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