Registered: Feb 2004
Posts: 172

Using a little bit of magic between rows of cells (compute one row of cells then play with the row), I have found some interesting patterns. The rules used were some of the basic 255 rules.

__________________
P h i l i p . R . D u t t o n

Last edited by Philip Ronald Dutton on 03-02-2004 at 05:00 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2004
Posts: 172

[attached pictures]

Attachment: patterns.zip
This has been downloaded 1077 time(s).

__________________
P h i l i p . R . D u t t o n

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2004
Posts: 172

Question for the CA purists: why (or why not?) would it be bad to break away from the pure CA evolution as follows?

1)Compute initial config for the full row.
2)Looping
3)Compute next row according to CA rules.
4)MANIPULATE the row according to non CA rules.
5)Loop Again

(I am Assuming people experiment with this method).
On one hand it seems disruptive (going behind the back
of the CA!). On the other it seems rather natural (in the algorithmic sense, it does not seem as though it should matter if I throw in an extra manipulation step).

Within the NKS book, are the CAs usually rather pure (unlike above psuedo code)? Does the author actually get into "fancy" CAs (or does he stay away from the mess)?

Just Curious....Thanks.

__________________
P h i l i p . R . D u t t o n

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2003
Posts: 17

Intermediary steps of evaluation could be considered as compositions of rules.

CARuleA[CARuleB[CARuleA[Initial]]...

I contributed examples featuring composition of random rules to the notebook attached to

http://forum.wolframscience.com/sho...light=schreiber

__________________
Michael Schreiber
-_-
http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/NegligibleSenescenceScenario/

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged