people seem to gladly sacrifice performance for the sake of performance or visual representation. very sad.

Enabled in this fork

Your code fails for cases like [[0, 1], [0, 0]] because of your 2nd for loop finding 1 at index 1 of [0, 1] (inner). However, field[1] does not have 1 in it, hence the error!

This one is actually having lowest complexity compared to all better rated solutions!

Ended up copying and pasting all the functions from the "basics-binary-scott" test solution in the Codewars lambda calculus compiler repository, so I had all the basics functions. I don't know how we are expected to come up with the collatz length solution without rewriting the entire system from scrach with all the shift and binary operations functions. Smh

Do we have to define all needed functions with the lambda calculus version? I'm used to Church numerals and would be fine with those, but with "ScottBinary" being configured as the encoding, I'm not sure about where to start at all.

All test are passing except n = 73567465519280238573;
Seems like a test issue, becasue all other TC are passing.

Approved!

Approved!

Approved!