Timeline for Implement the Game of Life on Anything but a Regular Grid
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
103 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Nov 13 at 14:44 | history | bounty ended | Deadcode | ||
| S Nov 13 at 14:44 | history | notice removed | Deadcode | ||
| S Nov 8 at 21:53 | history | bounty started | Deadcode | ||
| S Nov 8 at 21:53 | history | notice added | Deadcode | Reward existing answer | |
| Nov 24, 2024 at 19:45 | answer | added | henrisro | timeline score: 2 | |
| Nov 24, 2024 at 19:25 | answer | added | henrisro | timeline score: 10 | |
| Nov 24, 2024 at 19:13 | answer | added | henrisro | timeline score: 3 | |
| Nov 24, 2024 at 18:05 | answer | added | henrisro | timeline score: 4 | |
| Nov 24, 2024 at 17:56 | answer | added | henrisro | timeline score: 4 | |
| Nov 24, 2024 at 17:49 | answer | added | henrisro | timeline score: 5 | |
| May 28, 2024 at 17:58 | comment | added | SanguineL | Revisited this with the recent discovery of the Einstein's Hat aperiodic monotile (arxiv). However, due to the nature of it being aperiodic, it is impossible to create a glider and is most likely not Turing Complete. | |
| Jun 17, 2020 at 9:04 | history | edited | Community Bot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Mar 6, 2019 at 20:29 | comment | added | cmarangu | has anyone done equilateral triangles game of life before? I have heard of hexlife but not equilateral triangles | |
| Dec 10, 2018 at 15:44 | comment | added | Draco18s no longer trusts SE | I did a 3D (cubic) implementation in Minecraft once. Should I go dig up that code and post it? | |
| Dec 8, 2018 at 4:57 | answer | added | Sparr | timeline score: 5 | |
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:39 | history | edited | Community Bot |
replaced http://codegolf.stackexchange.com/ with https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Nov 9, 2015 at 19:50 | comment | added | Sparr | I'm probably going to post an answer that breaks one of the rules. I'm simulating Life on a fractal grid, with just one shape of cell at an infinite number of sizes. So either it breaks the "2+ shapes" rule or the "finite number of shapes" rule. But I think it's very neat and worth posting here. I don't mind if it gets downvoted. | |
| Jun 9, 2015 at 21:42 | history | edited | Calvin's Hobbies |
edited tags
|
|
| Jun 5, 2015 at 6:30 | history | edited | Calvin's Hobbies | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 186 characters in body
|
| Jun 1, 2015 at 12:31 | history | edited | Martin Ender |
edited tags
|
|
| May 8, 2015 at 0:58 | history | edited | Calvin's Hobbies | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Apr 15, 2015 at 19:42 | history | edited | Calvin's Hobbies | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
new tags, remove old update notice
|
| Nov 1, 2014 at 3:12 | vote | accept | Calvin's Hobbies | ||
| Aug 19, 2014 at 21:21 | answer | added | Peter Taylor | timeline score: 17 | |
| Aug 16, 2014 at 14:56 | answer | added | Peter Taylor | timeline score: 13 | |
| Aug 13, 2014 at 17:50 | answer | added | Peter Taylor | timeline score: 19 | |
| Aug 13, 2014 at 11:36 | answer | added | Thaylon | timeline score: 13 | |
| Aug 13, 2014 at 2:17 | comment | added | Calvin's Hobbies | @PeterTaylor You can assume that is infinite until shown otherwise. | |
| Aug 12, 2014 at 16:48 | comment | added | Peter Taylor | No simple pattern, alas: i.imgur.com/tteyVyu.gif is the first 300 generations | |
| Aug 12, 2014 at 16:32 | comment | added | Calvin's Hobbies | @PeterTaylor That sounds like a good contender, please show us. Ideally there would be an simple pattern to the growth (like the glider gun) for easy verification. | |
| Aug 12, 2014 at 15:43 | comment | added | Peter Taylor | For infinite growth, is the "enough evidence of the pattern that it is practically certain" criterion met by showing a quadratic increase in population over 3000 generations? | |
| Aug 11, 2014 at 12:42 | answer | added | Peter Taylor | timeline score: 16 | |
| Aug 10, 2014 at 23:08 | answer | added | Peter Taylor | timeline score: 14 | |
