The Nineteenth Byte

Liam

6:00 AM

Why was this one closed?

"Outputting anything you want makes answers incomparable." [and therefore too broad] doesn't seem right to me

Dr Green Eggs and Iron Man

Not sure why. I voted to reopen, but then that caused a little fiasco.

Dennis

It was deemed to broad (to many possible answers). The task is trivial to begin with, and requiring only two distinct outputs (no matter which ones) and allowing input in any base (including base 2) makes it even worse.

Liam

I agree that it is extremely trivial. Allowing input in any base seems like a valid concern, but it isn't listed in the comments as the close reason. According to the comments, changing output to truthy/falsy would be enough to make it "not too broad"?

Upgoat

anyone here know how to homebridge :3

Dennis

@Liam That and maybe remove the base thing.

But even if not closed, I don't think it's terribly interesting.

Sp3000

6:09 AM

(almost tempted to go start a site specifically for golfing really simple challenges in esolangs, because of the whole trivial-in-most-languages problem we seem to be having here :/)

Liam

I don't think it is a good challenge either, but that doesn't mean it should be closed. Let's say that input was only allowed in base 10 or unary. Still too broad?

Dennis

That sounds better, yeah.

Liam

Okay, what really got me was that allowing any output, as long as it is consistent, doesn't make it too broad, at least the way I'm thinking about it

Dennis

@Sp3000 As it is, it should be trivial even in some esolangs. 7 bytes in brainfuck...

Sp3000

Yeah, but "trivial in some esolangs" doesn't mean that it wouldn't be an interesting challenge for others :P

Liam

6:14 AM

See brainfuck was what made me think of this. If brainfuck was forced to output 0/1, you're adding a lot of unnecessary bytes.

feersum

Brainfuck. Uses little-endian binary input.

Dennis

@Liam My 7 byte brainfuck program does output 0/1. Input is in binary. brainfuck.tryitonline.net/#code=K1s-LF08Lg&input=MTAwMQ

Of course, feersum's idea reduces it to 2 bytes.

With all these liberties, it's more of a rule-abusing than a programming contest.

IMHO anyway.

Sp3000

That's true about a lot of challenges, unfortunately :/

Liam

You've convinced me that the base freedom definitely ruins (the already admittedly bad) challenge.

I'm still of the opinion that the output format is perfectly fine though.

Dennis

Yeah, the input is definitely the bigger problem.

Liam

6:25 AM

Do you run tryitonline.net?

Dennis

Yes, I do.

Liam

Does it basically just run an interpreter on the given code/input?

Leaky Nun

Is there anything else I should clarify?

feersum

@LeakyNun You mean, besides the subject of your question?

Sp3000

I'm assuming the subject is the logic gates question

Dennis

6:29 AM

@LeakyNun So, interaction is completely forbidden now?

If so, I'm assuming the functions do not have to be able to coexist. Is that correct?

Leaky Nun

What are you intending to do?

Sp3000

(personally I'm still confused whether a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p=[lambda a,b:n&1<<2*a+b for n in range(16)] is allowed)

Leaky Nun

I just removed the "u can share code" line.

Sp3000

> Score is total bytes used for each function/program, including the shared codes.

:/

That still needs fixing then, I guess

(gonna go delete my comment too, I guess)

Dennis

@LeakyNun In Julia, anonymous functions are longer than redefined operators. However, not many 1-byte operators are available. If the functions do not have to coexist, I can name all of them \. If they do, I'll have to use 2-byte operators.

feersum

6:35 AM

Hmm, Martin got +19/-2 for "disallowing" separate multi-part challenges.

Sp3000

I'm kinda of two minds for this one - it's multi-part, so that's a negative, but you really wouldn't want to split this into 16 different challenges either o_O

feersum

If you add a lot of small uninteresting things together, it just makes a big uninteresting thing, in my opinion.

Sp3000

27 mins ago, by Sp3000

(almost tempted to go start a site specifically for golfing really simple challenges in esolangs, because of the whole trivial-in-most-languages problem we seem to be having here :/)

Maybe I should get cracking...

