Talk:Forest fire: Difference between revisions

From Rosetta Code
Content added Content deleted
m (added a kind of categorized discussing on terms (what to call "forest fire"). -- ~~~~)
m (→‎what to call it: formatting)
Line 11: Line 11:


I agree with everything above, fine points, all.
I agree with everything above, fine points, all.
<br> --- Cellular automata: very descriptive, but if you don't know what that is... I never would've thought to look under that tag. I know what it is, but I hardly ever use that term, I usually think CA refers to more pure (and esoteric) mathematics.
* '''Cellular automata''': very descriptive, but if you don't know what that is... I never would've thought to look under that tag. I know what it is, but I hardly ever use that term, I usually think CA refers to more pure (and esoteric) mathematics.
<br> --- game: yes, but only if the program would be very robust in accepting various parameters, such as field size, characters to use, but most of all, the various percentages. Games typically require a goal to reach (in other words, what do you need to do to "win"? Or survive?) More rules could be accepted (fires only burn if the trees are dense enough...).
* '''game''': yes, but only if the program would be very robust in accepting various parameters, such as field size, characters to use, but most of all, the various percentages. Games typically require a goal to reach (in other words, what do you need to do to "win"? Or survive?) More rules could be accepted (fires only burn if the trees are dense enough...).
<br> --- puzzle: yes, but only if there is a goal to reach, such as a stable (living) forest.
* '''puzzle''': yes, but only if there is a goal to reach, such as a stable (living) forest.
<br> --- modeling: yes, fur shure.
* '''modeling''': yes, fur shure.
<br> --- simulation: yes, as above. "Simulate a forest fire (with tree growth, fires caused by lighnting, ...) sounds the best to be.
* '''simulation''': yes, as above. "Simulate a forest fire (with tree growth, fires caused by lighnting, ...) sounds the best to be.
<br> Any one name would probably do a disservice in describing/pigeonholing the task. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 02:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Any one name would probably do a disservice in describing/pigeonholing the task. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 02:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:54, 5 April 2012

As for Life and Wireworld, I've put this in the Games category; but I think it could be better to add a new category like "Cellular automata" and put those tasks in that category (too, and secondary in Games, if one thinks about them as games). --ShinTakezou 17:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

They are certainly games. Mathematical games. --Paddy3118 21:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I in general agree, but they are different by Bulls and cows, Go Fish, Minesweeper game, ... Maybe as tasks in this category grow in number, it could become useful to give a more "precise" cathegorization. --ShinTakezou 06:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I think we usually call those Puzzles on RC. --76.236.174.54 21:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
By all means! I'm just fine with MW categories being used as tags. We may need to be a bit selective in which we make direct subcategories of Category:Solutions_by_Programming_Task, though. --76.236.174.54 21:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Usually CA fall under modeling formalisms and running them is essentially simulation. It would fit in the same category like Monte Carlo Simulation, actually. —Johannes Rössel 10:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
My original in-editor version of the task's text began with "Simulate a forest fire; as model use ...", ... this task itself is a switch from my first idea of doing a task about the Ising model — I think it will be one of my next new task, if nobody anticipates me. --ShinTakezou 12:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

what to call it

I agree with everything above, fine points, all.

  • Cellular automata: very descriptive, but if you don't know what that is... I never would've thought to look under that tag. I know what it is, but I hardly ever use that term, I usually think CA refers to more pure (and esoteric) mathematics.
  • game: yes, but only if the program would be very robust in accepting various parameters, such as field size, characters to use, but most of all, the various percentages. Games typically require a goal to reach (in other words, what do you need to do to "win"? Or survive?) More rules could be accepted (fires only burn if the trees are dense enough...).
  • puzzle: yes, but only if there is a goal to reach, such as a stable (living) forest.
  • modeling: yes, fur shure.
  • simulation: yes, as above. "Simulate a forest fire (with tree growth, fires caused by lighnting, ...) sounds the best to be.

Any one name would probably do a disservice in describing/pigeonholing the task. -- Gerard Schildberger 02:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)