>
> What I explained only attempted to address your "update order" question, I
> was assuming that you'd fill in your own function for updating which would
> look at the environment. In fact the whole point is to keep the environment
> constant while all cells base their calculations on it and only *then*
> update it. If you re-read my last post I think you'll find I did address the
> subject of cells looking at their neighbours.
>
> I wrote it with Wolfram's 1d 2state version in mind but it should work for
> Conway's life or anything along those lines as well.
>
> I was assuming all cells are governed by the same rule or set of rules and
> so suggesting making those rules a part of the system of updating and not of
> a member function of the cells itself. If it's all the same anyway there is
> no need to create large and complicated objects taking up memory and
> generally complicating matters. That's just a question of the architecture
> of the program though, that need not affect how the end result behaves.
>
> Perhaps I was misunderstanding the whole question?
>
I'm afraid so, Kas. In my schema all cells starts looking at each other at
the same moment in "time". If you re-read the original question I clearly
posit the problem of "true simultaneity". In your schema you always only
start at some arbitrary but lone cell.
And where you start matters to me a lot - everywhere.
------- -.-
1/f ))) --.
------- ...
http://www.algomantra.com
Received on Tue Sep 16 2008 - 23:12:39 BST