Skip to main content

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*

4
  • \$\begingroup\$ That... is... brilliant... \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jul 31, 2016 at 11:12
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @GeorgeGibson Thanks... I had to start over halfway through when I noticed a certain YX in the output. ;) \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jul 31, 2016 at 11:13
  • \$\begingroup\$ My answer is gone, it was a dupe of this (bigger and later). +1 for that [incredible golfing]! \$\endgroup\$ Commented Aug 1, 2016 at 8:51
  • \$\begingroup\$ Regarding complexity class, shouldn't the problem be undecidable since /// is Turing complete? The problem is "given a string, find the shortest /// program that outputs it". Except for small strings, there would exist /// programs that loop indefinitely (but cannot be proven to loop indefinitely) that cannot be shown to not produce the desired output without running them forever. Formal proof I'm myself not sure yet but intuitively isn't it possible? \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jun 1, 2019 at 14:07