21–30 of 103 posts
This is from the same gentleman who (among other things) demonstrated that printf() is Turing complete and wrote a first person shooter in 13kB of Javascript. https://github.com/HexHive/printbf https://github.com/carlini/js13k2019-yet-another-doom-clone
There's a bug somewhere it seems like, as it ends the following game with "Illegal move, you lose", even though it's not an illegal move: 1. e2e4, e7e5 2. d2d4, e5d4 3. d1d4, a7a5 4. g1f3, b7b5 5. b1c3, a5a4 6. c3b5, a4a3 7. b5a3, a8a3 8. b2a3 --> Illegal Move You Lose. Game over. FEN of game above: 1nbqkbnr/2pp1ppp/8/8/3QP3/P4N2/P1P2PPP/R1B1KB1R b KQk - 0 8
Simply using a2a4 as the first move does that too.
I wonder if this is inspired by LLMs which similarly do tons of repetitive processing most of which is unrelated to the final answer.
I normally don’t lose so quickly opening with a2a4 !
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That shouldn't be really surprising, as all divisibility rules are necessarily regular because anything more complex wouldn't be human-executable "rules".
Humans are able to check whether a string of parens, like ()(()()), is matched but finite state machines can't. In any case, if you know how the regex is constructed, it's not surprising. But I found it fun to actually do the construction, instead of just being theoretically aware of the possibility.
Also, those regexes are directly translated from the equivalent and much smaller FSM. Regexes are necessarily complex only because they have Kleene stars and nothing else; it's like representing every Boolean circuits with NAND, which is of course possible and a little fun fact but the process itself isn't exactly fun to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Humans are able to check whether a string of parens, like ()(()()), is matched but finite state machines can't. In any case, if you know how the regex is constructed, it's not surprising. But I found it fun to actually do the construction, instead of just being theoretically aware of the possibility.
Is this balanced or not: ((((((((((((((((((((())))))))))))))))))))? Humans can check only so many parentheses before losing track of them, so it is still an FSM in my opinion. Also, those regexes are directly translated from the equivalent and much smaller FSM. Regexes are necessarily complex only because they have Kleene stars and nothing else; it's like representing every Boolean circuits with NAND, which is of cou…
This is from the same gentleman who (among other things) demonstrated that printf() is Turing complete and wrote a first person shooter in 13kB of Javascript. https://github.com/HexHive/printbf https://github.com/carlini/js13k2019-yet-another-doom-clone
There was one month time to complete the competition. But it seems you were allowed to reuse any existing other code.
Looks like this was quite fun to work on.
(I feel a bit sad that I would never be able to get one month of free time to work on this now, due to family and job...)
This is from the same gentleman who (among other things) demonstrated that printf() is Turing complete and wrote a first person shooter in 13kB of Javascript. https://github.com/HexHive/printbf https://github.com/carlini/js13k2019-yet-another-doom-clone
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this balanced or not: ((((((((((((((((((((())))))))))))))))))))? Humans can check only so many parentheses before losing track of them, so it is still an FSM in my opinion. Also, those regexes are directly translated from the equivalent and much smaller FSM. Regexes are necessarily complex only because they have Kleene stars and nothing else; it's like representing every Boolean circuits with NAND, which is of cou…
Humans can't see the balance at a glance, but we can still easily check the balance of arbitrarily complex nested parenthesis because we are not limited in the same way an FSM is. We're just way way way slower than a computer.
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 Nxe4 4. Qe2 Nxd2 5. Nc6+ Ne4 6. Qxe4+ Qe7 7. Nxe7 Bxe7 8. Nc3 a5 9. Nd5 a4 10. Qxe7#
9. .., Nc6/O-O/Kf8 would have avoided mate in 1. Maybe this is related to the a2-a4 bug noticed by others?!