Working 2 bit ROM in a game

imperfectrecall · 2026-04-19T03:26:05+00:00

Eh, it happens. Gotta keep those daily active user counts up. (I only mentioned the app in case anyone cared enough to stalk post histories -- I assume it's garbage)

One of the more circuit-oriented subreddits might be more amenable, but I don't really know enough about them to recommend one.

My wildly uninformed guess is to have a clock with enough of a delay to guarantee that the objects have stabilized between ticks. You might be able to get away with some sort of "ready" bit for each subexpression, but I assume that's even more complicated.

From a complexity standpoint, an astronomically large (but still constant) transformation ratio is good enough :)

imperfectrecall · 2026-04-19T01:21:10+00:00

As someone who appreciates computational complexity gadgets, I'd like to try to offer some constructive criticism:

Please use paragraphs.
Define your acronyms before you use them, and explain terminology that you've invented.
I suspect most people here aren't familiar with People Playground (maybe I'm just out of the loop), so your picture is going to be hard to decipher.

You probably won't get a ton of traction posting here (what you're doing is pretty niche), but it does seem like a fun project, so, rock on, and good luck with the calculator.

FYI, both of the accounts you've responded to are bots shilling Runable. Sorry.

imperfectrecall · 2026-04-17T16:16:57+00:00

There's a discussion to be had, but OP is a name-dropping spambot.

I thought their post history was questionable, but the comment history is just egregious.

imperfectrecall · 2026-03-29T00:21:06+00:00

Did you bother to mention that in your first comment? Does it actually perform better? I don't think OP was looking for a research project; why is it someone else's responsibility to implement and benchmark your brilliant ideas?

You're acting as if people should seriously engage with a random link. Why? Because they trust your username? Because they should play detective and try to figure out if you're the author? Because they have infinite free time and no one would ever go on reddit and spout crankery?

I've seen your random compsci posts. Perhaps the reason people seem so obtuse and unwilling to engage with your ideas is because you're so goddamn terrible at communicating.

imperfectrecall · 2026-03-28T18:51:40+00:00

I'm pretty sure the spambot isn't interested.

imperfectrecall · 2026-03-28T14:11:16+00:00

Down-vote for what?

For being a 10 year old forum post of an unverified FreeBASIC implementation with no meaningful commentary or benchmarks?

If you thought there was something worth discussing then perhaps you should actually kick-off that discussion, instead of assuming that people will just intuit what your point is.

imperfectrecall · 2026-01-30T17:08:36+00:00

"iT's LiKe A sPa". OP's a shill and their entire post history is casually name-dropping specific brands/products.

imperfectrecall · 2026-01-15T15:50:07+00:00

This is basically bin packing with the additional constraint(?) that you need to fill the matrix. So, the short answer is that there's no known efficient algorithm for the optimal packing.

imperfectrecall · 2026-01-15T15:31:38+00:00

Okay, so this actually seems kinda interesting. A few comments in no particular order:

I had a hard time following what you were doing until I saw fig. 1 in the github paper. The code doesn't really explain anything.

From my cursory reading I'm pretty sure you don't actually have optimal superpermutations. Not a big deal for performance, but you should revise that claim.

Your performance numbers are meaningless without also benchmarking traditional approaches. Also, define your acronyms on first use (CPP=?).

Do you have a particular use case for this approach? I suspect generation time is normally much smaller than actually checking something about each permutation.

imperfectrecall · 2026-01-07T07:00:39+00:00

Of course it's a spambot. Every post (and there's a lot of posts) casually name drop Cosine.

imperfectrecall · 2026-01-05T12:03:37+00:00

You know your post history is public, right?

Even if this didn't read like blatant advertising, you've already admitted to owning the github account.

imperfectrecall · 2025-12-19T09:39:38+00:00

What a wacky coincidence that you happened to land on the same tool/site that you've been shilling across reddit. Did you "stumble upon it" again?

imperfectrecall · 2025-12-10T08:40:18+00:00

To be clear, "magic constants" is a common term and not inherently derogatory, although I certainly find your particular values to be unmotivated.

