Me: oh cool, this is interesting, I don’t quite understand what exactly that means, let me read the thread to learn more… The thread: > Replacing ECCA1 by version with step after the direction change could save something like 1% of the ecca1 bits size. Compiling agnosticized program instead of fixed lane program by ecca1 could save something like 1% as well (just guesses). Build of smaller ECCA1 would shorten binary…
Their free book "Conway’s Game of Life: Mathematics and Construction" is a great starting point - https://conwaylife.com/book/conway_life_book.pdf
1D Conway's Life glider found, 3.7B cells long
151–160 of 223 posts
Re: 1D Conway's Life glider found, 3.7B cells long
#152I'm on a smartphone, I'd like to look at the end result.
Re: 1D Conway's Life glider found, 3.7B cells long
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it appeals to the same itch that languages like Brainfuck scratch. There's something exceedingly interesting about how you can model complexity with something extremely simple. Brainfuck is fun because it forces you to think extremely low level, because ultimately it is basically just a raw implementation of a Turing machine. I wouldn't want to write a big program in it, but it is fun to think about how you m…
for those who think brainfuck is too pedestrian, have a browse through the esolang wiki: https://esolangs.org/wiki/Language_list
Re: 1D Conway's Life glider found, 3.7B cells long
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have no idea how I'd be able to pitch this to a university (or even who I could pitch it to), but I would absolutely love to teach a computability course using Brainfuck as the language, just to really show students how low-level logic can be. I would probably need to find a similar language with a different name though.
When I was an undergrad at Georgia Tech, one of my intro computer science classes had us implement something in brainfuck. Turns out college kids are quite comfortable with swear words.
Re: 1D Conway's Life glider found, 3.7B cells long
#155Re: 1D Conway's Life glider found, 3.7B cells long
#156Re: 1D Conway's Life glider found, 3.7B cells long
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's true, but we already know that a bunch of stuff about the universe is quantized. The question is whether or not that holds true for everything or rather not. And all 'fully continuous models of computation' in the end rely on a representation that is a quantized approximation of an ideal. In other words: any practical implementation of such a model that does not end up being a noise generator or an oscillator…
If your underlying system is linear and stable, you can pick any arbitrary precision you are interested in and compute all future behaviour to that precision on a digital computer. Btw, quantum mechanics is both linear and stable--and even deterministic. Admittedly it's a bit of a mystery how the observed chaotic nature of eg Newtonian billard balls emerges from quantum mechanics. 'Stable' in this case means that sma…
Re: 1D Conway's Life glider found, 3.7B cells long
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Work started in 2016 and was completed on December 1, 2025. Almost 10 years of development.
Development, idle hacking when someone got bored at work; potato, potahto...
Re: 1D Conway's Life glider found, 3.7B cells long
#159> The start is slow as well, skipping to generation 42168M is recomended. I picture entities playing with our universe, "it starts slow but check it out at the 13.8B mark"
Re: 1D Conway's Life glider found, 3.7B cells long
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
Assembly is higher level logic than brainfuck, especially on modern chips. You have built in instructions for arithmetic and conditionals/branches and you can allocate memory and point to it. You don’t really get any of that with brainfuck. You have a theoretical tape and counters and that’s basically it.
SKI calculus is pretty neat, too. You get no tape, no counters. (But it's not quite as bad to program in as brainfuck, because you can built more ergonomic contraptions to help you along.)
"What if we had the lambda calculus without the lambda forms?" asked no one.