Numerical solution:
33626723890930Earliest known public leak:
Programs:
Numerical solution:
44754029Earliest known public leak: x.com/cirosantilli/status/1990363555309490585
Programs:
This one doesn't seem to exciting to be honest, but it might be useful. Sample question:and it expects the correct answer down to the cents:It should be noted that Project Euler has such "precision matters" problems.
53892.27
Even more than in other areas of benchmarking, in maths where you only have a right or wrong answer, and it is costly to come up with good sample problems, some benchmarks have adopted private test data sets.
The situation is kind of sad, in that ideally we should have open data sets and only test them on models that were trained on data exclusively published before the problem publish date.
However this is not practical for the following reasons:
Here's an execution for 2, 3. When Furthermore, note that if therefore we can always make
a != 1 we use a as the extra numbers instead of b: 1 | 2 2(1) ...
2 | 2 2(0) 2(1) ...
3 | 3 2(1) 2(0) 2(1) ...
4 | 3 2(0) 2(0) 2(1) ...
5 | 2 3(2) 2(1) 2(0) 2(0) ...
6 | 2 3(1) 2(1) 2(0) 2(1) ...
7 | 2 3(0) 2(1) 2(0) 2(1) ...
8 | 3 3(2) 2(0) 2(0) 2(1) ...
9 | 3 3(1) 2(0) 2(0) 2(1) ...
10 | 3 3(0) 2(0) 2(0) 2(1) ...
11 | 2 2(1) 3(2) 2(1) 2(0) 2(1) ...
12 | 2 2(0) 3(2) 2(1) 2(0) 2(1) ...
13 | 3 2(1) 3(1) 2(1) 2(0) 2(1) ...
14 | 3 2(0) 3(1) 2(1) 2(0) 2(1) ...
15 | 2 2(1) 3(0) 2(1) 2(0) 2(1) ...
16 | 2 2(0) 3(0) 2(1) 2(0) 2(1) ...
17 | 3 3(2) 3(2) 2(0) 2(0) 2(1) ...a = 1, then the a, b sequence is a subset of the b, a sequence e.g.:1, 2 = [1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, ...]
2, 1 = [ 2, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, ...]a not be 1 by switching the pair and then using the generalized algorithm with a != 1.This algorithm is more efficient in space, using only , as it recursively compresses the state required to keep track of what to do next.
Time is still .
The table at maths-people.anu.edu.au/~brent/pd/Kolakoski-UNSW.pdf page 20 has a summary image, but it is hard to understand.
1 2(0) 1(1)The starting state is:which means that it implicitly contains infinitely many The actual algorithm will of course omit as many trailing
2 | 2 2(1) 2(1) 2(1) 2(1) ...2(1) at the end which we abbreviate just as:2 | 2 2(1) ...2(1) as it can.The update rules are:Note that both rules don't overlap so that each update is always determined by only one of them at a time.
- go left to right:
- flip:continue going left to right.
x(0) y(0) !x((!x)-1) unchanged - repeat:and then stop further updates.
x(0) y(n > 0) x(x-1) y(n - 1)
- flip:
Also the first column is always implicitly
(0).2 | 2 2(1) ...
3 | 2 2(0) 2(1) ...Here we:
2 | 2 2(1) ...
3 | 2 2(0) 2(1) ...
4 | 1 2(1) 2(0) 2(1) ...2 | 2 2(1) ...
3 | 2 2(0) 2(1) ...
4 | 1 2(1) 2(0) 2(1) ...
5 | 1 2(0) 2(1) 2(0) 2(1) ... 2 | 2 2(1) ...
3 | 2 2(0) 2(1) ...
4 | 1 2(1) 2(0) 2(1) ...
5 | 1 2(0) 2(0) 2(1) ...
6 | 2 1(0) 2(1) 2(0) 2(1) ...
7 | 1 1(0) 2(0) 2(0) 2(1) ...
8 | 2 2(1) 1(0) 2(1) 2(0) 2(1) ...
9 | 2 2(0) 1(0) 2(1) 2(0) 2(1) ...
10 | 1 1(0) 1(0) 2(0) 2(0) 2(1) ...
11 | 2 2(1) 2(1) 1(0) 2(1) 2(0) 2(1) ...
12 | 2 2(0) 2(1) 1(0) 2(1) 2(0) 2(1) ...
13 | 1 2(1) 2(0) 1(0) 2(1) 2(0) 2(1) ...
14 | 1 2(0) 2(0) 1(0) 2(1) 2(0) 2(1) ...
15 | 2 1(0) 1(0) 1(0) 2(0) 2(0) 2(1) ...
16 | 1 2(1) 2(1) 2(1) 1(0) 2(1) 2(0) 2(1) ...The generalized Kolakoski sequence is the generalization of the Kolakoski sequence where you don't need to restrict yourself to 1,2 but can instead use any a,b pair.
What would be really amazing is if they had constraints like proper CAD software, it would make it possible to not have to redo entire diagrams when you want to change a small part of them.
Bibliography:
- gitlab.com/inkscape/inbox/-/issues/1465 Feature Request: Geometric Construction Tool (Constraints and constraint solver) for CAD, CAM etc.
- www.reddit.com/r/Inkscape/comments/1fvhil4/constraints_or_parameters/
It should be noted however that path effects can accomplish some of it.
Unlisted articles are being shown, click here to show only listed articles.