Calculator Community > Community Contests

[ENDED] Code Golf - The Reboot #3

<< < (7/7)

Juju:
IMO, 11:59:59 PM ET Sunday would probably be better for those who don't have time through the week.

Scipi:

--- Quote from: Juju on June 21, 2015, 07:23:58 pm ---IMO, 11:59:59 PM ET Sunday would probably be better for those who don't have time through the week.

--- End quote ---

I thought the deadline ended Sundays O.O

I agree, though, it would make more sense for the deadline to be Sunday rather than Saturday.

Runer112:
Not to try to nitpick, but I feel obligated to point out that Haobo's solution does not wholly satisfy rule 4: "... every cell's initial state ... must be independent (barring reasonable PRNG limitations) of every other cell's initial state." The reason I suggested this clause was to prevent simple "randomization" implementations that do not provide at least somewhat convincing randomization. Regrettably, this solution's clever approach of simply using a randomly chosen 768-byte block of memory as the initial state does not satisfy this.

A heuristic proof of this could cite that memory almost always contains meaningful, structured data. As a particuarly apparent example, memory often contains large stretches of zeroes. If one such large stretch were contained in the initial state, then a pixel's probability of starting dead is greatly increased if the byte(s) immediately before it are all zero. This constitutes dependence. And also a pretty boring game of life, which is why the clause was proposed.

Although less apparent on structured data that's not just a stretch of zeroes, the same dependence and insufficient randomness exists in any non-chaotic data. So to extend this heuristic proof to a definitive one, one can prove that non-chaotic data exists in memory. And this can be done by citing the existence of the program itself in memory.

I came down on lirtosiast and pbfy0 earlier about skirting around this clause, so I thought it to only be fair that I come down here as well. I even came down on myself by proposing this clause in the first place, as I was considering using such a "randomization" approach but considered it against the spirit of the prompt.

c4ooo:

--- Quote from: Runer112 on June 22, 2015, 01:10:42 pm ---Not to try to nitpick, but I feel obligated to point out that Haobo's solution does not wholly satisfy rule 4: "... every cell's initial state ... must be independent (barring reasonable PRNG limitations) of every other cell's initial state." The reason I suggested this clause was to prevent simple "randomization" implementations that do not provide at least somewhat convincing randomization. Regrettably, this solution's clever approach of simply using a randomly chosen 768-byte block of memory as the initial state does not satisfy this.

A heuristic proof of this could cite that memory almost always contains meaningful, structured data. As a particuarly apparent example, memory often contains large stretches of zeroes. If one such large stretch were contained in the initial state, then a pixel's probability of starting dead is greatly increased if the byte(s) immediately before it are all zero. This constitutes dependence. And also a pretty boring game of life, which is why the clause was proposed.

Although less apparent on structured data that's not just a stretch of zeroes, the same dependence and insufficient randomness exists in any non-chaotic data. So to extend this heuristic proof to a definitive one, one can prove that non-chaotic data exists in memory. And this can be done by citing the existence of the program itself in memory.

--- End quote ---
+1 for that proof ( or attempt of)  :thumbsup:

However, I would like to warn you that you are on unsure footing. First you "criticized" @lirtosiast's answer and now you are trying to do the same with @Haobo's I fully trust, being the person you are, that you are doing this for the good and fairness of the game/community However if someone puts two and two together, it may seam to the  that you are trying to discourage completion :P just saying, not trying to attack you or anything. (Reread what I said in bold :P )

TIfanx1999:
Well obviously, I didn't have time to finish. I still wanted to finish it (even if it was late) and post my attempt. Unfortunately, I got really sick and haven't been doing much of anything recently. I hope to revisit this in a bit and finish it or at least post an explanation of what i was going to attempt.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page