From: James Edward Gray II Date: 2007-08-14T07:12:17+09:00 Subject: Re: Cellular Automata (#134) On Aug 13, 2007, at 5:00 PM, Simon Kr�ger wrote: > alpha.chen@gmail.com wrote: >> A short but hopefully sweet solution: >> >> [...] > > Sweet indeed, i like especialy the to_i(2), didn't thought about that. > But running your solution with rule 145 gave me > > X > X > XX X > X X > XXX X X > X X X X > XX X X X > XXX X X X > XXX X X X X X > X X X X X X > XX XXX X X X X > XXX X X X X X X > XXX X X X X X X X > X X XXX X X X X X > XX XXX X X X X X X X > XXX X X X X X X X X > XXX X X XXX X X X X X X > X X XXX X X X X X X X X > XX XXX X X X X X X X X X > XXX X X XXX X X X X X X X > > While my solution produced > > 0: X > 1:XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX > 2:XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX > 3:XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX > 4:XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XX X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX > 5:XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX > 6:XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX > 7:XXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXX > 8:XXXXXXXXXXXX XX X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXX > 9:XXXXXXXXXXX XXX X X X XXXXXXXXXXXX > 10:XXXXXXXXXX XXX X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXX > 11:XXXXXXXXX X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXX > 12:XXXXXXXX XX XXX X X X X XXXXXXXXX > 13:XXXXXXX XXX X X X X X X XXXXXXXX > 14:XXXXXX XXX X X X X X X X XXXXXXX > 15:XXXXX X X XXX X X X X X XXXXXX > 16:XXXX XX XXX X X X X X X X XXXXX > 17:XXX XXX X X X X X X X X XXXX > 18:XX XXX X X XXX X X X X X X XXX > 19:X X X XXX X X X X X X X X XX > 20: XX XXX X X X X X X X X X X I believe your code is correct and mine makes the same mistake as alpha.chen's code. James Edward Gray II