| Aug 10, 2014 at 19:29 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackCodeGolf/status/498551725952094208 | ||
| Aug 9, 2014 at 21:53 | answer | added | Sparr | timeline score: 92 | |
| Aug 9, 2014 at 9:22 | comment | added | Calvin's Hobbies | @PeterTaylor Yes. They can't just be two independent 3 and 10 oscillators (for example). | |
| Aug 9, 2014 at 9:19 | comment | added | Calvin's Hobbies | @mniip Chances are they cant't. That's why aperiodic tiling get 40 points automatically. | |
| Aug 9, 2014 at 7:37 | comment | added | Peter Taylor | I presume that for the oscillator of period 30+ you'll disqualify one which is just two oscillators such that the lcm of their periods is 30+? | |
| Aug 9, 2014 at 7:19 | comment | added | mniip | @Calvin'sHobbies How can a glider (or a gun) exist on an aperiodic tiling? | |
| Aug 9, 2014 at 5:03 | history | edited | Calvin's Hobbies | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 116 characters in body
|
| Aug 9, 2014 at 4:57 | answer | added | Keith Randall | timeline score: 43 | |
| Aug 9, 2014 at 0:22 | comment | added | Calvin's Hobbies | @MartinBüttner I guess in that case you would have all the oscillators and spaceships. But can such a radial tiling have finitely many prototiles? | |
| Aug 9, 2014 at 0:02 | comment | added | Martin Ender | Hm your definition of glider is interesting. Say I'd be using some radial tiling which is isomorphic to the regular square grid with periodic boundary conditions along some x+y=c (which would be illegal, I know). Then the standard GoL glider would loop around the tangent and would by your definitions result in arbitrarily many oscillators with period of my polar resolution instead of being defined as a glider. If I rotate it by 90 degrees, I get a glider along the radial. I'm not saying you should fix it, I just thought I'd point it out so you can decide whether that's your intention. | |
| Aug 8, 2014 at 23:52 | history | edited | Calvin's Hobbies | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 12 characters in body
|
| Aug 8, 2014 at 23:21 | answer | added | Stretch Maniac | timeline score: 14 | |
| Aug 8, 2014 at 22:18 | answer | added | Peter Taylor | timeline score: 18 | |
| Aug 8, 2014 at 14:14 | history | edited | Calvin's Hobbies | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Changed oscillator scoring
|
| Aug 8, 2014 at 14:06 | comment | added | Calvin's Hobbies | @MartinBüttner Actually, after seeing some of the really neat large oscillators below I've decided to change the oscillator point scale. | |
| Aug 8, 2014 at 13:41 | comment | added | Calvin's Hobbies | @MartinBüttner Nope, sorry. I had to make the cutoff somewhere. | |
| Aug 8, 2014 at 13:22 | comment | added | Martin Ender | @Calvin'sHobbies So oscillators with periods from 9 to 29 don't give any points? :( | |
| Aug 8, 2014 at 4:50 | answer | added | Kevin L | timeline score: 24 | |
| Aug 8, 2014 at 2:57 | answer | added | Jaa-c | timeline score: 53 | |
| Aug 8, 2014 at 1:20 | answer | added | DenDenDo | timeline score: 25 | |
| Aug 8, 2014 at 0:58 | answer | added | Stretch Maniac | timeline score: 33 | |
| Aug 7, 2014 at 19:28 | history | edited | Calvin's Hobbies | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
emphasized vote is part of score
|
| Aug 7, 2014 at 19:13 | history | edited | Calvin's Hobbies | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 65 characters in body
|
| Aug 7, 2014 at 18:03 | comment | added | Calvin's Hobbies | @Jaa-c Sure. Squares triangles and hexagons are allowed, just not their regular tilings. | |
| Aug 7, 2014 at 17:48 | answer | added | Kevin L | timeline score: 23 | |
| Aug 7, 2014 at 17:47 | comment | added | Jaa-c | Can there be some triangles and squares? Let's say that there are dozens of different tilings, but some of them are triangles. Is that possible? | |
| Aug 7, 2014 at 17:27 | history | reopened |
Calvin's Hobbies John Dvorak Kevin L Peter Taylor cjfaure |
||
| Aug 7, 2014 at 12:11 | history | edited | Calvin's Hobbies | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added continuous border rule, clarified neighboring rules. I think it's ready now.
