Timeline for Sandbox for Proposed Challenges
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 9, 2017 at 16:31 | comment | added | user58826 | Hello! This looks like a good but abandoned meta post, would you be willing to offer it for adoption? (If you want to, you can still post to main.) Due to community guidelines, if you don't respond to this comment in 7 days I have permission to adopt this. | |
| Mar 16, 2017 at 16:38 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.codegolf.stackexchange.com/ with https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 16:38 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.codegolf.stackexchange.com/ with https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 16:38 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.codegolf.stackexchange.com/ with https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| May 6, 2015 at 21:15 | history | wiki removed | Martin EnderMod | ||
| May 3, 2015 at 15:37 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Martin EnderMod | ||
| Sep 4, 2014 at 21:28 | history | post merged (destination) | |||
| Aug 27, 2014 at 1:47 | history | post merged (destination) | |||
| Apr 6, 2014 at 22:08 | comment | added | Peter Taylor |
It occurs 4 times in the Wikipedia page on the Collatz conjecture, and Google gives over 6 million hits for collatz orbit.
|
|
| Apr 6, 2014 at 16:42 | history | edited | user80551 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 431 characters in body
|
| Apr 6, 2014 at 16:39 | comment | added | user80551 |
@PeterTaylor Edited a lot. Are you sure it is called an orbit? I couldn't find that term anywhere.
|
|
| Apr 6, 2014 at 16:36 | history | edited | user80551 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 431 characters in body
|
| Apr 4, 2014 at 17:12 | comment | added | A.L | I suggest you to add a link describing what is a collatz sequence. As a non-mathematician, I find it hard to understand. There is extra whitespaces after `` in your first code block. | |
| Apr 4, 2014 at 16:52 | comment | added | Peter Taylor |
I'm not sure that it's justifiable to claim that for your example {I2, C5, C10} is "(not the most ideal)". Whether or not it is depends on which arrows are /2 and which are *3+1, which isn't shown in the example. It's also occurred to me, which I missed earlier, that your scoring system requires a bit more of a test suite: at present, you have no way of distinguishing between answers which get the optimal solution to one test case. And I suggest a title, based on my previous comment: "Optimal Collatz orbits".
|
|
| Apr 4, 2014 at 16:48 | comment | added | Peter Taylor |
Looking around a bit at the standard terminology, I think that it might be best introduced with something like "Each positive integer n generates a Collatz sequence by repetition of the map f(n) = n % 2 == 0 ? n/2 : 3*n+1. Define the orbit of n as the set containing the integers in its Collatz sequence, and the orbit of a set {n_i} as the union of the individual elements' orbits. Your task is to find an optimal set under the constraint that its orbit contain a specified subset." That then leads into the example.
|
|
| Apr 4, 2014 at 16:15 | comment | added | user80551 | @PeterTaylor Is it OK now? | |
| Apr 4, 2014 at 16:14 | history | edited | user80551 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1626 characters in body
|
| Apr 3, 2014 at 9:47 | comment | added | Peter Taylor | The timing constraint is not reasonable unless you also provide constraints on the number and size of the inputs. For any input for which the constraint is reasonable at all, I think that the first point of the spec is unnecessary: if a counterexample exists, it's right at the edge of what fits in a 64-bit number. The second point of the spec is currently quite difficult to understand. | |
| Apr 3, 2014 at 4:53 | history | answered | user80551 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |