Skip to main content
Commonmark migration
Source Link

#Haskell, 67 bytes

Haskell, 67 bytes

Here's the code:

a&b|b<2=0|a==b=1+2&(b-1)|mod b a<1=1+2&(b-div b a)|1<2=(a+1)&b
(2&)

And here's one reason why Haskell is awesome:

f = (2&)

(-->) :: Eq a => a -> a -> Bool
(-->) = (==)

h=[f(5)        --> 3
  ,f(30)       --> 6
  ,f(31)       --> 7
  ,f(32)       --> 5
  ,f(100)      --> 8
  ,f(200)      --> 9
  ,f(2016^155) --> 2015
  ]

Yes, in Haskell you can define --> to be equivalent to ==.

#Haskell, 67 bytes

Here's the code:

a&b|b<2=0|a==b=1+2&(b-1)|mod b a<1=1+2&(b-div b a)|1<2=(a+1)&b
(2&)

And here's one reason why Haskell is awesome:

f = (2&)

(-->) :: Eq a => a -> a -> Bool
(-->) = (==)

h=[f(5)        --> 3
  ,f(30)       --> 6
  ,f(31)       --> 7
  ,f(32)       --> 5
  ,f(100)      --> 8
  ,f(200)      --> 9
  ,f(2016^155) --> 2015
  ]

Yes, in Haskell you can define --> to be equivalent to ==.

Haskell, 67 bytes

Here's the code:

a&b|b<2=0|a==b=1+2&(b-1)|mod b a<1=1+2&(b-div b a)|1<2=(a+1)&b
(2&)

And here's one reason why Haskell is awesome:

f = (2&)

(-->) :: Eq a => a -> a -> Bool
(-->) = (==)

h=[f(5)        --> 3
  ,f(30)       --> 6
  ,f(31)       --> 7
  ,f(32)       --> 5
  ,f(100)      --> 8
  ,f(200)      --> 9
  ,f(2016^155) --> 2015
  ]

Yes, in Haskell you can define --> to be equivalent to ==.

added 2 characters in body
Source Link
Michael Klein
  • 2.4k
  • 14
  • 29

#Haskell, 6567 bytes

Here's the code:

a&b|b<2=0|a==b=1+2&(b-1)|mod b a<1=1+2&(b-div b a)|1<2=(a+1)&b
(2&)

And here's one reason why Haskell is awesome:

f = (2&)

(-->) :: Eq a => a -> a -> Bool
(-->) = (==)

h=[f(5)        --> 3
  ,f(30)       --> 6
  ,f(31)       --> 7
  ,f(32)       --> 5
  ,f(100)      --> 8
  ,f(200)      --> 9
  ,f(2016^155) --> 2015
  ]

Yes, in Haskell you can define --> to be equivalent to ==.

#Haskell, 65 bytes

Here's the code:

a&b|b<2=0|a==b=1+2&(b-1)|mod b a<1=1+2&(b-div b a)|1<2=(a+1)&b
2&

And here's one reason why Haskell is awesome:

f = (2&)

(-->) :: Eq a => a -> a -> Bool
(-->) = (==)

h=[f(5)        --> 3
  ,f(30)       --> 6
  ,f(31)       --> 7
  ,f(32)       --> 5
  ,f(100)      --> 8
  ,f(200)      --> 9
  ,f(2016^155) --> 2015
  ]

Yes, in Haskell you can define --> to be equivalent to ==.

#Haskell, 67 bytes

Here's the code:

a&b|b<2=0|a==b=1+2&(b-1)|mod b a<1=1+2&(b-div b a)|1<2=(a+1)&b
(2&)

And here's one reason why Haskell is awesome:

f = (2&)

(-->) :: Eq a => a -> a -> Bool
(-->) = (==)

h=[f(5)        --> 3
  ,f(30)       --> 6
  ,f(31)       --> 7
  ,f(32)       --> 5
  ,f(100)      --> 8
  ,f(200)      --> 9
  ,f(2016^155) --> 2015
  ]

Yes, in Haskell you can define --> to be equivalent to ==.

Source Link
Michael Klein
  • 2.4k
  • 14
  • 29

#Haskell, 65 bytes

Here's the code:

a&b|b<2=0|a==b=1+2&(b-1)|mod b a<1=1+2&(b-div b a)|1<2=(a+1)&b
2&

And here's one reason why Haskell is awesome:

f = (2&)

(-->) :: Eq a => a -> a -> Bool
(-->) = (==)

h=[f(5)        --> 3
  ,f(30)       --> 6
  ,f(31)       --> 7
  ,f(32)       --> 5
  ,f(100)      --> 8
  ,f(200)      --> 9
  ,f(2016^155) --> 2015
  ]

Yes, in Haskell you can define --> to be equivalent to ==.