Let's Play some ProSet! [duplicate]

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
3
down vote

favorite
1













This question already has an answer here:



  • Exploring the xorspace

    8 answers



ProSet is a classic card game that is played normally with 63 cards. One card has 6 colored dots on it, like below



enter image description here



The rest of the cards are missing some of these 6 dots, but each card has at least 1 dot. Every card in the deck is different. Below are some example valid cards.



enter image description here



A ProSet is a nonempty set of cards such that the total number of each color of dot is even. For example, the above set of 4 cards are a ProSet since there are 2 reds, 4 oranges, 2 greens, 2 blues, 0 yellows, and 2 purples.



Interestingly, any set of 7 cards will contain at least 1 ProSet. Hence, in the actual card game, a set of 7 cards are presented, and the player who finds a ProSet first wins. You can try the game out for yourself here.



Challenge



Given a set of cards, each ProSet card can be assigned a value from 1 to 63 in the following manner: a red dot is worth 1 point, an orange 2 points, yellow 4, green 8, blue 16, purple 32. The sum of the values of each dot on the card is the value of the card.



Input: A list of integers from 1-63, i.e.,



[11,26,35,50]


This list represents the above 4 cards.



Output: The number of valid ProSets, which in this example is 1.



Rules



  • This is a code-golf challenge.

  • This is also a restricted-complexity challenge, as all valid solutions must be in polynomial time or less in the number of dots (in this case 6) and in the number of cards.

Test Cases



I've created an exponential algorithm to find the correct output for every input here. Again, exponential solutions are not valid submissions. But, you can use this to validate your findings.



Edit



I will address the comments in a bit. But for now, none of the answers have been in polynomial time. It is indeed possible, so here's a hint: binary representation and two s complement.



Moreover, I made a mistake earlier when I said polynomial in solely dots. It needs to be polynomial in dots and cards.










share|improve this question















marked as duplicate by FryAmTheEggman, user2357112, xnor code-golf
Users with the  code-golf badge can single-handedly close code-golf questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function()
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function()
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function()
$hover.showInfoMessage('',
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 ,
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
);
,
function()
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();

);
);
);
Aug 24 at 2:30


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.










  • 1




    Just another detail, the complexity is based in the number of dots, but what about the number of cards? can it be exponential to the number of cards?
    – Rod
    Aug 23 at 16:44






  • 2




    I don't think complexity in the number of dots makes any sense since the number of dots is fixed in this problem? Wouldn't the naive solution (like Rod suggested) be exponential in the number of cards but linear in the number of dots?
    – FryAmTheEggman
    Aug 23 at 17:03






  • 1




    Your reference implementation only checks contiguous sublists of the input.
    – Nitrodon
    Aug 23 at 18:21






  • 5




    More concrete test cases please, preferably considering any edge cases
    – Jonathan Allan
    Aug 23 at 19:22






  • 1




    To me, the complexity restriction spoils the challenge a little. Just code golf would have been more fun. Also, it may not be obvious if the restriction is being met by an answer or not; answer writers should explain
    – Luis Mendo
    Aug 23 at 20:15















up vote
3
down vote

favorite
1













This question already has an answer here:



  • Exploring the xorspace

    8 answers



ProSet is a classic card game that is played normally with 63 cards. One card has 6 colored dots on it, like below



enter image description here



The rest of the cards are missing some of these 6 dots, but each card has at least 1 dot. Every card in the deck is different. Below are some example valid cards.



enter image description here



A ProSet is a nonempty set of cards such that the total number of each color of dot is even. For example, the above set of 4 cards are a ProSet since there are 2 reds, 4 oranges, 2 greens, 2 blues, 0 yellows, and 2 purples.



Interestingly, any set of 7 cards will contain at least 1 ProSet. Hence, in the actual card game, a set of 7 cards are presented, and the player who finds a ProSet first wins. You can try the game out for yourself here.



Challenge



Given a set of cards, each ProSet card can be assigned a value from 1 to 63 in the following manner: a red dot is worth 1 point, an orange 2 points, yellow 4, green 8, blue 16, purple 32. The sum of the values of each dot on the card is the value of the card.



