On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 23:36, Charles Reiss wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 23:25, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> woggle wrote:
>>
Cleanliness is a public contract switch with values Unclean
(default) and Clean. Changes to Cleanliness are secured.
>>> tracked by whom?
>>
>> The Janito
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 23:25, Ed Murphy wrote:
> woggle wrote:
>
>>> Cleanliness is a public contract switch with values Unclean
>>> (default) and Clean. Changes to Cleanliness are secured.
>> tracked by whom?
>
> The Janitor.
>
>>> * Murphy and the AFO agree to the following public c
woggle wrote:
>> Cleanliness is a public contract switch with values Unclean
>> (default) and Clean. Changes to Cleanliness are secured.
> tracked by whom?
The Janitor.
>> * Murphy and the AFO agree to the following public contract, and
>> Murphy consents to be its contestmaster
BF Joust Pre-Contest
I've built a BF Joust Hill (as in "king of the hill") of 10 jousters for
the initial contest start. Anyone who submits a program to me before the
contest starts will get a report as to how well it does against those 10.
Entries won't be shared, and I won't really "examine" t
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 20:44, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Proto-Proposal: Increase privatization
> (AI = 2, II = 3, please)
[snip]
> Create a rule titled "Laundromats" with Power 2 and this text:
>
> Cleanliness is a public contract switch with values Unclean
> (default) and Clean. Changes to
Proto-Proposal: Increase privatization
(AI = 2, II = 3, please)
Change the title of Rule 2126 to "Salaries", and amend it to read:
Employership is a public contract switch, tracked by the Payroll
Clerk, with values Non-Employer (default) and Employer. Changes
to Employership a
On 19 Dec 2008, at 21:47, Roger Hicks wrote:
What coins?
somebody left a while ago
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 14:43, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> CoE: not an actual report, you didn't act on behalf of me. Also, the PBA
> owns coins.
>
What coins?
BobTHJ
On 19 Dec 2008, at 21:35, Roger Hicks wrote:
People's Bank of Agora
CoE: not an actual report, you didn't act on behalf of me. Also, the
PBA owns coins.
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Charles Schaefer
wrote:
> But other people could gain points off the lambs too.
>
Not if you design your lambs right. What I mean (and should have spelled
out) was e.g. that I could submit 100 variations on the same standard
program that should do OK against all t
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 19 Dec 2008, at 21:21, Jamie Dallaire wrote:
>
>> Perhaps the round robin should exclude matches between programs submitted by
>> the same author, though. Nice artificial way to boost one's score would
>> otherwise be to submit a hundred sacrificial
But other people could gain points off the lambs too.
2008/12/19, Jamie Dallaire :
>
> Perhaps the round robin should exclude matches between programs submitted
> by the same author, though. Nice artificial way to boost one's score would
> otherwise be to submit a hundred sacrificial lambs.
On 19 Dec 2008, at 21:21, Jamie Dallaire wrote:
Perhaps the round robin should exclude matches between programs
submitted by the same author, though. Nice artificial way to boost
one's score would otherwise be to submit a hundred sacrificial lambs.
this was done for iterated prisoner's dil
Perhaps the round robin should exclude matches between programs submitted by
the same author, though. Nice artificial way to boost one's score would
otherwise be to submit a hundred sacrificial lambs.
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Elliott Hird <
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Let an
Let an arbitrary amount.
On 19 Dec 2008, at 21:15, Charles Schaefer wrote:
Since it seems like most people are writing multiple programs (at
least for test purposes), will people be allowed to submit multiple
programs in the contest? Maybe with a fixed limit or some
discouraging factor bui
Since it seems like most people are writing multiple programs (at least for
test purposes), will people be allowed to submit multiple programs in the
contest? Maybe with a fixed limit or some discouraging factor built in to
the rules (such as losing a certain fraction of your contest winnings for
e
2008/12/19, Kerim Aydin :
>
>
> Change already: increased max #cycles/charge from 1,000 to 100,000
Thank you.
--
Charles Schaefer
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
> seems very easy
>
> [129 +s, then a large, large amount of >s]
I started with 2 or 3 different "trivial and obvious" strategies that worked
(no comment on this one) and was then able to then beat each one with something
slightly fancier. Not to say some
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> On 19 Dec 2008, at 15:33, comex wrote:
>
>> That's an easy way to lose, yes, since you'd be zeroing your own flag.
>
> put the > first
Then you run off the edge of the array, since you don't know what size it is.
I think this is sound, alth
On 19 Dec 2008, at 15:33, comex wrote:
That's an easy way to lose, yes, since you'd be zeroing your own flag.
put the > first
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 10:10 AM, Elliott Hird
wrote:
> seems very easy
>
> [129 +s, then a large, large amount of >s]
That's an easy way to lose, yes, since you'd be zeroing your own flag.
On 19 Dec 2008, at 08:37, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Ok, I've got a Brainfuck Joust tournament runner working. Before
making this
an official contest I'd like to see if the rules are interesting.
(I tried a
few random warriors and it looks ok, or at least it seemed like it
wasn't
wholly degener
22 matches
Mail list logo
