▼
Posts: 1,545
Threads: 168
Joined: Jul 2005
The RPN contest writeup:
RPN
The RPL contest writeup:
RPL
Important Rules...
Do not post any solutions to the forum until at least 6pm Sunday Denver (Mountain USA) time.
Please be careful about **questions** you post here about the contest too. Some questions in the past have actually given away how to solve the problem. Keep your cards close to your chest.
Questions? Email me at
gene
wright
143
at
hotmail
dot
com
▼
Posts: 120
Threads: 14
Joined: May 2013
Could i load these on wiki4hp ?
edit: for now i guess "yes", if it is the contrary, just tell me i'll remove the pdfs from wiki4hp.
Edited: 21 Sept 2013, 11:36 a.m.
▼
Posts: 1,545
Threads: 168
Joined: Jul 2005
No base 16 for the RPL contest. ONLY bases 2, 8 and 10 entered as real numbers.
Sorry about that.
▼
Posts: 2,309
Threads: 116
Joined: Jun 2005
There was another rules clarification at the conference that no base conversion functions can be used. I think that might eliminate a few of the shortest entries that have been described here, but of course I haven't seen them so I don't really know.
My RPN entry is currently 19 steps on WP34S or HP42S, and probably the same for the 15C but I haven't thought about that much. I need two more steps on the HP41C. I'm too tired now to figure out how to time it.
148 bytes (not counting global name) for my RPL entry on the 50g. It was 153.5 bytes until I realized that one of my clever optimizations actually made it longer.
▼
Posts: 2,761
Threads: 100
Joined: Jul 2005
Quote:
My RPN entry is currently 19 steps on WP34S
Same here, but I'm using wp34s specific instructions, so probably more on the 42s. I didn't even try the 12C or 33C (perhaps I'd need 5 or 6 more instructions on those).
▼
Posts: 2,761
Threads: 100
Joined: Jul 2005
Update: I decided to use only the stack. As a result, 18 steps now. Perhaps more saving is possible, but I have to leave.
0.11037552421 > 0.14159265358
Edited: 22 Sept 2013, 4:02 p.m.
Posts: 260
Threads: 21
Joined: Nov 2006
Gene, thanks for including those of us who could not make the trek. Thanks for doing it each year.
Posts: 2,761
Threads: 100
Joined: Jul 2005
RPN, HP15C, 19 steps, first version:
0.5 R/S > 0.625 ( 2.4 s)
0.75 R/S > 0.953125 ( 3.6 s)
0.777777777 R/S > 0.999999993 (12.2 s)
Impossible to time, but it shouldn't take longer than 0.1 s on the HP15C LE.
Gerson.
P.S.: Rounding error in the last example (correct result: 0.999999994)
Edited: 21 Sept 2013, 3:45 p.m.
▼
Posts: 1,619
Threads: 147
Joined: May 2006
Quote:
RPN, HP15C, 19 steps, first version:
My HP 12C (circa 1981) RPN version is also 19 steps:
0.5 R/S > 0.625 ( 2.3 s)
0.75 R/S > 0.953125 ( 3.0 s)
0.777777777 R/S > 0.999999993 ( 9.9 s)
Update: 18 steps.
Edited: 21 Sept 2013, 5:37 p.m.
▼
Posts: 2,761
Threads: 100
Joined: Jul 2005
Thanks for sharing your results! Now 17 steps here and 11.6 seconds for the last example. I haven't tried the HP12C yet, but I think I would need at least a couple more steps on it.
Gerson.
Edited: 21 Sept 2013, 5:50 p.m.
▼
Posts: 1,619
Threads: 147
Joined: May 2006
Right now my 12C version only supports 0 <= x < 1. Rules state that 1 is included. So I may need a few more steps. 21 steps for 0 <= x <= 1.
▼
Posts: 2,761
Threads: 100
Joined: Jul 2005
Same here. I overread the part that says "Each test case will consist of a value in octal between 0 and 1, inclusive."
Posts: 2,761
Threads: 100
Joined: Jul 2005
20 steps for 0 <= x <= 1. Costing me 3 extra steps as well.
▼
Posts: 1,545
Threads: 168
Joined: Jul 2005
39 steps, unfortunately for several reasons...
unmerged steps
bad programming
:)
▼
Posts: 2,761
Threads: 100
Joined: Jul 2005
Mostly due to lack of merged steps, of course!
Still 20 steps, perhaps I should try the HP33C when I find the charger :)
Thanks for the interesting programming problems.
A nice conference to you all!
Gerson.
Posts: 83
Threads: 5
Joined: Oct 2007
RPN, HP41CX, 19 steps
0 R/S > 0 (0.39s)
0.7 R/S > 0.875 (0.81s)
0.75 R/S > 0.953125 (1.21s)
0.777777777 R/S > 0.999999993 (4.09s)
1 R/S > 1 (0.40s)
Timing done with the internal stopwatch. (I didn't count those lines in the total number of steps)
I'm now down to 5 steps, and the timing is 0.66s, 0.67s, 0.67s, 0.75s, and 0.70s
Now that rule number 4 which stated "Any already existing functionality in the machine is ok" has been changed, I'm back to 19 steps. I'll wait for the comprehensive list of allowed functions before I try and improve on what I've got. Is storage register arithmetic allowed on the stack? That might improve things, but not every calculator can do that.
Edited: 22 Sept 2013, 7:22 a.m. after one or more responses were posted
▼
Posts: 2,761
Threads: 100
Joined: Jul 2005
Quote:
I'm now down to 5 steps, and the timing is 0.66s, 0.67s, 0.67s, 0.75s, and 0.70s
14 steps. Sounds great! Looking forward to seeing your solution (when the time is right, of course).
Just for fun:
HP15C
7777777777 R/S > 1073741823 (15.3s)
1234567 R/S > 342391 (11.4s)
7654.321 R/S > 4012.408203 (11.4s)
0 R/S > 0 ( 0.8s)
0.7 R/S > 0.875 ( 3.9s)
0.75 R/S > 0.953125 ( 5.1s)
0.777777777 R/S > 0.999999993 (13.9s)
1 R/S > 1 ( 4.0s)
32 steps, however.
Gerson.
Edited: 22 Sept 2013, 12:14 a.m.
Posts: 275
Threads: 41
Joined: Mar 2010
HP41 : 7 steps with label and END :) (should be the same as Mark)
Not timed but very quick :)
Convert as 20 steps for an HP65 with label and RTN (some peculiarities adds 2 steps)
Edited: 22 Sept 2013, 2:36 a.m.
Posts: 239
Threads: 55
Joined: Sep 2006
Hi,
WP 34S, 19 steps without labels. Very fast but no actual times, though.
Thank you for the challenge.
Miguel