Input: A list of integers from 1-63, i.e.,



[11,26,35,50]


This list represents the above 4 cards.



Output: The number of valid ProSets, which in this example is 1.



Rules



  • This is a code-golf challenge.

  • This is also a restricted-complexity challenge, as all valid solutions must be in polynomial time or less in the number of dots (in this case 6) and in the number of cards.

Test Cases



I've created an exponential algorithm to find the correct output for every input here. Again, exponential solutions are not valid submissions. But, you can use this to validate your findings.



Edit



I will address the comments in a bit. But for now, none of the answers have been in polynomial time. It is indeed possible, so here's a hint: binary representation and two s complement.



Moreover, I made a mistake earlier when I said polynomial in solely dots. It needs to be polynomial in dots and cards.










share|improve this question















marked as duplicate by FryAmTheEggman, user2357112, xnor code-golf
Users with the  code-golf badge can single-handedly close code-golf questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function()
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function()
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function()
$hover.showInfoMessage('',
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 ,
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
);
,
function()
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();

);
);
);
Aug 24 at 2:30


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.










  • 1




    Just another detail, the complexity is based in the number of dots, but what about the number of cards? can it be exponential to the number of cards?
    – Rod
    Aug 23 at 16:44






  • 2




    I don't think complexity in the number of dots makes any sense since the number of dots is fixed in this problem? Wouldn't the naive solution (like Rod suggested) be exponential in the number of cards but linear in the number of dots?
    – FryAmTheEggman
    Aug 23 at 17:03






  • 1




    Your reference implementation only checks contiguous sublists of the input.
    – Nitrodon
    Aug 23 at 18:21






  • 5




    More concrete test cases please, preferably considering any edge cases
    – Jonathan Allan
    Aug 23 at 19:22






  • 1




    To me, the complexity restriction spoils the challenge a little. Just code golf would have been more fun. Also, it may not be obvious if the restriction is being met by an answer or not; answer writers should explain
    – Luis Mendo
    Aug 23 at 20:15













up vote
3
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
3
down vote

favorite
1






1






This question already has an answer here:



  • Exploring the xorspace

    8 answers



ProSet is a classic card game that is played normally with 63 cards. One card has 6 colored dots on it, like below



enter image description here



The rest of the cards are missing some of these 6 dots, but each card has at least 1 dot. Every card in the deck is different. Below are some example valid cards.



enter image description here



A ProSet is a nonempty set of cards such that the total number of each color of dot is even. For example, the above set of 4 cards are a ProSet since there are 2 reds, 4 oranges, 2 greens, 2 blues, 0 yellows, and 2 purples.



Interestingly, any set of 7 cards will contain at least 1 ProSet. Hence, in the actual card game, a set of 7 cards are presented, and the player who finds a ProSet first wins. You can try the game out for yourself here.



Challenge



Given a set of cards, each ProSet card can be assigned a value from 1 to 63 in the following manner: a red dot is worth 1 point, an orange 2 points, yellow 4, green 8, blue 16, purple 32. The sum of the values of each dot on the card is the value of the card.



Input: A list of integers from 1-63, i.e.,



[11,26,35,50]


This list represents the above 4 cards.



Output: The number of valid ProSets, which in this example is 1.



Rules



  • This is a code-golf challenge.

  • This is also a restricted-complexity challenge, as all valid solutions must be in polynomial time or less in the number of dots (in this case 6) and in the number of cards.

Test Cases



I've created an exponential algorithm to find the correct output for every input here. Again, exponential solutions are not valid submissions. But, you can use this to validate your findings.



Edit



I will address the comments in a bit. But for now, none of the answers have been in polynomial time. It is indeed possible, so here's a hint: binary representation and two s complement.



Moreover, I made a mistake earlier when I said polynomial in solely dots. It needs to be polynomial in dots and cards.










share|improve this question
















This question already has an answer here:



  • Exploring the xorspace

    8 answers



ProSet is a classic card game that is played normally with 63 cards. One card has 6 colored dots on it, like below



enter image description here



The rest of the cards are missing some of these 6 dots, but each card has at least 1 dot. Every card in the deck is different. Below are some example valid cards.



enter image description here



A ProSet is a nonempty set of cards such that the total number of each color of dot is even. For example, the above set of 4 cards are a ProSet since there are 2 reds, 4 oranges, 2 greens, 2 blues, 0 yellows, and 2 purples.



Interestingly, any set of 7 cards will contain at least 1 ProSet. Hence, in the actual card game, a set of 7 cards are presented, and the player who finds a ProSet first wins. You can try the game out for yourself here.



Challenge



Given a set of cards, each ProSet card can be assigned a value from 1 to 63 in the following manner: a red dot is worth 1 point, an orange 2 points, yellow 4, green 8, blue 16, purple 32. The sum of the values of each dot on the card is the value of the card.



Input: A list of integers from 1-63, i.e.,



[11,26,35,50]


This list represents the above 4 cards.



Output: The number of valid ProSets, which in this example is 1.



Rules



  • This is a code-golf challenge.

  • This is also a restricted-complexity challenge, as all valid solutions must be in polynomial time or less in the number of dots (in this case 6) and in the number of cards.

Test Cases



I've created an exponential algorithm to find the correct output for every input here. Again, exponential solutions are not valid submissions. But, you can use this to validate your findings.



Edit



I will address the comments in a bit. But for now, none of the answers have been in polynomial time. It is indeed possible, so here's a hint: binary representation and two s complement.



Moreover, I made a mistake earlier when I said polynomial in solely dots. It needs to be polynomial in dots and cards.





This question already has an answer here:



  • Exploring the xorspace

    8 answers







code-golf card-games restricted-complexity






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Aug 24 at 0:56

























asked Aug 23 at 16:19









Rushabh Mehta

662120




662120




marked as duplicate by FryAmTheEggman, user2357112, xnor code-golf
Users with the  code-golf badge can single-handedly close code-golf questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function()
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function()
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function()
$hover.showInfoMessage('',
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 ,
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
);
,
function()
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();

);
);
);
Aug 24 at 2:30


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.






marked as duplicate by FryAmTheEggman, user2357112, xnor code-golf
Users with the  code-golf badge can single-handedly close code-golf questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed.

StackExchange.ready(function()
if (StackExchange.options.isMobile) return;

$('.dupe-hammer-message-hover:not(.hover-bound)').each(function()
var $hover = $(this).addClass('hover-bound'),
$msg = $hover.siblings('.dupe-hammer-message');

$hover.hover(
function()
$hover.showInfoMessage('',
messageElement: $msg.clone().show(),
transient: false,
position: my: 'bottom left', at: 'top center', offsetTop: -7 ,
dismissable: false,
relativeToBody: true
);
,
function()
StackExchange.helpers.removeMessages();

);
);
);
Aug 24 at 2:30


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.









  • 1




    Just another detail, the complexity is based in the number of dots, but what about the number of cards? can it be exponential to the number of cards?
    – Rod
    Aug 23 at 16:44






  • 2




    I don't think complexity in the number of dots makes any sense since the number of dots is fixed in this problem? Wouldn't the naive solution (like Rod suggested) be exponential in the number of cards but linear in the number of dots?
    – FryAmTheEggman
    Aug 23 at 17:03






  • 1




    Your reference implementation only checks contiguous sublists of the input.
    – Nitrodon
    Aug 23 at 18:21






  • 5




    More concrete test cases please, preferably considering any edge cases
    – Jonathan Allan
    Aug 23 at 19:22






  • 1




    To me, the complexity restriction spoils the challenge a little. Just code golf would have been more fun. Also, it may not be obvious if the restriction is being met by an answer or not; answer writers should explain
    – Luis Mendo
    Aug 23 at 20:15













  • 1




    Just another detail, the complexity is based in the number of dots, but what about the number of cards? can it be exponential to the number of cards?
    – Rod
    Aug 23 at 16:44