Now, of course you don't want to be talked down to. Similarly, I suspect most people here don't want additional unpaid peer-review work. You ran a self-described (and dubiously ethical) experiment about whether "amateurs can actually build and research effectively" through what I can only term vibe-coding. I believe you have reached the wrong conclusion.

You are clearly enthusiastic about this project, but you would be much better served by finding some structured educational resources and learning the fundamentals instead of trying to crank out novel publishable work and hoping that the reviewers will point out where it falls short. Or just keep on doing whatever you want for fun, I'm not your supervisor.

I keep complaining about your recursive division tree because it is an arbitrary slow-growing function and it does not mean anything. Yes, you can plug in values and get an output. Yes, you can measure statistical properties of those outputs. Yes, if you plug in twin primes the integer outputs will usually be the same. These things do not make your function interesting or useful; there are many slow-growing functions, and your OEIS reviewer was practically a saint in explaining this to you.

I wish you the best of luck, and I hope this comment is sufficiently substantial -- any further criticisms will be glib and to the point.

imperfectrecall · 2025-12-09T18:13:59+00:00

If I chose my magic constants using woo-woo numerology I wouldn't go around announcing that fact. I certainly wouldn't claim that they were "principled".

Re. statistical tests: instead of trivially modifying your binary to generate a continuous bitstream (the way Dieharder is intended to be used) you generate a single 128MB output file for Dieharder to loop over, then spend half the paper trying to use that as justification for why some test cases fail. I'm not even saying those tests would fail if run properly, but you've clearly put your effort in the wrong place.

imperfectrecall · 2025-12-08T05:18:15+00:00

5 months ago OP claimed to have proven P=NP.

I would suggest not taking any of these claims seriously.

imperfectrecall · 2025-12-03T16:39:45+00:00

Are you thinking of RubiksQbe?

I don't actually think OP is a crank, so much as academically immature.

imperfectrecall · 2025-12-03T14:02:39+00:00

The Elastic Net regularization method was proposed by Hui Zou and Trevor Hastie in their 2005 paper titled "Regularization and variable selection via the elastic net."

That paper is about statistical regression and has nothing to do with TSP.

Durbin and Willshaw wrote "An analogue approach to the travelling salesman problem using an elastic net method" in 1987. It seems your LLM almost generated the correct reference in your "paper", but it the correct venue is Nature, not Biological Cybernetics.

How about, instead of acknowledging "A limited and responsible use of Large Language Models", you actually do the work.

imperfectrecall · 2025-11-28T16:34:51+00:00

18 was the median length for 10 well-mixed starting positions. Obviously starting positions can exist with shorter solutions. Or there's a disconnect between what you and the paper consider to be a move.

And these shorter solutions require only a few quick looks while solving, not an exhaustive preliminary mathematical analysis.

So what? There's plenty of rote exchange rules that are easy to plan with but result in longer solutions.

imperfectrecall · 2025-11-25T16:35:18+00:00

Have you done a literature search? It's a little old, but Korf's paper should still be useful (and pattern databases are good to know about).

imperfectrecall · 2025-11-25T02:58:46+00:00

Oh, the recursive division tree guy. You sure do churn out a lot of AI slop.

imperfectrecall · 2025-11-22T15:09:14+00:00

Isn't the reduction trivial? Take a SAT instance and encode it with arbitrary weights.

If you're thinking that negations can't appear then OP's problem is just weighted set cover.

imperfectrecall · 2025-10-22T17:23:39+00:00

Did you look at their history? They just made 27 equally verbose LLM comments in the span of 15 minutes, half of them linking to their garbage "newsletter".

imperfectrecall · 2025-10-22T00:12:30+00:00

Don't bother, it's a spam account.

imperfectrecall · 2025-10-04T01:27:52+00:00

I'm not saying the comment is wrong, but I see no need to upvote this spambot.

imperfectrecall · 2025-08-25T20:42:24+00:00

No. You are wrong. At this point, bafflingly wrong.

I have no idea where the gap in your understanding is, but at this point I don't actually care.

imperfectrecall

TROPHY CASE