« first day (633 days earlier)      last day (609 days later) » 

Destructible Lemon
Destructible Lemon
03:42
I think it would be cool if we could prove by means of an interpreter, but the program might have to be a single number.
but that could also be even harder, what with storing the program to interpret
 
3 hours later…
DLosc
DLosc
07:03
Trying to multiply TOS by 10... is this the shortest way? ((({}){})(({}){}){})
 
7 hours later…
DJMcMayhem
DJMcMayhem
13:53
@DLosc Probably. I came up with (((({}){})({})){}{}) which is the same length
Nitrodon
Nitrodon
14:51
I used (((({})({})){}{}){}) once, which is also the same length.
These are all optimal without looping, and I doubt that looping would help in such a short snippet.
DJMcMayhem
DJMcMayhem
15:13
Hmm...
Is there an algorithm to generate a TOS * X snippet that's provably optimal for any arbitrary X?
And on a related note, what's the smallest "X" such that push(x); multiply() is always shorter than multiply_by_x()?
Is there such an X?
Nitrodon
Nitrodon
That depends on what restrictions you have on push(x) and multiply_by_x().
DJMcMayhem
DJMcMayhem
15:32
Good point
Maybe I should rephrase it.
What's the smallest 'X', such that the shortest snippet to multiply TOS by X will always contain a multiply snippet?
 
3 hours later…
DLosc
DLosc
18:07
@DJMcMayhem I dunno... there may not be one, unless there are significantly more efficient ways to push(x) than basic modifications of push(1); multiply_by_x().

« first day (633 days earlier)      last day (609 days later) »