Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!linac!att!pacbell.com!tandem!zorch!xanthian From: xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) Newsgroups: comp.theory.cell-automata Subject: Re: on Life (and Death) Message-ID: <1991Mar29.114043.9951@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> Date: 29 Mar 91 11:40:43 GMT References: <9103271751.aa05953@castle.ed.ac.uk> <19910328162012.4.ACW@PALLANDO.SCRC.Symbolics.COM> Organization: SF-Bay Public-Access Unix Lines: 34 ACW@YUKON.SCRC.Symbolics.COM (Allan C. Wechsler) writes: > Paul Crowley writes: >> What's the simplest known pattern that has no parent? > Winning Ways p. 829 gives: > xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > x x x x x x xxxx xx xxx xxx xx xx > xxxxxxxxxxxxx x x xxx xxx xxx xx > x x x x x x xx xxxxx xxx xxx xxxx > x x x x x x xxx x xxx xxx xx x x > xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxx xxx xxx xxxxx > x x x x x x xxx xxxx xxx xxx x x > x x x x x x x x x xx xxx xxx x xx > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > I understand Schroeppel was in the group that discovered this; I don't > know his net address but I've CC'd Gosper and perhaps he'd be willing > to forward to Schroeppel our request to hear the story of this > monster's discovery. This is probably a bit of a vague question (no "probably" about it, actually), but have there been enough "Garden of Eden" patterns discovered to allow a statement as to whether there is anything in common "interesting" about their subsequent histories? Or is this the only thing they have in common? I guess what I'm after is whether the constraints necessary to have no past are also constraints that create an interesting future. Kent, the man from xanth.