Talk:(2,1)c/6

From LifeWiki
Revision as of 17:17, 3 February 2019 by Moosey (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shouldn't the speed be c/3 (max(2,1)/6) in this case? --Wpolly (talk) 04:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

My answer would be no, because you can’t divide everything by two and get integers, so that would just confuse things. You could say it’s c/3 knightwise, but by the same reasoning, a glider would travel at c/2 diagonal. You could make a new notation by saying that a pattern moves at c/3 (2c/6 unsimplified) in one direction and c/6 in another, however, but that would make things a touch confusing. This is only my opinion, though! Moosey (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Why such a specific article?

What's the point of having an article for one specific combination of speed and direction, when there's no article on "knightwise" in general? Knightwise is just a redirect to Types of spaceships, and Knightship covers all sort of spaceships, not just those moving knightwise. (See also my suggestion at Talk:Knightship#Systematic nomenclature.) Micromegas (talk) 09:30, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

It's debatable -- probably not worth having an entry so long as just have one ship, and no guns, rakes, puffers etc. But I'm biased, of course.
Even if we decide to keep it, it should not be called "c/6 knightwise", as the ship is clearly moving more than one cell per 6 ticks -- as Wpolly pointed out above. Depending on the metric used, it would be reasonable to say the ship is moving at speed c/3, or c/2, or even c/2.68328; but c/6 is clearly wrong. Apple Bottom (talk) 09:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)