3 ms·
Has this result appeared in any publications yet? It should be pretty easy to check, as the post says, but I'm curious to know if it will be written up. I'd b
by rspencer 5y ago
Has this result appeared in any publications yet? It should be pretty easy to check, as the post says, but I'm curious to know if it will be written up. I'd be interested to see how they found the particular chunk of agar and whether there was evidence suggesting they look there.
- dvgrn 5y agoI suspect this will get written up in a paper relatively soon, but it's too new for the journal wheels to have turned far enough yet. The original ... publicization, if not publication ... was in a post on the conwaylife.com forums, and there's some more detail there on the general method: https://conwaylife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=140258#p140258 https://conwaylife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=140258#p140258 The previous "Grand^N Orphan" result involved a complete enumeration of the relevant 6x3 agars, but this "Unique Father" result was a partial enumeration of 6x6 agars, I think, just until a working example was found. At least one independent verification has been done: https://conwaylife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=140277#p140277 https://conwaylife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=140277#p140277
- dvgrn 5y agoThere was also some early discussion of the result by the authors on the ConwayLife Lounge on Discord: https://discord.com/channels/357922255553953794/370571014654001154/931615448653496330 https://discord.com/channels/357922255553953794/370571014654...