Talk:Elementary cellular automaton/Infinite length: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(right, this is the talk page) |
(→Edge bits: Is this the only reason you marked Python wrong?) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Edge bits== |
==Edge bits== |
||
(about ignoring cells beyond the edges) But you can't stick to a simple version, and infinite padding beyond the edges must be included somehow. Suppose the visible part of the cells ends with "...110" and is followed by repeating 0s to infinity, and rule is just 1 (000->1). Now after one iteration those three cells become "000", but followed by repeating 1s instead. You can add another constraint that padding/edge cells don't change, but that would make the "infinite" part kind of pointless because changes won't propagate beyond edge cells. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] ([[User talk:Ledrug|talk]]) 17:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC) |
(about ignoring cells beyond the edges) But you can't stick to a simple version, and infinite padding beyond the edges must be included somehow. Suppose the visible part of the cells ends with "...110" and is followed by repeating 0s to infinity, and rule is just 1 (000->1). Now after one iteration those three cells become "000", but followed by repeating 1s instead. You can add another constraint that padding/edge cells don't change, but that would make the "infinite" part kind of pointless because changes won't propagate beyond edge cells. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] ([[User talk:Ledrug|talk]]) 17:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC) |
||
:Is this the only reason you marked Python wrong? (You actually added it to the Perl section). |
|||
:If so then it may be in error as the task states the meaning of infinite as being: |
|||
::''In other words, to describe the state of the automaton, you need a finite number of adjacent cells, along with their individual state, and you then consider that the individual state of each of all other cells is the negation of the closest individual cell among the previously defined finite number of cells.'' |
|||
: I think the Python is correct under that definition of 'infinity'. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 06:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 06:22, 23 March 2014
Edge bits
(about ignoring cells beyond the edges) But you can't stick to a simple version, and infinite padding beyond the edges must be included somehow. Suppose the visible part of the cells ends with "...110" and is followed by repeating 0s to infinity, and rule is just 1 (000->1). Now after one iteration those three cells become "000", but followed by repeating 1s instead. You can add another constraint that padding/edge cells don't change, but that would make the "infinite" part kind of pointless because changes won't propagate beyond edge cells. --Ledrug (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Is this the only reason you marked Python wrong? (You actually added it to the Perl section).
- If so then it may be in error as the task states the meaning of infinite as being:
- In other words, to describe the state of the automaton, you need a finite number of adjacent cells, along with their individual state, and you then consider that the individual state of each of all other cells is the negation of the closest individual cell among the previously defined finite number of cells.
- I think the Python is correct under that definition of 'infinity'. --Paddy3118 (talk) 06:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)