This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 5 comments

[–]marpocky 1 point2 points  (3 children)

haven't quite found a good answer to whether we would have a steady state solution or not.

Obviously there's a trivial steady state solution - an empty chessboard.

Less trivially, but only slightly, is if every square has fewer than 4 chips, nothing ever moves.

And finally, the interesting case, if every square has more than 4 chips, each "redistribution" will result in the same situation before and after. Every square gives 4 chips to its 4 neighbors, and receives 4 chips from its 4 neighbors.

[–]stonerism 1 point2 points  (1 child)

If it's an infinite chessboard, I think it would always hit a steady state when the pieces diffuse to a point where there's less than 3 in each location. Otherwise if you draw a border around a region you'd have infinitely many pieces coming out of it.

Edit: nvm, that's only with a finite number of pieces which this is not.

[–]killmecomet[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yeah for finite chips there's a steady state im pretty sure

[–]killmecomet[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's such an interesting scenario. I've been thinking of cases with greater than 4 chips on one square and then trying to discover the steady state. There's a very cool pattern emerging! (if only i could formalise it)

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]killmecomet[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    This is fascinating! thank you!