This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
graph theoretic description of game of life shapes
Is there a graph centric/(-like) description of the glider shape?
Would such a shape include references to the adjacent, presumably empty spaces?
Why is the state of a generation of game of life usually visually represented as a two dimensional array when a graph theoretic description might yield other, potentially better results (for the purpose of teaching and learning)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua.marshall.moore (talk • contribs) 03:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Dennett draws far-reaching philosophical conclusions from Conway's Game of Life. Many cellular automata exist. Conway chose his rules on whim, with a view to producing interesting results. Dennett could be accused of cherry-picking.
The article says "Conway chose his rules carefully". The four criteria were chosen by Conway. The supposedly absent designer is called Conway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C0:FCF6:4801:F013:A013:C16C:8D15 (talk) 08:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Conway chose the infinite size of the board. He chose the number of dimensions, two. He chose the number of colours, two. He chose the eight neighbours. He chose the four transitions.