???

Report bugs, registration issues, or just suggest some new features in this thread! Guaranteed to have at least 10% more dev attention than other threads!

???

Postby rianbay812 on Sat Jul 14, 2012 8:37 am

http://www.fantasticcontraption.com/?designId=11773499
Play this design.
Then, add a random wood rod anywhere in the blue that (should) have absolutely no affect on the design.
Then play it again.
The poker for the ball no longer gets the ball out.

NOW, add a SECOND brown rod.
Replay, and it works perfectly fine.

???
User avatar
rianbay812
 
Posts: 1823
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 5:55 pm
Location: Georgia Institute of Technology: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: ???

Postby Error-QM on Sat Jul 14, 2012 8:50 am

For the poker to work, the forces of the universe must align.
Ah yes. The holistic resonance of rod-pairs may yet guide these wayward forces.

...and there you have it.
User avatar
Error-QM
 
Posts: 254
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 1:16 pm
Location: Mind The Gap, forever.

Re: ???

Postby rianbay812 on Sat Jul 14, 2012 8:55 am

quantum interaction :aaaaa:

The made-up electrons of one rod are linked to the unreal electrons of the second rod, so that when the non-existant former spin, it thus spins the latter.

This game even takes into account particle physics. Well done collin northway.
User avatar
rianbay812
 
Posts: 1823
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 5:55 pm
Location: Georgia Institute of Technology: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: ???

Postby Pawel.Anikiel on Sat Jul 14, 2012 9:59 am

lol that's weird
User avatar
Pawel.Anikiel
 
Posts: 423
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:47 pm
Location: Gdynia, Poland

Re: ???

Postby Jyo on Sat Jul 14, 2012 3:52 pm

actually rian this game takes into account gravity, the force that every single mass exerts on every other mass.
if you place a wood under the retriever, the little blue rod holding it from falling will actually fall faster because of its attraction to the wood rod under it

but if you place a wood rod above it, it shudnt affect it, and if anything itll delay it longer, tho not by much of course.
User avatar
Jyo
 
Posts: 727
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 11:25 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA

Re: ???

Postby ken75 on Sat Jul 14, 2012 4:51 pm

Okay hold on, the force of gravity between objects like this is so incredibly tiny. And Jyo, gravity works in both directions. Also, would they actually program the game to account for those forces? The amount is so insignificant, that programming the game to calculate that would be almost pointless. I went to a design of mine that involved an incredibly accurate shot, and added a bunch of wood rods. They had no effect. I'm sorry to say, it's a valid hypothesis but small-mass gravitation can't be the answer. And also, adding the second one wouldn't fix it if it were gravity.

P.S. I love that this is my level
User avatar
ken75
 
Posts: 411
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:56 pm
Location: Currently stuck in the Shadow temple...

Re: ???

Postby zhyrek on Sat Jul 14, 2012 5:19 pm

I can't get it to (not) work. Can someone save a design with it not working so i can see?
User avatar
zhyrek
 
Posts: 3510
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:11 pm
Location: RPI

Re: ???

Postby rianbay812 on Sat Jul 14, 2012 10:02 pm

zhyrek wrote:I can't get it to (not) work. Can someone save a design with it not working so i can see?

let me livestream it

and Jyo, I like the attempted explanation, but that doesn't account for the fact that if I add another wood rod it will work again exactly to the pixel that it worked originally.

Here's the livestream
http://www.livestream.com/fantasticcont ... e91b07aa92
User avatar
rianbay812
 
Posts: 1823
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 5:55 pm
Location: Georgia Institute of Technology: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: ???

Postby uuuiiiooop on Sun Jul 15, 2012 10:55 am

I had a similar problem with something I was working on earlier. I would tweak one part that obviously doesn't interact with the start, but then the start would be messed up. I have no clue why :/
User avatar
uuuiiiooop
 
Posts: 624
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 2:41 pm
Location: More than five hundred thousand levels. Over eleven million designs.

Re: ???

Postby zhyrek on Sun Jul 15, 2012 2:23 pm

Alright, I figured out what i did wrong

Edit: I have discovered an interesting relationship. Stand by for designs.
Design One
Design Two

Notice how design one fails, but design two does not.

