Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - jknilinux

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 29
16
Suggestions / Hyperspeed Mode
« on: February 12, 2010, 09:39:44 PM »
Quote from: Numsgil
Quote from: jknilinux
This is in regards to totalistic CAs, right? I don't see any limitations of having a small neighborhood of cells that directly in contact with the center cell...
What sort of limitations are you thinking of?

What I mean is that the size of the neighborhood creates a very well defined "horizon".  Not just a horizon, a "speed of light" type limit on the speed of information transfer from one cell to another, distant one.  At the neighborhood sizes that makes something like hashlife useful, I don't think you're going to find interesting behavior, at least not the sort that Darwinbots works with (interaction between two bots, usually).  Since at best bots would have to just sort of wander until they happen to be almost on top of another bot.

Actually, totalistic CAs with small neighborhoods, such as CGoL, can have communication outside of the neighborhood of a single cell. For example, gliders can represent "photons", such that detecting a large amount of gliders will indicate the presence of a far-away object, etc...

Although this creates a fundamental limit on information transfer, this photon-based communication is actually somewhat more realistic than our current scheme. Also, the speed of light won't be a problem for simulation speed, assuming we use a hashlife-based algorithm.

And what do you mean by not finding interesting behaviour? Do you think the GoL does not exhibit interesting behaviour?

17
Suggestions / Hyperspeed Mode
« on: February 12, 2010, 04:56:53 PM »
Something I found interesting:

18
Suggestions / Hyperspeed Mode
« on: February 12, 2010, 03:54:43 PM »
This is in regards to totalistic CAs, right? I don't see any limitations of having a small neighborhood of cells that directly in contact with the center cell...
What sort of limitations are you thinking of?

19
Suggestions / Hyperspeed Mode
« on: February 12, 2010, 10:31:10 AM »
nums, what do you mean by having a larger neighborhood? Does it necessarily have to be larger? why?

20
Suggestions / Hyperspeed Mode
« on: February 06, 2010, 04:00:17 PM »
The neighborhood doesn't necessarily have to be larger... right?

21
Simulation Emporium / Numsgil's zerobot sim
« on: February 02, 2010, 11:16:39 PM »
Quote from: Numsgil
I've started up two (not connected) zero bot sims with 1000 bots each with 1000 0s on two different computers running 2.44.04, and I'm going to let them run for about 13 days while I go home for Christmas.  If anyone would like to join me, I've attached the settings I'm using.  Just change the user seed and off you go.  When I get back I fully expect all instances to have crashed, but on the off case they haven't I should have something fun to share  

Saving settings files is apparently broken, so here's a zip of the sim.  Make sure to change the seed value...

Anything happen with this?

22
Suggestions / Hyperspeed Mode
« on: February 02, 2010, 10:26:24 PM »
Quote from: Numsgil
Quote from: jknilinux
but if we make a bot a huge cluster of cells (say... 100), then the universe would be much more analog in nature for the bot. In fact, the larger you make the bot in comparison to single cells in the grid, the more analog it becomes. You just need to find a compromise between speed and detail.

Yes, that's very true.

So, is it possible to use the hashlife algorithm on this implementation?

23
Suggestions / Hyperspeed Mode
« on: February 02, 2010, 07:52:51 PM »
but if we make a bot a huge cluster of cells (say... 100), then the universe would be much more analog in nature for the bot. In fact, the larger you make the bot in comparison to single cells in the grid, the more analog it becomes. You just need to find a compromise between speed and detail.

24
Suggestions / Hyperspeed Mode
« on: February 02, 2010, 11:39:13 AM »
uh, nums? is something wrong?

25
Suggestions / Hyperspeed Mode
« on: January 30, 2010, 10:33:03 PM »
Quote from: Numsgil
I think you're talking about totalistic CAs, which are a subset of CAs in general.

Quote
Basically, what I'm suggesting is not programming in any sort of physics, and letting the physics itself emerge out of the cellular automata. CGoL didn't have any physics programmed into it, flying and stationary objects emerged naturally.

Sorry about that, I was referring to a totalistic CA...

Quote from: Numsgil
The problem when you do that is that it's A) hard to determine a good rule and B ) you don't get to pick and choose behavior you want.  Many totalistic CAs are quite boring, for instance, because the rules don't result in interesting behavior.  If you choose one that does result in interesting behavior, you have to bend whatever game design you want to do around the limitations and features of that rule.  It's much better to decide on the sort of behavior you want to see and design the rules, in a broad way, to cater to that behavior.  Then you'll get other emergent behavior from the interaction of the rules that is consistent with your original feature set.

There are also ALOT of well-known interesting CAs, CGoL is the most well-known example. There are probably thousands of less well-known rules that also result in interesting behavior, you might need more than 2 states though. (By interesting behaviour, I'm referring to wolfram class-4 automata)

Finally, there are other CAs besides totalistic ones that the hashlife algorithm can be used on... for example, an automata where its state depends on the state of the cells around it at t-2. Or an automata where a cell's state depends on the state of the cells around it, but that are not in contact with it...