  • 2




    I don't think complexity in the number of dots makes any sense since the number of dots is fixed in this problem? Wouldn't the naive solution (like Rod suggested) be exponential in the number of cards but linear in the number of dots?
    – FryAmTheEggman
    Aug 23 at 17:03






  • 1




    Your reference implementation only checks contiguous sublists of the input.
    – Nitrodon
    Aug 23 at 18:21






  • 5




    More concrete test cases please, preferably considering any edge cases
    – Jonathan Allan
    Aug 23 at 19:22






  • 1




    To me, the complexity restriction spoils the challenge a little. Just code golf would have been more fun. Also, it may not be obvious if the restriction is being met by an answer or not; answer writers should explain
    – Luis Mendo
    Aug 23 at 20:15








1




1




Just another detail, the complexity is based in the number of dots, but what about the number of cards? can it be exponential to the number of cards?
– Rod
Aug 23 at 16:44




Just another detail, the complexity is based in the number of dots, but what about the number of cards? can it be exponential to the number of cards?
– Rod
Aug 23 at 16:44




2




2




I don't think complexity in the number of dots makes any sense since the number of dots is fixed in this problem? Wouldn't the naive solution (like Rod suggested) be exponential in the number of cards but linear in the number of dots?
– FryAmTheEggman
Aug 23 at 17:03




I don't think complexity in the number of dots makes any sense since the number of dots is fixed in this problem? Wouldn't the naive solution (like Rod suggested) be exponential in the number of cards but linear in the number of dots?
– FryAmTheEggman
Aug 23 at 17:03




1




1




Your reference implementation only checks contiguous sublists of the input.
– Nitrodon
Aug 23 at 18:21




Your reference implementation only checks contiguous sublists of the input.
– Nitrodon
Aug 23 at 18:21




5




5




More concrete test cases please, preferably considering any edge cases
– Jonathan Allan
Aug 23 at 19:22




More concrete test cases please, preferably considering any edge cases
– Jonathan Allan
Aug 23 at 19:22




1




1




To me, the complexity restriction spoils the challenge a little. Just code golf would have been more fun. Also, it may not be obvious if the restriction is being met by an answer or not; answer writers should explain
– Luis Mendo
Aug 23 at 20:15





To me, the complexity restriction spoils the challenge a little. Just code golf would have been more fun. Also, it may not be obvious if the restriction is being met by an answer or not; answer writers should explain
– Luis Mendo
Aug 23 at 20:15











6 Answers
6






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
4
down vote














Python 2, 60 bytes





p=[0]
for i in input():p+=[n^i for n in p]
print~-p.count(0)


Try it online!

This generate the powerset from the input (based on this answer), reducing each subset by xor.

The output will be the amount of 0s (0 = all bytes/dots appear an even number of times).
In fact the xoring is done instead of the "powerset appending", but the result is the same






share|improve this answer






















  • This is exponential in the number of dots.
    – user2357112
    Aug 23 at 23:25










  • @user2357112 no, it's not, it's exponential to the numbers of cards. I've asked some clarifcation to OP when I made this answer, since I don't got an answer, I posted anyway. But it is compliant to the question as it is now.
    – Rod
    Aug 23 at 23:33










  • I was about to edit (actually, delete and repost) to say "cards".
    – user2357112
    Aug 23 at 23:37

















up vote
1
down vote













Japt, 8 bytes



à x@!Xr^


Try it here






share|improve this answer



























    up vote
    0
    down vote













    JavaScript (ES6), 53 bytes






    f=
    a=>a.map(i=>p.map(j=>n+=p.push(j^=i)&&!j),p=[n=0])&&n

    <input oninput=o.textContent=f(this.value.split`,`)><pre id=o>





    Loosely based on @Rod's Python answer.






    share|improve this answer



























      up vote
      0
      down vote














      Jelly, 8 bytes



      ŒPḊ^/€¬S


      A monadic Link. 9 bytes if the empty set is considered a ProSet - ŒPḊ^/€¬S‘ (since reducing an empty list errors).



      Try it online!



      How?



      ŒPḊ^/€¬S - Link: list of integers, L
      Ã…Â’P - powerset (of cards)
      Ḋ - dequeue (remove the empty list)
      /€ - reduce €ach with:
      ^ - XOR
      ¬ - NOT (vectorises)
      S - sum





      share|improve this answer



























        up vote
        0
        down vote













        Clojure, 182 166 149 127 bytes



        (defn f[k]((frequencies(map(fn[x](reduce #(bit-xor % %2)0 x))(reduce(fn[c n](concat(map #(concat %[n])c)[(list n)]c))'()k)))0))


        If I had barfed on the screen, it would've looked better than this



        Try it online!






        share|improve this answer






















        • This only seems to check prefixes of the input.
          – Nitrodon
          Aug 23 at 17:50










        • Ah crap you're right. I'll update it when I have the time
          – Lispy Louie
          Aug 23 at 18:10










        • Alright, that should do it.
          – Lispy Louie
          Aug 23 at 23:27










        • This looks exponential time, but I don't know enough Clojure to confirm. The challenge requires a polynomial-time algorithm.
          – user2357112
          Aug 23 at 23:28

















        up vote
        -1
        down vote














        Python 2, 88 bytes





        lambda l:~-sum(x<1for x in f(l))
        f=lambda l:l and[n^l[0]for n in f(l[1:])]+f(l[1:])or[0]


        Try it online!






        share|improve this answer
















        • 1




          @Downvoters could one of you explain what is wrong with this answer?
          – ovs
          Aug 24 at 16:32


















        6 Answers
        6






        active

        oldest

        votes








        6 Answers
        6






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes








        up vote
        4
        down vote














        Python 2, 60 bytes





        p=[0]
        for i in input():p+=[n^i for n in p]
        print~-p.count(0)


        Try it online!

        This generate the powerset from the input (based on this answer), reducing each subset by xor.

        The output will be the amount of 0s (0 = all bytes/dots appear an even number of times).
        In fact the xoring is done instead of the "powerset appending", but the result is the same






        share|improve this answer






















        • This is exponential in the number of dots.
          – user2357112
          Aug 23 at 23:25










        • @user2357112 no, it's not, it's exponential to the numbers of cards. I've asked some clarifcation to OP when I made this answer, since I don't got an answer, I posted anyway. But it is compliant to the question as it is now.
          – Rod
          Aug 23 at 23:33










        • I was about to edit (actually, delete and repost) to say "cards".
          – user2357112
          Aug 23 at 23:37














        up vote
        4
        down vote














        Python 2, 60 bytes





        p=[0]
        for i in input():p+=[n^i for n in p]
        print~-p.count(0)


        Try it online!

        This generate the powerset from the input (based on this answer), reducing each subset by xor.

        The output will be the amount of 0s (0 = all bytes/dots appear an even number of times).
        In fact the xoring is done instead of the "powerset appending", but the result is the same






        share|improve this answer






















        • This is exponential in the number of dots.
          – user2357112
          Aug 23 at 23:25










        • @user2357112 no, it's not, it's exponential to the numbers of cards. I've asked some clarifcation to OP when I made this answer, since I don't got an answer, I posted anyway. But it is compliant to the question as it is now.
          – Rod
          Aug 23 at 23:33










        • I was about to edit (actually, delete and repost) to say "cards".
          – user2357112
          Aug 23 at 23:37












        up vote
        4
        down vote










        up vote
        4
        down vote










        Python 2, 60 bytes





        p=[0]
        for i in input():p+=[n^i for n in p]
        print~-p.count(0)


        Try it online!

        This generate the powerset from the input (based on this answer), reducing each subset by xor.

        The output will be the amount of 0s (0 = all bytes/dots appear an even number of times).
        In fact the xoring is done instead of the "powerset appending", but the result is the same






        share|improve this answer















        Python 2, 60 bytes





        p=[0]
        for i in input():p+=[n^i for n in p]
        print~-p.count(0)


        Try it online!

        This generate the powerset from the input (based on this answer), reducing each subset by xor.