Leaky Nun

What do you think, should the factory be allowed?

feersum

To me it would be somewhat more interesting that way.

Dennis

6:38 AM

Allowing shared code (if defined properly) would make this more interesting imho. In Julia, e.g., I was going to define helper functions to compose and curry functions.

The problem is defining it.

Sp3000

Personally, I prefer them separate, otherwise they'll all just be n&1<<b+a*2 or similar

zʏᴀʙiɴ101

Hello

Upgoat

Can anyone familiar with Golfscript answer this:

So, why should an evaluable string be a valid submission in my Golfscript variant (where you set up the arguments on the stack and then eval the string) but not in Javascript (where you set up some local variables and then eval the string)? Golfscript does have a separate function type, but the only observable difference is during addition, where function addition separates tokens automatically while string addition does not. My golfscript variant removes strings and functions entirely (because functions are just strings with special addition and strings are just arrays with special printing). — Jan Dvorak yesterday

Is a GS program that's a string to be evald a valid GS program?

Is there a meta about GS functions?

feersum

Why would a string be considered a function? It simply isn't.

Upgoat

mod hammer pls

Leaky Nun

6:54 AM

@Dennis allowed

@Upgoat I would not hammer the question if I can see that the OP is not English...

@Sp3000 Could you two (you and feersum) come up with a consensus?

Although it is very unclear.

Dennis

@LeakyNun OK, thanks for clarifying.

Leaky Nun

@Dennis Should I allow shared code? The opinion seems to be as divided as whether UK should leave EU.

New Main Posts

-2

Q: Encrypt employing RailFence cipher with 5 Rails. "KNTEC RRIE CAET CTST UEOEL SBOS WLDE''

Encrypt employing RailFence cipher with 5 Rails. "KNTEC RRIE CAET CTST UEOEL SBOS WLDE"

encryption

Dennis

@LeakyNun I'd vote for no. The challenge becomes a lot clearer this way.

Leaky Nun

@Dennis Well, you said it would make it more interesting. However, this would make the factory be a valid program, which is the opposite of interesting...

@trichoplax Yes...

Dennis

7:03 AM

@LeakyNun But I can't think of a way that allows interesting interaction but disallows the factory.

Leaky Nun

@Dennis Ok, would you post your currying here?

Dennis

It didn't work like I expected anyway. Wrong operator precedence.

Leaky Nun

still, please post it here

Dennis

For composition, I had %(f,g)=(x,y)->f(g(x,y)).

Leaky Nun

By the way, what's the consensus for answering your own challenge (except "don't")?

Dennis

7:08 AM

As it turns out, it isn't terribly useful. I wanted to write !%| for logical NOT of bitwise OR, but I actually need %(!,|).

Leaky Nun

Also, is it good if I add "for lambdas, you can omit the arguments in your byte-count"?

Because someone seriously hates lambdas right now.

@Dennis Can't you redefine the operator?

Sp3000

I know the intention is to remove boilerplate, but I feel like adding that as a rule would just open a new can of worms

Leaky Nun

@Sp3000 For example?

Dennis

@LeakyNun I don't think that's a good idea.

Leaky Nun

@Dennis You know,

a=>b=>0
a=>b=>a&b
a=>b=>a>b
a=>b=>a
a=>b=>a<b
a=>b=>b
a=>b=>a^b
a=>b=>a|b
a=>b=>~a&~b
a=>b=>a==b
a=>b=>~b
a=>b=>a>=b
a=>b=>~a
a=>b=>a<=b
a=>b=>~a|~b
a=>b=>1

0
a&b
a>b
a
a<b
b
a^b
a|b
~a&~b
a==b
~b
a>=b
~a
a<=b
~a|~b
1

@Dennis What's the consensus for answering own challenges?

Dennis

7:17 AM

It's perfectly acceptable.

