4 ms·
I have to say I don’t understand this, because a 2x2 square is already stable
by charlieyu1 5y ago
I have to say I don’t understand this, because a 2x2 square is already stable
- Diggsey 5y agoA 2x2 square's predecessor is not necessarily a 2x2 square - many patterns will evolve to a 2x2 square. This conjecture is anout patterns whose predecessor must be the same pattern, which means they cannot be constructed by colliding gliders.
- tasha0663 5y agoI was confused at first until I read how Conway first described it. His words are quoted at the end. It makes more sense when he describes it - something he had a wonderful knack for.
- afterburner 5y ago> I expect that there is a still life of such delicacy that in some essential sense it is its only ancestor – though obviously that sense must allow for fading configurations outside it, and probably allow for more. Yes, that's was clearer to me too
- andrewthehacker 5y agoPlenty of patterns are stable (in fact, infinitely many), but what we didn't have before today is a stable pattern which cannot be constructed from scratch. This is such a pattern, because the patch in the middle must have existed since Generation 0 and therefore is unable to be formed just from emptiness - "if it isn't there it won't be".
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- galaxyLogic 5y agoThat is like God