        The output will be the amount of 0s (0 = all bytes/dots appear an even number of times).
        In fact the xoring is done instead of the "powerset appending", but the result is the same







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited Aug 23 at 19:44

























        answered Aug 23 at 18:54









        Rod

        16.3k41882




        16.3k41882











        • This is exponential in the number of dots.
          – user2357112
          Aug 23 at 23:25










        • @user2357112 no, it's not, it's exponential to the numbers of cards. I've asked some clarifcation to OP when I made this answer, since I don't got an answer, I posted anyway. But it is compliant to the question as it is now.
          – Rod
          Aug 23 at 23:33










        • I was about to edit (actually, delete and repost) to say "cards".
          – user2357112
          Aug 23 at 23:37
















        • This is exponential in the number of dots.
          – user2357112
          Aug 23 at 23:25










        • @user2357112 no, it's not, it's exponential to the numbers of cards. I've asked some clarifcation to OP when I made this answer, since I don't got an answer, I posted anyway. But it is compliant to the question as it is now.
          – Rod
          Aug 23 at 23:33










        • I was about to edit (actually, delete and repost) to say "cards".
          – user2357112
          Aug 23 at 23:37















        This is exponential in the number of dots.
        – user2357112
        Aug 23 at 23:25




        This is exponential in the number of dots.
        – user2357112
        Aug 23 at 23:25












        @user2357112 no, it's not, it's exponential to the numbers of cards. I've asked some clarifcation to OP when I made this answer, since I don't got an answer, I posted anyway. But it is compliant to the question as it is now.
        – Rod
        Aug 23 at 23:33




        @user2357112 no, it's not, it's exponential to the numbers of cards. I've asked some clarifcation to OP when I made this answer, since I don't got an answer, I posted anyway. But it is compliant to the question as it is now.
        – Rod
        Aug 23 at 23:33












        I was about to edit (actually, delete and repost) to say "cards".
        – user2357112
        Aug 23 at 23:37




        I was about to edit (actually, delete and repost) to say "cards".
        – user2357112
        Aug 23 at 23:37










        up vote
        1
        down vote













        Japt, 8 bytes



        à x@!Xr^


        Try it here






        share|improve this answer
























          up vote
          1
          down vote













          Japt, 8 bytes



          à x@!Xr^


          Try it here






          share|improve this answer






















            up vote
            1
            down vote










            up vote
            1
            down vote









            Japt, 8 bytes



            à x@!Xr^


            Try it here






            share|improve this answer












            Japt, 8 bytes



            à x@!Xr^


            Try it here







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered Aug 23 at 22:46









            Shaggy

            16.8k21661




            16.8k21661




















                up vote
                0
                down vote













                JavaScript (ES6), 53 bytes






                f=
                a=>a.map(i=>p.map(j=>n+=p.push(j^=i)&&!j),p=[n=0])&&n

                <input oninput=o.textContent=f(this.value.split`,`)><pre id=o>





                Loosely based on @Rod's Python answer.






                share|improve this answer
























                  up vote
                  0
                  down vote













                  JavaScript (ES6), 53 bytes






                  f=
                  a=>a.map(i=>p.map(j=>n+=p.push(j^=i)&&!j),p=[n=0])&&n

                  <input oninput=o.textContent=f(this.value.split`,`)><pre id=o>





                  Loosely based on @Rod's Python answer.






                  share|improve this answer






















                    up vote
                    0
                    down vote










                    up vote
                    0
                    down vote









                    JavaScript (ES6), 53 bytes






                    f=
                    a=>a.map(i=>p.map(j=>n+=p.push(j^=i)&&!j),p=[n=0])&&n

                    <input oninput=o.textContent=f(this.value.split`,`)><pre id=o>





                    Loosely based on @Rod's Python answer.






                    share|improve this answer












                    JavaScript (ES6), 53 bytes






                    f=
                    a=>a.map(i=>p.map(j=>n+=p.push(j^=i)&&!j),p=[n=0])&&n

                    <input oninput=o.textContent=f(this.value.split`,`)><pre id=o>





                    Loosely based on @Rod's Python answer.