Sp3000

@LeakyNun e.g. mixing boiler plates (int.__xor__ and lambda x,y:x&1-y in the same solution) or boiler plates that differ slightly between functions

Leaky Nun

@Dennis But is it encouraged?

@Sp3000 Alright then.

Dennis

It's neither encouraged nor discouraged. If you want to, do it. If you don't, don't.

Leaky Nun

ok, thanks

Jan Dvorak

7:40 AM

I would say that if {"a":"b"} has the correct behavior for some challenge, it's a bad challenge. — Jan Dvorak 16 secs ago

mınxomaτ

8:02 AM

Pixar's Piper preview looks really neat:

Piper – First Look – Official Disney Pixar | HD

►

Leaky Nun

8:13 AM

How do you guys cross out codes in codeblock?

Quill

8:27 AM

@Upgoat new blog post! 418stat.us/2016/06/computed-property-keys

Leaky Nun

8:37 AM

@MartinEnder What is truthy and falsey in J?

zʏᴀʙiɴ101

I'm making a SUSE Studio appliance.

I want a better name for that appliance than Andrew's openSUSE Leap 42.1, JeOS :/

trichoplax

9:07 AM

@Upgoat I did, and I did. Thank you :)

trichoplax

9:20 AM

@LeakyNun I was asleep when you replied. Did you get your lambda working?

Leaky Nun

@trichoplax Nope.

[lambda a,b:(i>>a*2+b)&1for i in range(16)] does not work, but lambda a,b:(8>>a*2+b)&1 works.

New Sandboxed Posts

0

A: Sandbox for Proposed Challenges

Golf all the 16 logic gates with 2 inputs and 1 output! This question asked for 16 independent functions. I would like the opposite: a single function that takes an additional parameter that specifies which of the 16 logic gates is required using an integer from 0 to 15. If you don't want to use...

feersum

g++ tells me error on line 52: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

That's helpful

Fatalize

Did I understand this challenge wrong?

Leaky Nun

@Fatalize Your solution is not recursive, I think.

Fatalize

9:24 AM

yes

Just figured that

Leaky Nun

Then you did understand the challenge wrong.

2

A: The Ever Amplifying Zigzag

Pyth, 60 53 52 46 42 39 bytes It is now on par with the bug-fixed version of Jelly! J1K.u+N=J_WsI@Y2JtQZjsM.t.e++*]*dl`hkabhSK`hk*]*dl`hkabeSKKd J1K.u+N=J_WsI@Y2JtQZjsM.t.eX*]*dl`hkhaeSKhSKabhSKhkKd J1K.u+N=J_WsI@Y2JtQZ=-RhSKKjsM.t.eX*]*dl`hkheSKbhkKd J1K.u+N=J_WsI@Y2JtQQj-#dsMC.eX*]*dl`hkheSK...

I almost out-golfed Dennis!

I out-golfed @Dennis !

trichoplax

9:39 AM

@LeakyNun They seem to be working for me in python 3. Are you getting an error or incorrect output?

Leaky Nun

@trichoplax incorrect output. In particular, all values of a and b give me 1, no matter the value of i.

trichoplax

I get 1 for f(1,1), 0 in most other cases

(for i=8)

Leaky Nun

never mind

it should be my fault

trichoplax

I copied and pasted your code from chat

Fatalize

@LeakyNun Fixed

Leaky Nun

9:45 AM

@Fatalize Does { {} {{} {{}}} } and { {{{}} {}} {} } return true?

Fatalize

?- run_from_atom('{p:1a.}.', [[]:[[]:[[]]]], [[[[]]:[]]:[]]).
true .

Leaky Nun

Nice.

Fatalize

it will try recursively every permutations until one works

New Sandboxed Posts

10:43 AM

0

A: Sandbox for Proposed Challenges

Primitive Pythagorean triples Introduction A Pythagorean triple is a tuple of three positive integers a, b and c so that a² + b² = c². One example of that is (3, 4, 5). One subset of those are primitive Pythagorean triples which require a, b and c to also be coprimes, so their only common divis...