders); all the rest is implied from this fact.

Currently the most economic method is piping gliders through conduits; i.e.

Code: Select all

Glider | Syringe/Bronco(i.e.G->H) | H->X | X->Y | Y->Z | Z->2G 
I'm pretty sure this is the consensus for all the conduit stuff. (Probably the very reason for these conduits, actually; I personally don't see any value from an unstable object moving into another one apart from that it looks kinda cool)
If there is an intermediate object T* that only occurs in X->T*->Y, there's no loss of information when merging the substeps to X->Y (and marking the T* as an intermediate).
That's my personal "image" for the state of things, but dvgrn is the maintainer, so I guess he might have something different in mind.
(I'd be happy to see a collection of non-herschel conduits that can be chained from and to gliders though! :wink: )
MathAndCode wrote:
December 4th, 2020, 11:10 pm
In addition, I have found several examples of partial conduits intaking backward-forming R-sequences which use a sacrificial object that looks like it can be replaced by a permanent catalyst. Each looks promising in terms of being completable because the interaction is brief, multiple sacrificial objects work, and there is ample space for a large catalyst.
From my experience, even the most promising ones don't work out so often, but your reasoning for selecting the promising ones seems good.
MathAndCode wrote:
December 4th, 2020, 11:10 pm
All that it needs is a catalyst that can replace the sacrificial block.
Especially restoring stable bait objects seems to be a long long shot. Perhaps a BigInt shot. I really really wish it's easier than it is now, because we have an G->Pi and G->HF that work with a sacrificial block/beehive/pond/ship/boat/loaf and it's like never restored, like ever. (Okay, it's been restored a few times, but you see how hard and frustrating it is... )

User avatar
Kazyan
Posts: 1247
Joined: February 6th, 2014, 11:02 pm

Re: The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

Post by Kazyan » December 12th, 2020, 11:38 am

R-to-G:

Code: Select all

x = 29, y = 27, rule = LifeHistory
11.2A$11.A$5.B2.BA.A$2.B.B2A.B2A$.A3B2A2B$A.A3B.2B$.AB.6B$4.7B10.A$4.
8B7.3A$4.10B4.A$4.5B.4B4.2A$4.2BC13B$4.2B2C10B$4.B2C12B$4.15B$5.14B$
6.B2.11B$9.2B3.B2.4B$10.AB6.4B$9.A.A7.4B$9.2A9.4B$21.4B$22.4B$23.4B$
24.3BD$25.3BD$26.3D!
It doesn't seem to connect to anything in my copy of the conduit collection, though.

The normal B output is suppressed here because the glider arms directly at it. If we were allowed to have nice things, it would cleanly delete the B's natural block. Instead, it causes an unmanageable backlash.
Tanner Jacobi
Coldlander, a novel, available in paperback and as an ebook. Now on Amazon.

User avatar
Extrementhusiast
Posts: 1966
Joined: June 16th, 2009, 11:24 pm
Location: USA

Re: The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

Post by Extrementhusiast » 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!
Fully THREE near misses for a sparky CB82R, compatible with the previous conduit:

Code: Select all

x = 124, y = 23, rule = LifeHistory
61.A$60.A.A$60.A.A$59.2A.3A$54.2A9.A$5.2A47.2A3.2A.3A39.2A4.2A$2A2.A.
3A14.D35.2A.A10.D29.A2.A2.A2.A10.D$A3.A4.A11.3D47.3D30.2A4.A.A8.3D$.
3A.4A13.D32.A16.D28.3A2.4A.A10.D$3.A.A48.A.A43.A3.A.A2.A$5.A.4A43.A.A
42.A.4A.A4.A$4.2A.A2.A44.A43.A.A3.A4.2A$98.2A2.2A$100.A.A$100.A.A$
101.A5$8.3C47.3C47.3C$7.C2.C46.C2.C46.C2.C$7.2C48.2C48.2C!
I Like My Heisenburps! (and others)

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

Re: The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

Post by MathAndCode » December 20th, 2020, 6:54 pm

Extrementhusiast wrote:
December 20th, 2020, 6:45 pm
RF12B from backwards R formation, complementing the known RFx10B:
Do you suppose that it's possible to edgeshoot a century by perturbing an R-sequence from behind? I see it happen fairly often with sacrificial objects or junk when looking as random soups or other messes.