From this, I can say with some certainty that the rod causes it to fail because it is below the water rod holding up the weight. No idea why, though

Edit2: In fact, I can go farther in depth
Fail Fail2 Fail3
Success Success2 Success3

Hypothesis: The design fails if the bottom half has one more extra wood rod than the top half. The design succeeds if they are equal.

Additional: The design succeeds if the bottom has two more wood rods than the top: Evidence1 Evidence2 Evidence3

However, while most I have checked that have great imbalances succeed, some fail: A 13-Imbalance

Hmm... It seems as if the concept about it being strictly based on the difference between the top and bottom is false:
2-15 0-13

A table of Succeed/Fail (Feel free to check these, more data would be useful).

Edit: Based on evidence from below above, since I just moved it there, this chart will not measure difference, but will say the quantity of wood rods like this: (top, bottom). These will be without the water rod divider, as it is possible that has an effect on the outcome. The water rod was only there so you could visualize it, anyways.

Wood Rods--------------Result
(0,0)------------------------Success
(1,0)-------------------------Fail
(2,0)-------------------------Success
(3,0)-------------------------Success
(4,0)-------------------------Fail
(5,0)-------------------------Success
(6,0)-------------------------Fail
(7,0)-------------------------Success
(8,0)-------------------------Fail
(9,0)-------------------------Success
(10,0)------------------------Fail
(11,0)------------------------Success
(12,0)------------------------Fail
(13,0)------------------------Success
(14,0)------------------------Fail
(15,0)------------------------Fail
(16,0)------------------------Success
(17,0)------------------------Fail
(18,0)------------------------Success
(19,0)------------------------Success

To me, It seems to be an alternating sequence, but slightly mutated in that it repeats a result every so often.

I am tempted to do a graph of the data, with success being black, fail being white, and the number of wood rods on top and on bottom being the coordinates (x,y)
User avatar
zhyrek
 
Posts: 3510
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:11 pm
Location: RPI

Re: ???

Postby rianbay812 on Sun Jul 15, 2012 3:04 pm

I have two dimension coordinates for up to 10 on each level
Code: Select all
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 TOP

0  Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y N Y
1  N Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y N
2  Y N Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y
3  Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y N Y
4  N Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y N
5  Y N Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y
6  N Y N Y Y N Y Y N Y Y
7  Y N Y N Y Y N Y Y N Y
8  N Y N Y N Y Y N Y Y N
9  Y N Y N Y N Y Y N Y Y
10 N Y N Y N Y N Y Y N Y

BOTTOM


I'm taking this obsessive graph plotting to a whoooole new level.

But I've noticed a diaganol pattern. For example, if you add a piece to the top, the pattern on the bottom increases by 1 wood rod. Which probably make no sense explaining it. See for yourself if it all works. I only tested the top row and the left column :) the rest is predicted.

For now, I plan on carrying out more tests to fine a predictable pattern.

ED: I have found a pattern for the bottom number that cycles every [strike]1516 wood rods.[/strike]
Ignore that. There's no pattern haha
Last edited by rianbay812 on Sun Jul 15, 2012 3:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
rianbay812
 
Posts: 1823
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 5:55 pm
Location: Georgia Institute of Technology: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: ???

Postby zhyrek on Sun Jul 15, 2012 3:12 pm

rianbay812 wrote:I have two dimension coordinates for up to 10 on each level
Code: Select all
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 TOP

0  Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y N Y
1  N Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y N
2  Y N Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y
3  Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y N Y
4  N Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y N
5  Y N Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y
6  N Y N Y Y N Y Y N Y Y
7  Y N Y N Y Y N Y Y N Y
8  N Y N Y N Y Y N Y Y N
9  Y N Y N Y N Y Y N Y Y
10 N Y N Y N Y N Y Y N Y

BOTTOM


I'm taking this obsessive graph plotting to a whoooole new level.

But I've noticed a diaganol pattern. For example, if you add a piece to the top, the pattern on the bottom increases by 1 wood rod. Which probably make no sense explaining it. See for yourself if it all works. I only tested the top row and the left column :) the rest is predicted.

For now, I plan on carrying out more tests to fine a predictable pattern.

