Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Math Programming Games

First Self-Replicating Creature Spawned In Conway's Game of Life 241

Posted by Soulskill
from the emergent-gameplay dept.
Calopteryx writes "New Scientist has a story on a self-replicating entity which inhabits the mathematical universe known as the Game of Life. 'Dubbed Gemini, [Andrew Wade's] creature is made of two sets of identical structures, which sit at either end of the instruction tape. Each is a fraction of the size of the tape's length but, made up of two constructor arms and one "destructor," play a key role. Gemini's initial state contains three of these structures, plus a fourth that is incomplete. As the simulation progresses the incomplete structure begins to grow, while the structure at the start of the tape is demolished. The original Gemini continues to disassemble as the new one emerges, until after nearly 34 million generations, new life is born.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

First Self-Replicating Creature Spawned In Conway's Game of Life

Comments Filter:
  • by Binder (2829) on Thursday June 17, 2010 @12:54PM (#32603872)

    You mean like a human giving birth to another human and then dying off?

  • by paskie (539112) <paskyNO@SPAMucw.cz> on Thursday June 17, 2010 @01:00PM (#32603960) Homepage
    And Score:4, Insightful? Of course the GP _was_ talking about patterns within the Game of Life itself.
  • by jfengel (409917) on Thursday June 17, 2010 @01:06PM (#32604042) Homepage Journal

    And doesn't a glider do that?

    Reading in between the lines of the article, it sounds like this thing manages to create the copy before the destruction of the original is complete, unlike a glider which is basically moving itself. But it seems a fairly arbitrary distinction, since that destruction is going to happen and it's not going to reverse itself.

    Perhaps the trick is that this thing can _teleport_ itself a few cells away, without passing through the intervening space, but again, that seems kind of an arbitrary and unimportant distinction.

  • by Migala77 (1179151) on Thursday June 17, 2010 @01:21PM (#32604246)

    still more are arguing for more openness in the early stages of the process.

    The internet is for 'more openness in the early stages of the process'!

  • Re:Third! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by raving griff (1157645) on Thursday June 17, 2010 @02:38PM (#32605138)
    Considering the +5 Funny score, I would say the trait is quite beneficial.
  • Re:Nanites (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bunratty (545641) on Thursday June 17, 2010 @03:18PM (#32605604)
    Is the "economy collapsing" a good thing or a bad thing? A good thing because everyone has all they want for free? Or a bad thing because now that there's no incentive to pay for products (information, entertainment, ideas) that there's no incentive to create new products (information, entertainment, ideas)?
  • Re:Nanites (Score:5, Insightful)

    by selven (1556643) on Thursday June 17, 2010 @03:44PM (#32605908)

    A good thing, I say. Poverty will be eradicated, Wall Street will disappear into uselessness and everyone will have 16 hours a day of time to do whatever they want. People will want to create new stuff, even lacking any normal incentive, simply out of boredom.

  • Re:Nanites (Score:3, Insightful)

    by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland@@@yahoo...com> on Thursday June 17, 2010 @04:54PM (#32606642) Homepage Journal

    "To get medical treatment, you would need money. "

    No, you need something the doctor values. there is a big difference there. A doctor can replicate in car, boat, tv,, gold clubs whatever. Just like everyone else. So money, even the idea of money, looses its value.

    OTOH, he may want services., or just do it because they like to help people.

    Logically, this technology would mean that all physical items the doctor needs to treat people would be free. so his cost go down a lot.

    Many service wouldn't be needed. food service for one. Something breaks, you won't need to get it serviced because you would just get a new one.

  • Re:Nanites (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 17, 2010 @05:23PM (#32606962)

    I've never heard of George Smith before, so I guess I'll take your word for it that he was a misogynist. After all, that sort of thing was a lot more common back then. However, I really don't see how a snooty female socialite character in a book automatically marks an author as a misogynist. So I can only assume that the existence of that character is not your only evidence that he was a misogynist. Just asking, because people do tend to get a little oversensitive at times, and often see hatred/conspiracy/etc when there is none. Sometimes a snooty female character in a book really is just a character in a book, and nothing more.

  • Re:Nanites (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 17, 2010 @06:36PM (#32607736)

    Payment is not the only incentive to create. In fact, for many it is the weakest incentive

When in doubt, mumble; when in trouble, delegate; when in charge, ponder. -- James H. Boren

Working...