Code: Select all

x = 8, y = 16, rule = B3/S23
bo$3o$o5$3bo2$2b3o$4b2o$2bobo$b2o3bo$2bo4bo$4b2obo$6bo!
I am tentatively considering myself back.

wwei23

Re: The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

Post by wwei23 » December 20th, 2020, 6:59 pm

Extrementhusiast wrote:
December 20th, 2020, 6:45 pm
Fully THREE near misses for a sparky CB82R, compatible with the previous conduit:

Code: Select all

x = 37, y = 31, rule = LifeHistory
18.A$17.3A3$17.3A2$17.A.A$17.A.A2$17.3A3$17.3A$18.A$36.D$34.3D$18.A
16.D$17.A.A$17.A.A$.A2.A.2A.A2.A5.A$2A2.A4.A2.2A$.A2.A.2A.A2.A7$21.3C
$20.C2.C$20.2C!
EDIT: I was able to replace one of the pentadecathalons with a beehive with tail, or weirdly enough, a bun on bun:

Code: Select all

x = 109, y = 31, rule = LifeHistory
10.A79.A$9.3A77.3A3$9.3A77.3A2$9.A.A77.A.A$9.A.A77.A.A2$9.3A77.3A3$9.
3A77.3A$10.A79.A$28.D79.D$26.3D77.3D$10.A16.D62.A16.D$9.A.A70.A6.A.A$
9.A.A70.3A4.A.A$.2A.2A4.A74.A4.A$A.A.A.A77.A.A$A.A.A.A77.A.A$.A3.A79.
A6$13.3C77.3C$12.C2.C76.C2.C$12.2C78.2C!

User avatar
bubblegum
Posts: 959
Joined: August 25th, 2019, 11:59 pm
Location: click here to do nothing

Re: The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

Post by bubblegum » December 20th, 2020, 9:54 pm

An R-bee is a suitable replacement for a beehive with tail because they both give a key cell an extra neighbour. A thirteen loop almost works, but the clearance just isn't enough.
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

wwei23

Re: The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

Post by wwei23 » December 23rd, 2020, 11:08 am

I found a P4 sparker capable of pushing the beehive back.

Code: Select all

x = 30, y = 40, rule = LifeHistory
6.2A7.2A$6.A2.2A.2A2.A$7.2A.A.A.2A$8.A.A.A.A$8.A5.A$9.A3.A$5.2A3.3A3.
2A$6.A9.A$5.A3.5A3.A$5.5A.A.5A$11.A$2.2A3.2A.A.A.2A3.2A$2.A.A.A.A.A.A
.A.A.A.A$2A2.A.2A7.2A.A2.2A$.A.A6.A.A6.A.A$.A.3A3.A.A.A3.3A.A$2.A6.A.
A.A6.A$3.4A3.3A3.4A$8.A.3A.A$3.2A3.7A3.2A$2.A2.2A.7A.2A2.A$2.2A2.A9.A
2.2A$6.A9.A$29.D$27.3D$11.A16.D$3.A6.A.A$3.3A4.A.A$6.A4.A$5.A.A$5.A.A
$6.A6$14.3C$13.C2.C$13.2C!

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

Re: The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

Post by MathAndCode » December 24th, 2020, 10:26 pm

I've decided to resume working on conduits. Here's a W→G.

Code: Select all

x = 9, y = 9, rule = B3/S23
2o$bo$bobo$2b2o$5b3o$5bo2bo$6bobo$7bo!
Here's evidence that it's at least theoretically connectable.

Code: Select all

x = 9, y = 9, rule = B3/S23
2o$bo$bobo$2b2o3$5b3o$b2o2bo2bo$b2o2bo!
Also, here's a way to turn it into a mildly edgeshot honey farm.

