Sphenocorona wrote: ↑February 11th, 2021, 10:14 pm
I think the 5-neighbor cell in the E would be a reasonable canonical center, and I'll address the I later. The LoM is the most annoying here by far since it's rotationally symmetric around the edge *between* two cells.
Your proposal for the E's center sounds good. I'll probably use decimals as a placeholder for the S->G name until someone thinks of something better.
Sphenocorona wrote: ↑February 11th, 2021, 10:14 pm
Maybe "J"? That doesnt feel so great to me when we also have "I", but it *does* make a J shape on its first generation.
I don't think that the letters will be too hard to tell apart visually, so I'll assign it J. Thank you for the idea.
Sphenocorona wrote: ↑February 11th, 2021, 10:14 pm
I think the "S" (I'll get to the abbreviation later) should have the "forwards"/"backwards" directions in the dimension it expands into, rather than perpendicular. There's only one complete stable X->LoM->X conduit chain that exists right now (other than the LoM hassler oscillator), and it ejects the LoM with the lobes pointed "forwards" and not "sideways" like most methods of producing them end up doing. Unfortunately this doesn't match with the D like you described, but I think it's also worth noting that the LoM doesn't actually produce the form of a D at all without some kind of catalysis (even if it is admittedly a very simple one)
That's a good point about which way it expands, but that raises the question of which reflection should be its canonical orientation.
Code: Select all
x = 15, y = 4, rule = B3/S23
2bo9bo$b2o9b2o$2o11b2o$o13bo!
[[ VIEWONLY ]]
Also, I'm wondering whether instead of using forward (F), left (L), right (R), and backwards (B) for describing the relative orientation of S-creating and S-accepting conduits, we should use straight (S) and turned (T) or something similar in order to reflect its twofold rotational symmetry. As before, x would denote a reflection. Of course, we would need a different system for gliders, and an S-accepting conduit with multiple non-S outputs would use the standard nomenclature.
Sphenocorona wrote: ↑February 11th, 2021, 10:14 pm
I'm more partial to "Z" since "S" could also be taken to mean "swimmer" (switch engine) and while S describes both well, Z only works for LoM. Admittedly nobody has found a usable switch engine output so there isn't currently a problem here, but it's something I still worry about very slightly (and probably unnecessarily).
The main reason that I chose S over other rotationally symmetric letters is because stairstep begins with S. Also, hearing the letter Z in the context of branch points brings to my mind the Z-hexomino, which is somewhat common, for example occurring when half of a forming traffic light interacts with a preexisting blinker. I've found two conduits accepting it so far, and more may be possible.
Code: Select all
x = 67, y = 21, rule = B3/S23
2o11b2o34b2o14b2o$2o11bo35b2o14bo$11bobo49bobo$4bo6b2o40bo9b2o$3b3o46b
3o2$8bo48bo$8bo48bo$8bo48bo6b2o$64b2o8$58b2o$58bobo$60bo$60b2o!
However, despite the LWSS, the Z-hexomino's small range makes it not very useful as a branch region for catalysts, so there's probably not much danger in that respect. However, as far as I know, switch engines are pretty uncommon, and I don't want to keep getting confused with the Z-hexomino, so I would prefer S over Z.
Sphenocorona wrote: ↑February 11th, 2021, 10:14 pm
Probably the biggest point I want to make. As mentioned in the discord, I feel like this should be the canonical "generation 0" of the I sequence for the conduit collection:
Code: Select all
x = 5, y = 5, rule = LifeHistory
2.C$.C.C$C3.C$.C2.C$3.2C!
I find this form much more recognizable, understandable (you can quickly tell it is about to move right), natural (almost all I sequences that occur naturally pass through this bottleneck stage, whereas the I heptomino itself is incredibly rare. The method you used to get the canonical orientation only first enters the standard I sequence at this stage!), and honestly I think it just looks way nicer.
Personally, when I look at that, I think that it's going to go up instead of to the right due to its similarity with generation six of the pi-heptomino, while the I-heptomino looks to me like it's going to go in the direction that it ends up going it. Also, I would prefer the canonical form to be more compact. However, because someone else (I think BlinkerSpawn) agreed with you on Discord, I'm going to acknowledge consensus and change it.
Sphenocorona wrote: ↑February 11th, 2021, 10:14 pm
I've been wondering if it might make sense for there to be two official versions of the ECC: one that is focused more on conduits and signals that are known to be connectable, effective, and connect using good branch points (stuff like H, R, B, P, Q, G, and I guess C and M) - with useful composite conduits that can only be broken down using more exotic signals being included too (with the intermediates marked of course). The other one would be a more fully developed one that includes exotic signals as well as things that have genuine hope but aren't quite usable, or only work with periodic conduits (though it should make sure to distinguish those that are connectable from those that aren't). If there are eventually way too many composite conduits in the simplified ECC that use some particular "exotic" signal, then we can talk about letting it graduate out of the "exotic" category.
I think that that would be a good idea. For example, a while ago, I found two ways to make a procrestinator, but I didn't save them because I didn't know that we already had a many to turn it into a B-sequence. The two-glider octomino, the heavyweight spaceship, and probably at least a few other regions could also go there.
Sphenocorona wrote: ↑February 11th, 2021, 10:14 pm
Is attention being paid to repeat time here? I think that ultra-high repeat times aren't necessarily bad if the output signal is really slow. But RR204P, as great as it is at injecting a Pi, still has a repeat time of 684 in the form shown in the draft. The old rule for maximum repeat times to be included was something in the range of 300 to 400 ticks as a hard cutoff I believe, but in the future it might make the most sense to have it be "less than X generations more than the travel time" so that conduits useful as extreme compact delays are still documented fairly. RR204P probably would end up failing that criterion in its current form, unfortunately.
Whoops; I had forgotten about that. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I'll remove it (and the other conduits with that same beginning). Hopefully, however, a version with a faster repeat time will be found soon.
Edit: I have given the blonk-tie sequence the letter J, named the E->G and S->G conduits, and made some other changes. I am attaching the most recent version to this post.
I am tentatively considering myself back.