Skip to main content
Code Golf

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

13
  • \$\begingroup\$ 1. I've replaced most double quotes with backticks, since I think that it improves readability. If you disagree, feel free to roll the edit back. 2. Multiplication is missing from your precedence list. It matters because we have to account for parentheses in our 1024 bytes of code. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jan 16, 2016 at 17:13
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Bob: regarding the rule change about accuracy: "agree with all the digits", does it mean that if X = 5.23 a value of 5.2301is ok, but 5.2299 not? \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jan 16, 2016 at 18:36
  • \$\begingroup\$ @nimi Yes, 5.2301 agrees with all the digits of X = 5.23, while 5.2299 does not. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jan 16, 2016 at 18:47
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ This will almost certainly be won with rational approximation. There's no other way to get sufficient entropy to catch enough numbers when extra space is spent on operators. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jan 16, 2016 at 19:40
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ This is more like RIES than Plouffe's inverter. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jan 16, 2016 at 20:02