-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, Michael W Thelen wrote:
> I'm a practical guy. To be honest, calculating the maximum size of > theoretical inputs is not my strong point. I understand that it's the > responsibility of the golfer to submit solutions that satisfy all potential > valid inputs, not just the ones in the test suite. I agree with you there. But there is also the problem of knowing, what is valid. For some time I actually believed that 255 iterations would be enough for all possible cases, and since the test cases (version 6 was the last time I checked) did not imply the opposite, I paid no attention to that fact. > Me too :-) I feel like I'm "defending my solution", but I think my views > would be the same no matter whose solution was on the line. Hey, thanks! :-) My 43 goes even deeper into the gray area, since I only found out that my original 43 solution (with "x255") was flawed just before I was going to submit it. So, the new 43 (with "x2e4") was actually constructed on the fly, after the contest had actually ended.. > Regardless, what is actually decided > doesn't matter too much... I'll just be glad when the next contest starts! Completely agreed :-) -bass - -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] | /"\ Puhelin: 03-266 6062 | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign GSM: +35850-353 6532 | X Against HTML Mail PGP: http://almamedia.fi/~tasalo/tasalo.asc | / \ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQB1AwUBP1PC1vbPZUB64qcJAQGQHwL/a+Qu3j1O3z5ZitYK8T7JRi+rvlXnLBPN TFZPF5YcVMlzs9P+3anahGY/A8KxK4ekqYEjut3yGY2dbakpqe02nXLVPDR8eHeg vM87rx1BEHEqARPROnhpgCoNla3hQdWT =DLeX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
