On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 03:18:34PM +1300, LizR wrote:
> On 2 October 2013 14:56, Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au> wrote:
>
> > There is no particular requirement for CAs to be local, although local
> > CAs are by far easier to study than nonlocal ones, so in practice they
> > usually are (cue obligatory lamp post analogy).
> >
> > Thanks, I was looking for that analogy....
>
> Wouldn't locality be *defined *by the "catchment area" of a cell? Or maybe
> not, I'm finding the idea of non-local CAs (CAa?) quite hard to get my head
> around.
>
In principle, there is nothing to prevent the update rule to be unique
for each cell. And if the distance between between the updated cell
and the source cell was not bounded (or bounded only by the size of
the lattice), then the update rulle is not local.
Another example is each cell has the same update rule, but the update
rule depends on all cells in the lattice. An example might be
something like a 1/r^2 totalistic force rule -
s_i' = f(\sum_{i\ne j} s_j / (d(i,j))^2)
where f is perhaps a threshold function.
But Bruno is right in that it does seem to be convention for the term CA to
not include such systems :).
Cheers
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
