Talk:Forest fire

From Rosetta Code

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. -- 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. -- 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)

CA is actually the most accurate (there's a lot of mathematical BS written about CAs, but they're quite interesting in their own terms). In particular, this is actually a non-deterministic CA. It's also a simulation. We can categorize both ways; this is just categorization, not a class hierarchy! (Except it is an ontological hierarchy; that's a rather more sophisticated thing though, and objects can be instances of many classes in ontological terms.) –Donal Fellows 10:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

task description

Concerning the task's first rule (1):

  • A burning cells turns into an empty cell.

... But how long does it burn? Everybody has assumed "one iteration" (or life).
The same thing with rule (4), it appears that the tree fills the space (grows to maturity) in one iteration. -- Gerard Schildberger 20:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about the physics of it. Just sub in lifeless letters. For rule 1 just think of it as saying "a B cell turns into an E cell" and for rule for think of it as "an E cell turns into a T cell with probability p". --Mwn3d 15:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Usually, rules in cellular automata specify what happens at the next step, so it's safe to assume it's for just 1 iteration. --Silverweed (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

forest saying

May the forest be with you.       -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 13:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC)