Try to solve the A+B=B+A kata first. It explains all concepts which are required to solve this kata.
I have NO idea what I'm supposed to do for this problem. The description doesnt help at all. And why does it come with a bunch of code? Am I supposed to use that? Why does the description not even mention all of that commented out code?
I would agree with aywee, random tests in go always fail. BTW, my results for the test cases above are the same as aywee's.
Sample test is missing open import Cubical.Core.Everything.
open import Cubical.Core.Everything
A question about your code is not a kata issue. Use the question tag rather.
I believe I have found a better algorithm, and I checked it programmatically. It is valid for 2 eggs and 14 trys, i got value much more than 105. What should i do?
I can use the first egg until it breaks, but no more than 14 times, and the same with the second egg, am I right?
I don't understand why this would matter, mind explaining?
OMG.... And I could imagine banning undefined won't work cus you can anyway define partial functions by looping...
You might be interested in this renewed attempt to establish the correctness of binary tree inversion ;-)
These options do not help. It is necessary to test inequalities to prohibit solutions like this.
I happened to stumble on this comment yesterday. Would this work by any chance?
It is possible to pass this kata with the same trick as other "theorem proving" Haskell kata: see this fork. Is it really impossible to ban it?
I'll let this through since I couldn't immediately find obvious loopholes in the test suite ;-)
Approved at 4 kyu since it is indeed more tedious to prove this in Haskell than proper theorem-proving languages, but the result is not that deep and interesting once you get the hang of theorem proving.
Goddammit Haskell is truly the Brainfuck of theorem proving (or maybe assembly language?) XD