|
| Aug 7, 2014 at 12:05 | comment | added | trichoplax is on Codidact now | Now to design an aperiodic tiling with wrap around boundary conditions... | |
| Aug 7, 2014 at 12:02 | comment | added | Calvin's Hobbies | @githubphagocyte No no, he was saying that my old spec ruled that tiling out, which was not desirable since it can't trivially recreate the hex tiling. | |
| Aug 7, 2014 at 12:00 | comment | added | trichoplax is on Codidact now | @PeterTaylor with the truncated hexagonal tiling I don't think there is a way of recreating hexagonal life behaviour with the same rule since the triangles would kill many valid hexagonal patterns. Is there a way round that I can't picture? | |
| Aug 7, 2014 at 11:59 | comment | added | Calvin's Hobbies | @githubphagocyte Ah, I see I see. I will clarify that. | |
| Aug 7, 2014 at 11:57 | comment | added | trichoplax is on Codidact now | For most people it should already be clear what you mean, but the extra clarity might attract slightly more competition. | |
| Aug 7, 2014 at 11:56 | comment | added | trichoplax is on Codidact now | I see that you need to rule out cells touching in two different places due to the loophole pointed out by Peter Taylor, so this suggested wording was just to clarify in case someone is put off by thinking that two adjacent edges between neighbours is excluded. | |
| Aug 7, 2014 at 11:54 | comment | added | Calvin's Hobbies | @githubphagocyte I like the connected boundary idea but I had never planned for cells to neighbor each other more than once. After all, two adjacent tiles on a square grid share two corners and an edge but that doesn't mean they neighbor each other more than once. | |
| Aug 7, 2014 at 11:48 | comment | added | trichoplax is on Codidact now | Hopefully that will avoid people thinking that Penrose Tiling P1 is excluded, due to some tiles sharing 3 vertices and 2 edges. | |
| Aug 7, 2014 at 11:46 | comment | added | trichoplax is on Codidact now | Would it remove ambiguity to say something along the lines of "the boundary between neighbours must be connected"? So two cells can have as many vertices and edges adjacent as you like, as long as there are no gaps in that boundary. That might avoid excluding some interesting cases by "can only neighbour other cells once". | |
| Aug 7, 2014 at 11:32 | history | edited | Calvin's Hobbies | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 51 characters in body
|
| Aug 7, 2014 at 11:30 | comment | added | Calvin's Hobbies | @PeterTaylor I really would like to include that tiling if I could. What if the rule was simply that a tiling cannot trivially boil down to the regular square/tri/hex tilings? It's slightly vague but I'm not expecting a flurry of answers intentionally trying to find loopholes. | |
| Aug 7, 2014 at 4:59 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Aug 7, 2014 at 17:30 | |||||
| Aug 7, 2014 at 4:43 | comment | added | Calvin's Hobbies | @JanDvorak Same question | |
| Aug 7, 2014 at 4:42 | comment | added | Calvin's Hobbies | @PeterTaylor Could you give it a look now? I've used Jan's suggestion and also removed the UTM bonus since it was kind of a joke anyway. | |
| Aug 7, 2014 at 4:40 | history | edited | Calvin's Hobbies | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Hopefully fixed tiling loopholes. Touched up a few other parts.