Code: Select all

x = 15, y = 7, rule = B3/S23
2o3b2o$2o3bobo$7b2o$11b2o$11bobo$13bo$13b2o!
I am tentatively considering myself back.

wwei23

Re: The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

Post by wwei23 » December 24th, 2020, 11:04 pm

MathAndCode wrote:
December 24th, 2020, 10:26 pm
I've decided to resume working on conduits.
Welcome back! I missed you! :P

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

Re: The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

Post by MathAndCode » December 24th, 2020, 11:09 pm

wwei23 wrote:
December 24th, 2020, 11:04 pm
Welcome back! I missed you! :P
You say that like I left the forums.
I am tentatively considering myself back.

wwei23

Re: The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

Post by wwei23 » December 24th, 2020, 11:12 pm

MathAndCode wrote:
December 24th, 2020, 11:09 pm
You say that like I left the forums.
Well, I missed you in the sense that you were gone from this thread for a while. :P
(Maybe we should take this discussion to DMs)

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

Re: The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

Post by MathAndCode » December 25th, 2020, 12:12 am

Here's a C→R.

Code: Select all

x = 9, y = 9, rule = LifeHistory
3.D$3.2D$2.2D4$.C5.2A$3C4.2A$2.2C!


Edit: Here's another.

Code: Select all

x = 14, y = 16, rule = LifeHistory
8.A$6.3A$5.A$5.2A4.2A$11.A$9.A.A$.D7.2A$3D$D5$4.C5.2A$3.3C4.2A$5.2C!
I am tentatively considering myself back.

wwei23

Re: The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

Post by wwei23 » December 25th, 2020, 12:38 am

MathAndCode wrote:
December 25th, 2020, 12:12 am
Edit: Here's another.
That's C->2R!

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

Re: The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

Post by MathAndCode » December 25th, 2020, 12:46 am

wwei23 wrote:
December 25th, 2020, 12:38 am
That's C->2R!
Yes, but they would crash into each other if neither is suppressed.
I am tentatively considering myself back.

wwei23

Re: The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

Post by wwei23 » December 25th, 2020, 12:03 pm

I'm assuming that this thing that bubblegum and I put together is known, but just in case it isn't:

Code: Select all

x = 13, y = 10, rule = B3/S23
6b2o$7bo$b2o4bob2obo$b2o3b2obob2o2$6b3o$6bo2bo$3o5b2o$o2bo$2b2o!

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

Re: The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

Post by MathAndCode » December 25th, 2020, 1:16 pm

wwei23 wrote:
December 25th, 2020, 12:03 pm
I'm assuming that this thing that bubblegum and I put together is known, but just in case it isn't:
Yes, it's in the Elementary Conduits Collection.
I am tentatively considering myself back.

wwei23

Re: The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

Post by wwei23 » December 25th, 2020, 1:49 pm

Is there any value in this, or is it not worth rebuilding the ship?

Code: Select all

x = 23, y = 13, rule = B3/S23
2o$obo$b2o2$7b3o$7bo2bo$8bobo$9bo2$20bo$19bo2bo$19bo2bo$21bo!

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

Re: The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

Post by MathAndCode » December 25th, 2020, 2:41 pm

wwei23 wrote:
December 25th, 2020, 1:49 pm
Is there any value in this, or is it not worth rebuilding the ship?

Code: Select all

x = 23, y = 13, rule = B3/S23
2o$obo$b2o2$7b3o$7bo2bo$8bobo$9bo2$20bo$19bo2bo$19bo2bo$21bo!
It might be worth working on since we currently don't have any good LWSS-producing conduits. Also, the toad is unnecessary for producing the LWSS.

Code: Select all

x = 11, y = 8, rule = B3/S23
2o$obo$b2o2$7b2o$7bobo$9b2o!
I am tentatively considering myself back.

wwei23

Re: The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

Post by wwei23 » December 25th, 2020, 2:46 pm

MathAndCode wrote:
December 25th, 2020, 2:41 pm
Also, the toad is unnecessary for producing the LWSS.
Correct. However, it does allow one to liberate an extra glider.

