0
$\begingroup$

The rule is that an isolated lit square in a grid of squares must be paired in the x-direction (either immed. left or right of it) AND y-direction. That is, from surrounding cells, the closest lit or on square moves to the isolated square to join it in the x or y-direction, and the isolated square moves to the one moving towards it, in the most efficient manner, and also another surrounding one must pair in the y-direction if paired first in the x-direction, so that an isolated square must be paired in the x and y-direction.

Also, say you have a large square of many completely lit squares, and an isolated square to the left at some distance. Then a small square of 4 squares pops out and moves (all at once, because in the rule there is an additional rule that when choosing to pair in the x or y-direction of an isolated lit cell, the ones to pair do so to maximize both x and y pairing, so here, one small square would pop out, then the one immediately behind it joins the first behind it (because if only the one above moved to join in the y-direction, it would not be paired in the x). And you can see that as squares move to the one isolated, they too must be paired from surrounding as they move in the most efficient way. When the small square of 4 leave the large square, there will be a small indention in the large square.

This is a programming where the closest lit squares move together to pair isolated squares, and wonder if it would be any more computationally intensive than a regular automata where there is no "movement" like this, but rules on turning on or off cells. No cells are born or die here.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ What is your question? $\endgroup$ – Evil Nov 14 '17 at 17:23
  • $\begingroup$ Would this be something that can be efficiently and easily programmed?> $\endgroup$ – Winterstorm D Nov 14 '17 at 17:25
  • $\begingroup$ Sure, it could, but the purely programming questions are off-topic here.If you have some example in mind maybe you could draw it? Why the small squares pops out (is it by definition or some random movement)? $\endgroup$ – Evil Nov 14 '17 at 17:28
  • $\begingroup$ I'm thinking there is no movement, but collapse. If there is a cell 5 squares to the left of the origin cell, and 5 squares to the right, it could move to pair like a cell one square to the left and one square to the right, ie just jump to pair. In the large square example, the first square leaves the large square leaving a gap behind, for another square behind to pair the leaving square (according to the rule). If look at as first square leaves, and one above moves out, the one above is paired in the y-direction but not x, so instead all at once a square moves out. $\endgroup$ – Winterstorm D Nov 14 '17 at 18:58
  • $\begingroup$ The only other question is if squares are circulating around a central square indefinitely because all efficient moves for the central square and outer currents to join are equal. $\endgroup$ – Winterstorm D Nov 14 '17 at 20:00

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.