Basically, I'm saying that you can "design the rules" of the totalistic/other CA, because there are limitless options.
The main problem I'm thinking of is how to interface a bot with the CA world...

26
Suggestions / Hyperspeed Mode
« on: January 28, 2010, 01:11:58 PM »
Quote from: Numsgil
Quote from: jknilinux
Quote from: Numsgil
Bots would occupy either a single cell or maybe a fat cross or something like that.  Shots would be single cells.  Not sure how ties would work.  Maybe they just stick two bots' cells together.  The physics would then just be updating cells based on "velocity" of each cell.  Sort of like the falling sand game.  The physics could be hyper accelerated on graphics cards so we could have hundreds of thousands of cells simulated in real time (not counting DNA execution speed, game logic, etc.  But physics is a significant chunk of sim speed so it would be faster).

But what it gains in speed I think it loses in complexity.  You can't really simulate things like accelerating (eg: falling), or spinning about your center of mass (for tied bots), and your range of velocity values is strictly limited to either moving to an adjacent cell or not.

Assuming DB3 were all set up, you could probably jury rig a version that used CA physics.  The hard part would be figuring out what physical values to feed in to DNA and the game logic.

That isn't a cellular automata... I quote wikipedia:

" A new generation is created (advancing t by 1), according to some fixed rule (generally, a mathematical function) that determines the new state of each cell in terms of the current state of the cell and the states of the cells in its neighborhood."

Just because the universe is broken up into boxes doesn't make it a cellular automaton. The state of each cell depends solely on the states of the surrounding cells. See conway's game of life.

Right, a CA means you can do an update cycle using only local information about cells around the currently updating cell.  What I described fits that model perfectly, so I think there's a miscommunication here.  What in the system I described makes it not a CA?

Maybe it's that by CA, I mean an automata obeying very simple mathematical rules, such as those used in conway's game of life. Here, a bot, and even shots, are far too complex to be simulated by single cells. The simplest moving pattern in GoL is 5 cells in size, and a replicating pattern has not yet been discovered, probably because it is suspected to be thousands, if not millions of cells in size.

What you're describing sounds like Evolve 4.0, which does use discrete cells but is not a cellular automaton.


Basically, what I'm suggesting is not programming in any sort of physics, and letting the physics itself emerge out of the cellular automata. CGoL didn't have any physics programmed into it, flying and stationary objects emerged naturally.

27
Suggestions / Hyperspeed Mode
« on: January 26, 2010, 09:05:17 PM »
Quote from: Numsgil
Bots would occupy either a single cell or maybe a fat cross or something like that.  Shots would be single cells.  Not sure how ties would work.  Maybe they just stick two bots' cells together.  The physics would then just be updating cells based on "velocity" of each cell.  Sort of like the falling sand game.  The physics could be hyper accelerated on graphics cards so we could have hundreds of thousands of cells simulated in real time (not counting DNA execution speed, game logic, etc.  But physics is a significant chunk of sim speed so it would be faster).

But what it gains in speed I think it loses in complexity.  You can't really simulate things like accelerating (eg: falling), or spinning about your center of mass (for tied bots), and your range of velocity values is strictly limited to either moving to an adjacent cell or not.

Assuming DB3 were all set up, you could probably jury rig a version that used CA physics.  The hard part would be figuring out what physical values to feed in to DNA and the game logic.

That isn't a cellular automata... I quote wikipedia:

" A new generation is created (advancing t by 1), according to some fixed rule (generally, a mathematical function) that determines the new state of each cell in terms of the current state of the cell and the states of the cells in its neighborhood."

Just because the universe is broken up into boxes doesn't make it a cellular automaton. The state of each cell depends solely on the states of the surrounding cells. See conway's game of life.

28
Suggestions / Hyperspeed Mode
« on: January 25, 2010, 11:35:18 PM »
Quote from: Numsgil
Quote from: jknilinux
Is it possible to use a cellular automata as a basis for DB physics? See here and here .

Digital physics seems to bear a close resemblance to cellular automata, and as such should be easy to use the hashlife algorithm on...

I have always wanted to find a way to combine DB with cellular automata...

Yes, it's possible to simulate DB on a CA grid, and yes, it would probably make the physics (which is a significant CPU load) much faster.  But I think Darwinbots' physically simulated environment is one of its strengths.  CA don't quite inspire the imagination since they don't actually resemble anything real.  With Darwinbots it's like you're looking through a microscope or at a fish tank.

How would that work? You obviously can't create the DBs themselves out of the CA grid, can you?

Also, how much easier/harder would it be to use CA physics instead of the one you're working on?

29
Newbie / DB algorithm
« on: January 25, 2010, 11:22:48 PM »
You mean they can make a "real" 2D UML diagram, with all the arrows and boxes and all that?

30
Suggestions / Hyperspeed Mode
« on: January 24, 2010, 01:01:58 AM »
What I meant was the bots would exist outside of the CA universe but could still influence or be influenced by the universe.

BTW if you want a cellular automata-like ALife program, check out Evolve 4.0

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 29