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

Re: The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

Post by MathAndCode » December 25th, 2020, 3:20 pm

wwei23 wrote:
December 25th, 2020, 2:46 pm
Correct. However, it does allow one to liberate an extra glider.
Yes, but there are probably other methods of doing that or releasing a more complex signal. Here's a messy way to get a pi and R.

Code: Select all

x = 23, y = 32, rule = LifeHistory
2.3D$2.D.D$2.D.D5$8.2D$7.2D$8.D9$2A$A.A$.2A2$7.2C$7.C.C$9.2C4$19.2A$19.
A.A$21.A$21.2A!
Here's another way to get an R.

Code: Select all

x = 25, y = 23, rule = LifeHistory
A$3A$3.A$2.2A5$.D$2DCA$D.A.A$3.2A2$9.2C$9.C.C$11.2C4$21.2A$21.A.A$23.
A$23.2A!
Also, using your toad reaction makes cleanup more difficult.



Edit: Now we only have to find a glider to ship converter.

Code: Select all

x = 43, y = 58, rule = LifeHistory
41.A$40.A$40.3A19$14.2A$14.A.A21.A$15.2A20.A.A$19.B3.3B12.2A$19.2B2D4B
$18.3BDBD4B$19.4B2D3B$20.7B$20.7B$20.7B10.2A$19.9B9.A$17.B.9B7.A.A$16.
16B3.2A$15.18B$15.19B$7.2A6.19B$8.A6.21B$8.A.AB4.20B$9.2AB.24B$11.26B
$11.28B$12.29B$11.30B$9.28B.4B$7.31B.2A2B$7.2BC28BA.AB$6.3BCBC4B.17B.
3B2A$7.2B3C4B.10B.6B3.3B$6.5BC4B.8B5.B.B5.B$5.10B.9B$4.4B6.10B.2B$4.3B
5.14B2A$2.4B5.15B2A$2.2A6.17B$3.A7.13B$3A11.10B$A13.11B!
Also, I found a variant of HL163W with slightly better output clearance. Should that be mentioned somewhere?



Another edit: Here is a mostly complete I→2G+P.

Code: Select all

x = 32, y = 28, rule = LifeHistory
27.D$27.2D$26.D.D6$7.2C3.3D$8.C3.D.D$8.2C2.D.D$2A7.2C$2A3$4.2A$5.A$2.
3A14.2A$2.A16.2A2$29.D$30.2D$29.2D2$16.2A$16.A$17.3A$19.A!
I would like help in completing it.



Yet another edit: Here's an I→S.

Code: Select all

x = 24, y = 9, rule = LifeHistory
20.2A$20.A$18.A.A$18.2A2$6.C$2A4.2C$2A5.3C$9.C!
By the way, that region that forms from the destroyed fishhook, which looks like it might be common, almost forms an LWSS. If it's indeed common, then it could be useful for a LWSS-making conduit. I also managed to get a clean OWSS from it, so maybe it would also be possible to get a MWSS or HWSS.

Code: Select all

x = 8, y = 26, rule = B3/S23
5bo$6bo$7bo$6bo$2bo2bo$2b3o18$bo$obo$2o!
Also, here's a demonstration that that B→W is at least theoretically connectable.

Code: Select all

x = 12, y = 7, rule = LifeHistory
4.2D$4.3D$4.4D$2A.DCAD$2A2.CDA3.2A$5.D2C2.2A$4.A.AD!
However, getting the I in looks difficult (although not much more difficult than I figured getting the B in would be), and it's not connectable with the W→G, or probably most wing conduits because the wing sequence hits the block early on.



Fourth edit: Can someone find a way to perturb the chaos at the bottom to annihilate the beehive (and maybe even the block)?

Code: Select all

x = 21, y = 24, rule = LifeHistory
16.A$15.A.A$15.A.A$14.2A.3A$20.A$14.2A.3A$14.2A.A2$2.D$.2D$2D$.2D9$10.
C$4.2A4.2C$4.2A5.3C$13.C!
There's another I→S in there (if one uses the cleanup from the first I→S in this post), but the output isn't very accessible as an elementary conduit.



