hacker.org

Hi Hippo, I hope you're still reading this after all these years of waiting, and I will hopefully not give too much away when I tell you that all these tiny solutions are based on bucket sort. Good luck!

It was really hard to beat teebee's score, but after almost exactly eleven years, I climbed the hill using the SuperHack program     ,x@s!@p@@@@@@@@@},x00<d0>x?s$00gPp0$ whose probability of success, determined on the basis of 10,000 test cases, is 1/1000, which is not too bad. By removing one of th...

With the knowledge of the population sizes of the first 13,398 generations, e.g. by using Golly , the population of the g th generation can be determined as follows:     Pop( g ) = 716 * ⌊ g / 13,398 ⌋ + Pop( g % 13,398). In silent tribute to John Horton Conway, the creator of the Game of Life, who ...

There is still harvestsnow's hint about 7/40 success probability per test (what was not confirmed nor rejected). I have already been pondering a lot about harvestsnow's post . The only way I have found so far to achieve this probability of success is to use 4 of the 20 numbers and return their maxi...

Recently, I tried solving challenge 'Tiny Sort' based on the Lehmer RNG with parameters n = 17, g ∈ {±3, ±5, ±6, ±7}, and the seed not being a multiple of 17. (The probability that a randomly chosen number is a multiple of 17 is only 1/17 ≈ 6%.) With that said, the random number generator pseudo-ran...

Oh no, I have missed you need the count for output. In fact, it is possible without explicitly counting the integers and can therefore be shrunk to code size 44: !/?v3px:1g0\s11/?w0^\ ␀,\11gPs\1+x/%0s\,x11/ Now it even works for positive numbers less than or equal to 962. However, still far from ...

I knew it was possible in eight cycles:
A neat trick to create additional threads just to delay execution of instructions within a cycle. Is this the fastest and smallest possible?

Holy shit, this is crazy! Thank you, Hippo, for showing me how to interweave threads and I must say I like this esolang more and more. I also need at least nine cycles and it seems to be the minimum. Let us try to get it as small as possible. My current best code size is 36: 3,&\&\&\\ p,...

Okay, as an exercise, I have tried to find the fastest possible SuperHack programs for the first powers of two. That is, to sort and print a list of one, two, or four integers, from lowest to highest separated by commas: ,p! (1 Thread, 0 Comparisons, 3 Cycles) &\,,x2^dxdvpp \====}02gP! (2 Thread...

P.S.: I cannot share the fast string reversal as it would reveal too much. But it's picture is marvelous (and I even have not the fastest known solution). No worries! This is the one of the three remaining SuperHack challenges that I consider to be solvable, although I have no clue yet. I am lookin...

The code starts with 2 NOP instructions :). It's mergesort cuircuit as I have described somewhere else. ... So it does 32 + 32 + 16 + 32 + 16 + 24 + 32 + 16 + 24 + 28 + 32 + 16 + 24 + 28 + 30 + 32 + 16 + 24 + 28 + 30 + 31 comparisons. = 32*21-5*16-4*8-3*4-2*2-1*1=543 (depth 21). You have described ...

Wow, this is a monster of a SuperHack program! Thank you very much, Hippo, for sharing the image with us and I knew why I have not tackled the challenge yet. I would not have the proper tools to write such a giant SuperHack program. I only see that you have used all 32 possible threads. That is, you...

One liner for general while cycle is impossible. Oneliners are possible for cycles of known maximal number of repetitions. ... oh there is 300 brainfuck rounds limit ... so may be ... I have been thinking about it, but even with this restriction single-line loops are not possible. However, I have f...

This challenge drives me nuts! Although the description of SuperHack suggests differently, the array bounds of the code array are never checked and it is virtually unlimited. Equipped with this knowledge, I was able to write the following program, whose code size is 52: !/?x-1v1px:1g0x\s1=:*44x+\ â...

Oh OK simple is relative :). Your compiller cycle solution was hard to extend to nested loops, my original layout works for arbitrary level of nesting (level 4 is max, but starting on line 9 would allow levels upto 9). I think I may have found a simpler way to compile nested loops: [/?x [/?x \s0 \s...