Oops your totally right. Yes q2 is supposed to be our accept state. The example is also mistaken because it went through the steps for input ["1", "0", "0", "1"] instead of ["1", "0", "0", "1", "0"]. Have updated the description.

Loved this Kata!

It would be great if this Kata supplied a sample test fixture. It's just something easy to do as polish.

My opinion about this type of cheating is that it will be addressed by the site eventually. People's solutions are out there for everybody to see, and I expect there to be some sort of mechanisms to deal with this. Either by letting users flag/expose a cheating solution, and/or by static analysis of the solutions.

Which makes me not want to worry about it, since it is extra effort for little value...

Comments that I've made are hidden from me if they are flagged as spoilers and I have not completed the Kata yet. I should always be able to see my own comments.

Clicking on the stats (but not solutions) tab of a Kata that was un-published and is back to being a draft causes Chrome to go in a redirect loop.

Repro (author pulled this Kata back into draft):
1.) Go to draft Kata's discussion http://www.codewars.com/dojo/katas/526987270d3f01c3de000dca/discuss

2.) Click on stats tab.

On the other hand, I like that it is thorough.

Thanks, I've updated the description with your input and walked through an example. I'm keeping (1/2m) * on the left because that is how it is represented in all the formulas for linear regression that I have seen. I'm trying to set up these Kata to bring code warriors to the next challenges in machine learning, and want to keep this as close to the material as I can. Appreciate your input though :).

Also, x,y are not coordinate pairs. X is a feature that we are tracking (can be one of many) and Y is our target. Using this cost function repeatedly in machine learning, we try to come to theta values that minimize our cost, giving us a line that fits the targets as close as we can make it.

Haha, glad you had fun with it. I've updated the test cases with your suggestion.

Thanks for pointing that out. I've updated the test cases with your suggestion.

You're correct that the test is wrong. Also thanks for letting me know about standard JS naming. I come from C++ and C# (and in peace.)

Just updated.

From the test cases:
Expeted a empty string to return false
should be
Expected an empty string to return false.

Should removes spaces.
should be
Should remove spaces.

Expected an empty string to return false
should be
Expected an empty string to return false.