Fifth edit: Can someone clean up this I→B?

Code: Select all

x = 18, y = 19, rule = LifeHistory
15.D$15.2D$16.2D$15.2D2$2A$.A$.A.A$2.2A7$8.C$2.2A4.2C$2.2A5.3C$11.C!
I am tentatively considering myself back.

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

Re: The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

Post by MathAndCode » December 26th, 2020, 5:16 pm

wwei23 wrote:
December 26th, 2020, 5:05 pm
But can you bounce the gliders around to resynthesize the eater? :P
One couldn't use the two-glider synthesis because the other catalysts would get in the way. I'm sure that one could do something more complicated with syringes, but at that point, it's better (in terms of repeat time) to use bounce back gliders from the B or the next conduit that it's fed into. In general, one should try to avoid sacrificial objects because the restoration is often difficult and tends to increase the bounding box and repeat time.
I am tentatively considering myself back.

wwei23

Re: The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

Post by wwei23 » December 26th, 2020, 5:33 pm

MathAndCode wrote:
December 25th, 2020, 3:20 pm
Fourth edit: Can someone find a way to perturb the chaos at the bottom to annihilate the beehive (and maybe even the block)?
That almost makes an LWSS!
EDIT:
MathAndCode wrote:
December 25th, 2020, 3:20 pm
Another edit: Here is a mostly complete I→2G+P.

Code: Select all

x = 34, y = 28, rule = LifeHistory
29.D$29.2D$28.D.D4$2A$.A$.A.A5.2C3.3D$2.2A6.C3.D.D$10.2C2.D.D$11.2C4$
6.2A$7.A$4.3A14.2A$4.A16.2A2$31.D$32.2D$31.2D2$18.2A$18.A$19.3A$21.A!
Edit 2: Fixed quote tags.
Edit 3: Fixed accidental post duplication.

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

Re: The Hunting of the Elementary Conduits

Post by MathAndCode » December 26th, 2020, 6:17 pm

wwei23 wrote:
December 26th, 2020, 5:33 pm
That almost makes an LWSS!
Yes, but unfortunately, there isn't room to add another catalyst to perturb it in the right place. I tried various possibilities of perturbing it that might work if the blockade sequence were formed in another way, but unfortunately, none resulted in an XWSS (or should it be a XWSS?)
wwei23 wrote:
December 26th, 2020, 5:33 pm

Code: Select all

x = 34, y = 28, rule = LifeHistory
29.D$29.2D$28.D.D4$2A$.A$.A.A5.2C3.3D$2.2A6.C3.D.D$10.2C2.D.D$11.2C4$
6.2A$7.A$4.3A14.2A$4.A16.2A2$31.D$32.2D$31.2D2$18.2A$18.A$19.3A$21.A!
Thank you. I wonder if that, along with the other I-accepting and I-producing conduits found so far, is enough for the I-sequence to be added to the Elementary Conduits Collection.



Edit: Here is a Here is a PL*1I.

Code: Select all

x = 5, y = 9, rule = LifeHistory
4.A$3.C$2.C2D$2DC$D.3C3$3.2A$3.2A!
It doesn't work with most predecessors of the pi sequence, but that particular pi predecessor does show up sometimes. Here's an example from a failed catalysis that I tried while searching for I-accepting conduits.

Code: Select all

x = 15, y = 17, rule = LifeHistory
9.D3.2A$8.D4.A$7.D3.A.A$7.D3.2A$7.3D9$6.A$2A4.2A$2A5.3A$9.A!
#C [[ STOP 48 ]]
I found it by wondering whether or not there is an alternative PT8P that works for that predecessor. Relatedly, here's a PL*7C.

Code: Select all

x = 8, y = 6, rule = LifeHistory
2.A$.D.D2.2A$.CAC2.2A$2DCD$.2D$2.D!
I am tentatively considering myself back.

Post Reply