Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 7:47 pm
okay, i've split this into two challenges now =)
While working on another challenge I found a new coding scheme (x+3)*9+y - as all of you have already found out
.Page 2 of 2
Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:19 am
Pooh!
While working on another challenge I found a new coding scheme (x+3)*9+y - as all of you have already found out.
While working on another challenge I found a new coding scheme (x+3)*9+y - as all of you have already found out
.Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:25 pm
What!?! 
After weeks of hard thinking and headache I finally came up with the c-$ idea today and passed the challenge with a 94 instructions solution and now I'm supposed to do it in 81?!? How can one ever reach this 
After weeks of hard thinking and headache I finally came up with the c-$ idea today and passed the challenge with a 94 instructions solution and now I'm supposed to do it in 81?!? How can one ever reach this Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 12:06 am
oh faint!!! 81 is impossible!!!!!!!!!
Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2014 8:02 pm
I did 95 ... I had to prolong the copying code 
to let it work
I almost matched tails solution ... ^0^p0^ was the critical save after which it becomed easy ...
93+ was my original encodding, but here there were other possibilities as well.
Stopping by 9 rather by 0 (when I used *g as the last cycle ...)
OK ... I hoped next level would be 94 ... so let us start big shortening effort
Oh ... simple $ was sufficient instead of these complicated addressing calculations ... blindness
I would never tought that would be that difficult to prolong the code by 1 op ... to match all the constraints ... what would be the 81 ... not really < used on 0 does the work, but there is another issue as well.
I am on 84, but the last step seems to be difficult again ...
to let it work
Code: Select all
171486161628243475232857161337162976123239382473249473247613316079*^0^p0^5?88*c3+9*+P02^:53**g+93+ was my original encodding, but here there were other possibilities as well.
Stopping by 9 rather by 0 (when I used *g as the last cycle ...)
OK ... I hoped next level would be 94 ... so let us start big shortening effort
Oh ... simple $ was sufficient instead of these complicated addressing calculations ... blindness
I would never tought that would be that difficult to prolong the code by 1 op ... to match all the constraints
... what would be the 81 ... not really < used on 0 does the work, but there is another issue as well.I am on 84, but the last step seems to be difficult again ...
Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2014 8:32 pm
I have returned to the challenge again, but forgot what the goal was ... I was very happy with my 82 quine ... grrrr.