ED: I have found a pattern for the bottom number that cycles every 15 wood rods.

You got yes for (6,3), while I actually got no. O.o

Currently 30% done with my graph. its 20x20, with numbers from 0 to 19

Edit: 40%. I am seeing quite a remarkable pattern, but it is by no means a regular pattern. Very chaotic, but certain things seem to match up.
Last edited by zhyrek on Sun Jul 15, 2012 3:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
zhyrek
 
Posts: 3510
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:11 pm
Location: RPI

Re: ???

Postby rianbay812 on Sun Jul 15, 2012 3:15 pm

My strategy worked for the first 4 columns. I assumed (incorrectly) that the pattern would continue.

But wait, 5,2 doesn't work either
neither does 4,1

Must be a random flux, because that whole diaganol doesn't work except for the 0
User avatar
rianbay812
 
Posts: 1823
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 5:55 pm
Location: Georgia Institute of Technology: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: ???

Postby zhyrek on Sun Jul 15, 2012 3:39 pm

rianbay812 wrote:My strategy worked for the first 4 columns. I assumed (incorrectly) that the pattern would continue.

But wait, 5,2 doesn't work either
neither does 4,1

Must be a random flux, because that whole diaganol doesn't work except for the 0

When you see this data, you will see that most of it isn't just random flux.

Also, 50% done. Also my favorite pattern in it just ended D:
Edit: 55%. This is getting somewhat tedious -_-
Edit2: 60%...
Edit3: 65%....
Edit4: 70%. I'm almost certain that the rest is just checkerboard-like, but it still could screw up horribly. Not updating until I'm done, gotta just do it.
User avatar
zhyrek
 
Posts: 3510
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:11 pm
Location: RPI

Re: ???

Postby zhyrek on Sun Jul 15, 2012 4:36 pm

DONE

Image

I suspect its some form of boolean network: http://fias.uni-frankfurt.de/~willadsen/RBN/
For example, for every sequence of white white black, the box above the second white is always black, no exceptions.

However, it must be more complex than only using three blocks to determine it, since black white white can give either black OR white above its middle box
Last edited by zhyrek on Sun Jul 15, 2012 4:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
zhyrek
 
Posts: 3510
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:11 pm
Location: RPI

Re: ???

Postby rianbay812 on Sun Jul 15, 2012 4:39 pm

that would be my avatar if babits would let me change it :P
and also, for a white white black going down, there's a black to the left of the second white
User avatar
rianbay812
 
Posts: 1823
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 5:55 pm
Location: Georgia Institute of Technology: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: ???

Postby zhyrek on Mon Jul 16, 2012 4:41 pm

rianbay812 wrote:that would be my avatar if babits would let me change it :P

Good idea!

Edit: People, y u no comment? D:

Edit2: Updated the data to include rod numbers from 0 to 24
Image

Starting to look VERY much like a fractal
User avatar
zhyrek
 
Posts: 3510
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:11 pm
Location: RPI

Re: ???

Postby Error-QM on Mon Jul 16, 2012 9:18 pm

Zhyrek, on your picture I call Rule 34.

That is, Wolfram's Rule 34.
User avatar
Error-QM
 
Posts: 254
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 1:16 pm
Location: Mind The Gap, forever.

Re: ???

Postby zhyrek on Mon Jul 16, 2012 9:52 pm

Error-QM wrote:Zhyrek, on your picture I call Rule 34.

That is, Wolfram's Rule 34.

Actually, I've reconsidered the idea that it is one of those boolean networks. Because the patterns seem to go in BOTH dimensions.

Lemme post a pic, 1 sec

Image

Notice how the pattern in both of those blue squiggles is the same. Yet they are inverse functions, if you get the meaning.
User avatar
zhyrek
 
Posts: 3510
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:11 pm
Location: RPI

Re: ???

Postby rianbay812 on Tue Jul 17, 2012 8:21 am

It seems to do that in several areas, plus the places you circled. Although they aren't exact inverse functions. Why is it only repeated in random corners of the graph?
User avatar
rianbay812
 
Posts: 1823
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 5:55 pm
Location: Georgia Institute of Technology: Atlanta, Georgia

Next

Return to Feedback and Problems



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users