paste steps for a string containing n copies of the original

Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0

31 events

when toggle format	what		by	license	comment
Jul 8 at 13:40	answer	added	Samuel Jahnke		timeline score: 0
Jul 6 at 0:19	answer	added	Aiden Chow		timeline score: 2
Jul 5 at 14:51	answer	added	Dominic van Essen		timeline score: 1
Jul 5 at 11:08	answer	added	l4m2		timeline score: 1
Jul 5 at 10:10	comment	added	Bubbler		@GB I edited again to include the phrase "at least". You're right that it takes 18 steps to get exactly 17 copies of `a`, but the formula in the question solves the case where you're allowed to generate more than that if doing so takes fewer steps.
Jul 5 at 10:08	history	edited	Bubbler	CC BY-SA 4.0	added 58 characters in body
Jul 5 at 9:48	comment	added	Aiden Chow		@GB If you select, copy, then paste the initial string 5 times, you will then get 6 copies of the original string. If you then select, copy, then paste that string 2 more times, you will get 18 copies of the original string. Specifically, if you denote `S` as select ,`C` as copy, and `P` as paste, the exact sequence would be `SCPPPPPSCPP`, which is 11 steps.
Jul 5 at 9:28	comment	added	G B		I can't understand the post, how do you generate a prime number by copy-pasting anything else but 1? f(17) should be 18, not 11...
Jul 5 at 9:14	answer	added	Neil		timeline score: 1
Jul 5 at 8:44	answer	added	Kevin Cruijssen		timeline score: 1
Jul 5 at 8:02	answer	added	Shaggy		timeline score: 1
Jul 5 at 4:32	comment	added	Bubbler		Since some answers are copying the constants from the formula without checking, I went ahead and fixed it with affected test cases.
Jul 5 at 4:30	history	edited	Bubbler	CC BY-SA 4.0	edited body
Jul 5 at 4:18	history	became hot network question
Jul 5 at 4:18	answer	added	z..		timeline score: 2
Jul 5 at 2:23	answer	added	Bubbler		timeline score: 2
Jul 5 at 0:52	comment	added	Bubbler		The fixed formula agrees with an algorithmic solution for up to 1e6.
Jul 5 at 0:47	comment	added	xnor		I can confirm that changing the first tuple from (1,1) to (0,1) in the formula matches my code's brute-force-ish results up to 2000.
Jul 4 at 23:57	answer	added	xnor		timeline score: 9
Jul 4 at 23:49	comment	added	Bubbler		I went through the math.se post and I think there is a typo in the formula: (1,1) should be (0,1). This change affects all test inputs which are in the form of 4^k. Added a comment about this on the math.se post too.
Jul 4 at 22:53	review	Close votes
Jul 5 at 9:37
Jul 4 at 22:36	comment	added	xnor		I don't understand why \$f(4)=6\$. Can't you quadruple in just 5 operations by doing select-all, copy, paste, paste, paste? Since the pastes append as you say, only 3 are needed here.
Jul 4 at 22:06	comment	added	bigyihsuan		Sandbox post and a bit of chat
Jul 4 at 22:05	comment	added	bigyihsuan		@xnor When you paste, it appends to the output.
Jul 4 at 21:38	comment	added	xnor		Why does \$f(1)=1\$, rather than \$0\$? Surely no operations are needed to keep the original string intact?
Jul 4 at 21:06	answer	added	chunes		timeline score: 0
Jul 4 at 20:33	answer	added	Arnauld		timeline score: 1
Jul 4 at 20:28	comment	added	Joao-3		Related. Also, giving an equation kind of misses the point of the question, making the golfer only solve an equation and not come up with their own algorithm.
Jul 4 at 20:24	comment	added	xnor		Does "containing n copies of the original string" mean at least n, or exactly n?
Jul 4 at 20:23	comment	added	xnor		I assume it's intended that when you select all, copy, then paste, the paste doesn't overwrite the selection but appends to it?
Jul 4 at 20:18	history	asked	bigyihsuan	CC BY-SA 4.0

toggle format