Timeline for Saying a number in the shortest way
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
22 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jun 3, 2014 at 15:32 | history | reopened |
primo Teun Pronk Peter Taylor Geobits ProgramFOX |
||
Jun 3, 2014 at 13:19 | comment | added | pembeci | @PeterTaylor, I see what you meant more clearly now. I listed the permissible words in the rules. | |
Jun 3, 2014 at 11:17 | review | Reopen votes | |||
Jun 3, 2014 at 15:32 | |||||
Jun 3, 2014 at 11:02 | history | edited | pembeci | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
wrong name
|
Jun 2, 2014 at 8:26 | comment | added | Peter Taylor |
No, that doesn't make it any more clear. Some phrases are unarguably correct: e.g. for 00 it is definitely ok to say zero zero . But some people might say oh oh - or should that be written o o ? And for 11 , English bingo players might say legs , which is probably unbeatable but certainly controversial. In order to avoid clashes over acceptability, I think you need to give an exhaustive list of permissible words.
|
|
Jun 2, 2014 at 7:47 | comment | added | pembeci | Let's say that you need to communicate a number in a phone conversation. You will say some words and the other party will be able to write the number down in an unambiguous way. Additionally, you want to use the least amount of letters when you "say" this number. That's the specs of this question. @PeterTaylor, is it more clear now? Shall I add this to the question? | |
May 31, 2014 at 21:49 | history | closed |
Peter Taylor ProgramFOX A.L TheDoctor Martin Ender |
Needs details or clarity | |
May 31, 2014 at 11:54 | review | Close votes | |||
Jun 1, 2014 at 0:49 | |||||
May 31, 2014 at 11:36 | comment | added | Peter Taylor | The spec is too imprecise as it stands, so it just sets up lots of arguments as to whether a string represents the given number or not. | |
May 31, 2014 at 11:31 | answer | added | seequ | timeline score: 2 | |
May 31, 2014 at 11:15 | comment | added | Glen O | Why isn't "18403" the shortest way to say the number 18403? | |
May 31, 2014 at 8:53 | history | edited | pembeci | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Changed competition type. Fixed the broken link.
|
May 31, 2014 at 6:23 | comment | added | Martin Ender | @Hovercouch: only if finding the shortest solution for each number is very hard to do optimally, and I'm not convinced that's the case, because the amount of possible strings per number seems rather limited. | |
May 31, 2014 at 3:56 | answer | added | Dylan Madisetti | timeline score: 7 | |
May 31, 2014 at 3:29 | comment | added | Hovercouch | I think this would work best as a code challenge. You have a secret list of 5000 numbers, after a week you reveal the numbers and whichever program represents them with the least total characters wins. | |
May 31, 2014 at 3:28 | history | edited | Jwosty | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Removed unnecessary last paragraph
|
May 31, 2014 at 3:25 | comment | added | Jwosty | I agree with @m.buettner; this would be a better code-golf question. | |
May 31, 2014 at 1:40 | history | edited | pembeci | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
put a hard limit on input size
|
May 31, 2014 at 1:37 | comment | added | pembeci | @m.buettner, do you think changing the criteria to "output longest string" will enable more creativity and make it more suitable to popularity-contest? Secondly, can you elaborate on how we can make the spec more rigid to make it a good code-golf question? Having a limit makes sense for inputs like 1000000 so I'll add it. Thanks for pointing. | |
May 30, 2014 at 22:40 | review | First posts | |||
May 31, 2014 at 3:28 | |||||
May 30, 2014 at 22:32 | comment | added | Martin Ender | Could you put a hard limit on the input numbers? Or do I have to support "Septendecillion"? Furthermore, I think with a slightly more rigid spec this would be a great code-golf question. I don't really see why it has to popularity-contest. The current spec is already too tight to leave a lot of room for the kind of creativity that is rewarded by popularity contests. | |
May 30, 2014 at 22:22 | history | asked | pembeci | CC BY-SA 3.0 |