Texas

Archives

/Archive 1

Archives

/Archive 2

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I recently made an edit to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life#Rules . Found the edit had been removed today, with notice saying to contact you at this page.

I did not remove any information, only added to the article a logically simpler (and computationally more efficient) version of the ruleset. This version produces identical output from the same input, and is therefore equivalent, except as noted it is faster and easier for both humans and computers to process and/or understand.

Reason given is that there was not a reference. Problem is, there is nothing to reference except plugging it into a program and witnessing it in-effect produces the same final result. In essence-- it is the algorithmic equivalent of a mathematically reduced equation.

Not sure how else to go about this, because the above is self-evident, though tested, and therefore I do not have a document to refer to.

This is no different than the second version of the ruleset already in the document, which also does not have a reference but is likewise presented by fiat-- though I have seen this second version crop up all over the Internet in articles and videos about programming Conway's Game of Life because it is simplified.

The two additional rulesets as I presented them, are further logically reduced versions of the original ruleset that Conway came up with, and the additional ruleset that was already presented in the document.

The reason I posted this edit is because if someone is trying to understand what is actually happening on each tick/generation of the Game algorithm (say for example, trying to write the program on their own), it is much easier to understand for a human, and much faster for the computer, being that it eliminates --or rather condenses-- multiple, unnecessary steps.

The only thing I know of to refer to would be to plug it into a Conway's Game of Life program in place of the original ruleset in the algorithm. Which is how I proved it, after running the simulation mentally. It works, and it works better than the other two versions. So I believe it to be worthy of note.

Is there some other way I should present this? JadiCraft (talk) 08:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The basic ruleset can be logically simplified as so:

1. Any cell with 3 neighbors lives.
2. Any live cell with 2 neighbors lives.
3. All other cells die.

And further condensed into two simpler logical outcomes as:

1. If cell has 3 neighbors, or cell is alive and has 2 neighbors, cell lives--
2. Else, cell dies.

JadiCraft (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for reaching out to me. I'm actually digging through my edit history and can't find the revision you're talking about. Also the article is not on my watchlist, although I am familiar with the game (I implemented a poor version of it back in the 80's) and *thought* it was on my list. Your current account seems to be new so I'm assuming you made the edit under an IP address or other account before making this one.

So, I can't say anything about your edit. But everything you wrote above seems fine to me. It's possible I had an issue with spelling or grammar and put the wrong comment in my change or I simply reverted your change on mistake. In either case, I apologize and think your edit as stated above would be a fine addition to the article.

So, go ahead and dive in with your change! Just in case there's a weird technical error on the page, though, please double check your work after you've done it to ensure the edit didn't somehow get mangled in the process.

Good luck and happy editing!

KNHaw ^(talk) 17:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]