|
| Aug 6, 2014 at 15:59 | comment | added | John Dvorak | @PeterTaylor how does it? If you remove the square tiles, you are left with a grid that only has four neighbors per tile. In fact, the connectivity graph of a truncated square tiling is planar, and thus does not have the connectivity graph of a square or triangle tiling as a subgraph or even as a minor. The hexagonal tiling connectivity graph is not a subgraph either. It is a minor, but it is not a graph formed by deleting some prototiles and contracting order-2 nodes. | |
| Aug 6, 2014 at 15:31 | history | closed |
Peter Taylor John Dvorak Martin Ender Calvin's Hobbies user3094403 |
Needs details or clarity | |
| Aug 6, 2014 at 15:29 | review | Close votes | |||
| Aug 6, 2014 at 15:31 | |||||
| Aug 6, 2014 at 15:17 | comment | added | Peter Taylor | The inability to sort it out immediately is precisely the reason for closing it. It pre-empts answers being posted which prevent it from being fixed. | |
| Aug 6, 2014 at 15:16 | comment | added | John Dvorak | I hope you don't mind if I point out the sandbox to you? | |
| Aug 6, 2014 at 15:15 | comment | added | Calvin's Hobbies | If you must. I don't have the time to sort this out now however. | |
| Aug 6, 2014 at 15:14 | comment | added | John Dvorak | @PeterTaylor roger that. Voting too. | |
| Aug 6, 2014 at 15:13 | comment | added | John Dvorak | @PeterTaylor it fails under the subset-by-prototiles, though. The partial squares form a square grid. | |
| Aug 6, 2014 at 15:11 | comment | added | John Dvorak | You could specify that removing any combination of prototiles doesn't leave behind one of the forgotten grids. It sounds exacly like what you want. | |
| Aug 6, 2014 at 15:11 | history | edited | Calvin's Hobbies | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 6 characters in body
|
| Aug 6, 2014 at 15:09 | comment | added | John Dvorak | @Calvin'sHobbies that doesn't break the "square-grid-plus-extra-faces" loophole. You can bevel any edge with a face that only touches two cells by edge, and a bunch of others by vertex. | |
| Aug 6, 2014 at 15:08 | comment | added | Calvin's Hobbies | @PeterTaylor How about requiring that all cells must have at least 3 neighbors so they always have a chance to come alive? (And if it's not clear, two cells can only neighbor each other once.) | |
| Aug 6, 2014 at 15:07 | comment | added | John Dvorak | @PeterTaylor I consider two edges joined at a degree-2 vertex as a single edge. You could introduce extra tiles to distinguish when a vertex is binary or not. | |
| Aug 6, 2014 at 15:02 | comment | added | John Dvorak | You could break the square-tiling-plus-some-edges tiling by requiring that two faces either connect at an edge or at a vertex, never at two places at once. | |
| Aug 6, 2014 at 15:00 | comment | added | Calvin's Hobbies | @JanDvorak Yes the euclidean plane, and the background should default to dead. | |
| Aug 6, 2014 at 14:59 | comment | added | John Dvorak | @PeterTaylor the triangles can't be ignored. They break connectivity along one diagonal. Triangles that are always white and wedged along an edge will not, though. | |
| Aug 6, 2014 at 14:57 | comment | added | Peter Taylor | Your "topologically distinct" condition also leaves a massive loophole which allows direct implantation of the standard Life by means of a grid of squares each of which has a triangular wedge removed from its top edge. The result is a tiling of triangles and square-minus-triangles in which each triangle has two squares for neighbours, each square has two triangles and eight squares, and the triangles can simply be ignored. That's a cheap 10230-point base score. | |
| Aug 6, 2014 at 14:56 | comment | added | John Dvorak | Do I need to tile the euclidean plane? | |
| Aug 6, 2014 at 14:49 | comment | added | John Dvorak | Do you accept automations with not-all-dead background conditions? | |
| Aug 6, 2014 at 14:32 | comment | added | Calvin's Hobbies | @PeterTaylor That's a pretty semantic difference that I can't imagine would be confusing in this context, but just to be sure I've changed it (along with Martin's suggestions). | |
| Aug 6, 2014 at 14:28 | history | edited | Calvin's Hobbies | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
clarified patterns more
|
| Aug 6, 2014 at 14:18 | comment | added | Peter Taylor | There's a strong case to be made that if it's not on a regular square grid it's not Conway's Life, but a Life-like automaton. Certainly if you want to talk about "the standard rules of Conway's Game of Life" and exclude tilings in which every cell has exactly 8 neighbours you're asking for an oxymoron. | |
| Aug 6, 2014 at 14:14 | comment | added | Martin Ender | You might want to put a size constraint on it as well (e.g. "a spaceship must never exceed an arbitrary but constant number of cells in size"), or you'd count moving infinite growth as a spaceship as well. | |
| Aug 6, 2014 at 14:11 | comment | added | Calvin's Hobbies | @MartinBüttner Done | |
| Aug 6, 2014 at 14:10 | history | edited | Calvin's Hobbies | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
clarified spaceships
|
| Aug 6, 2014 at 14:03 | comment | added | Martin Ender | I think you should specifically define what counts as "consistently in some direction", so it's clear whether that only works for periodic tilings or might work for aperiodic tilings, too. | |
| Aug 6, 2014 at 13:50 | history | asked | Calvin's Hobbies | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
