[seebs]

Originally Posted by Michali

Lone blue squares, I think, are representations of the output of a grey square in Conway's life... Am I saying that right, by the way?

If you're saying it correctly, it's wrong.

Since I have no idea what you might think you're saying, I can't really say.

English is to Greek, as Our world is to what? with regards to Conway's life.

I have no idea which relationship you're looking for. I just plain have no clue what you mean.

Right yeah, but let's talk about the role of a variable real quick.

Okay.

Now in:

(1+2)+3=x "x" is going to stick around for the next couple steps
3+3=x ...
6=x ...
6 And then, we don't need x anymore.

So?

That's purely notation.

Well isn't that the roll of a lone blue square in the simulator?

No. The role of "x" in the above is purely notation. There's no point at which "x" has any meaning other than "placeholder for another value".

By contrast, the role of the lone blue square in the simulator is actual input which is used to calculate results. That the results might be the same as results you could get from something else doesn't matter.

The same lone blue square in the input is never in the output.

So what? The output and the input are different things.

So we represent an actual grey square with a lone blue square in the input

Wrong.

There is a blue square in the input.

, and in the output, the lone blue square turns grey.

So? The output is different from the input.

We no longer need the representation and that's why there's this elimination effect: x inputs and f(x)=y, so a part of this output has to do with this: ~x.

So what?

You keep saying this as though the inputs didn't exist. Of course they did; they were what we used to generate the outputs.

Again: Your argument is that ash proves that there was never wood at all. That's stupid.