Anonymous user
Talk:Elementary cellular automaton/Infinite length: Difference between revisions
Talk:Elementary cellular automaton/Infinite length (view source)
Revision as of 18:39, 23 March 2014
, 10 years ago→Edge bits
(→Edge bits: On the edge of infinity...) |
|||
Line 13:
::: ''Regardless of the wording of the description'' ??
:::I admit that the use of the word infinity might be loose, but the author does go on to state what is meant. You can't really disregard their definition. I happen to like their intent which I see as ''incrementally'' extending the cells in a defined way. I can also see your point about Rule1. The task does seem to be implementable. Maybe we might all think of clarifications to the description? --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 08:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
:::: As I said, the way of representing infinite cells proposed by the task is no good, since it's incapable of setting all cells to the same value. Given whatever initial state with rule 0 (everything->0), the next stage will have all cells 0, and what do you do then? Matching task description is not as important as making sense.
:::: The task description is easy to fix. Say: 1. We only deal with states where there's a finite length of cells in the middle, with its two ends repeating while extending to infinity; 2. Conceptually, when you apply the transition rule, all cells need to considered, but "how" is up to your code. If you can represent the state in step 1., you can represent it here, because it would still be a finite length of cells with edges repeating to infinity, only that the middle portion may be longer or shorter, and the padding cells may be of a different value.
:::: I think the task description should be changed to make sense. And I think the above may have been what the task giver actually wanted, but that's maybe just my presumption. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] ([[User talk:Ledrug|talk]]) 18:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
| |||