                    f=
                    a=>a.map(i=>p.map(j=>n+=p.push(j^=i)&&!j),p=[n=0])&&n

                    <input oninput=o.textContent=f(this.value.split`,`)><pre id=o>





                    f=
                    a=>a.map(i=>p.map(j=>n+=p.push(j^=i)&&!j),p=[n=0])&&n

                    <input oninput=o.textContent=f(this.value.split`,`)><pre id=o>






                    share|improve this answer












                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer










                    answered Aug 23 at 19:40









                    Neil

                    75.6k744170




                    75.6k744170




















                        up vote
                        0
                        down vote














                        Jelly, 8 bytes



                        ŒPḊ^/€¬S


                        A monadic Link. 9 bytes if the empty set is considered a ProSet - ŒPḊ^/€¬S‘ (since reducing an empty list errors).



                        Try it online!



                        How?



                        ŒPḊ^/€¬S - Link: list of integers, L
                        Ã…Â’P - powerset (of cards)
                        Ḋ - dequeue (remove the empty list)
                        /€ - reduce €ach with:
                        ^ - XOR
                        ¬ - NOT (vectorises)
                        S - sum





                        share|improve this answer
























                          up vote
                          0
                          down vote














                          Jelly, 8 bytes



                          ŒPḊ^/€¬S


                          A monadic Link. 9 bytes if the empty set is considered a ProSet - ŒPḊ^/€¬S‘ (since reducing an empty list errors).



                          Try it online!



                          How?



                          ŒPḊ^/€¬S - Link: list of integers, L
                          Ã…Â’P - powerset (of cards)
                          Ḋ - dequeue (remove the empty list)
                          /€ - reduce €ach with:
                          ^ - XOR
                          ¬ - NOT (vectorises)
                          S - sum





                          share|improve this answer






















                            up vote
                            0
                            down vote










                            up vote
                            0
                            down vote










                            Jelly, 8 bytes



                            ŒPḊ^/€¬S


                            A monadic Link. 9 bytes if the empty set is considered a ProSet - ŒPḊ^/€¬S‘ (since reducing an empty list errors).



                            Try it online!



                            How?



                            ŒPḊ^/€¬S - Link: list of integers, L
                            Ã…Â’P - powerset (of cards)
                            Ḋ - dequeue (remove the empty list)
                            /€ - reduce €ach with:
                            ^ - XOR
                            ¬ - NOT (vectorises)
                            S - sum





                            share|improve this answer













                            Jelly, 8 bytes



                            ŒPḊ^/€¬S


                            A monadic Link. 9 bytes if the empty set is considered a ProSet - ŒPḊ^/€¬S‘ (since reducing an empty list errors).



                            Try it online!



                            How?



                            ŒPḊ^/€¬S - Link: list of integers, L
                            Ã…Â’P - powerset (of cards)
                            Ḋ - dequeue (remove the empty list)
                            /€ - reduce €ach with:
                            ^ - XOR
                            ¬ - NOT (vectorises)
                            S - sum






                            share|improve this answer












                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer










                            answered Aug 23 at 20:29









                            Jonathan Allan

                            48.4k534159




                            48.4k534159




















                                up vote
                                0
                                down vote













                                Clojure, 182 166 149 127 bytes



                                (defn f[k]((frequencies(map(fn[x](reduce #(bit-xor % %2)0 x))(reduce(fn[c n](concat(map #(concat %[n])c)[(list n)]c))'()k)))0))


                                If I had barfed on the screen, it would've looked better than this



                                Try it online!






                                share|improve this answer






















                                • This only seems to check prefixes of the input.
                                  – Nitrodon
                                  Aug 23 at 17:50










                                • Ah crap you're right. I'll update it when I have the time
                                  – Lispy Louie
                                  Aug 23 at 18:10










                                • Alright, that should do it.
                                  – Lispy Louie
                                  Aug 23 at 23:27










                                • This looks exponential time, but I don't know enough Clojure to confirm. The challenge requires a polynomial-time algorithm.
                                  – user2357112
                                  Aug 23 at 23:28














                                up vote
                                0
                                down vote













                                Clojure, 182 166 149 127 bytes



                                (defn f[k]((frequencies(map(fn[x](reduce #(bit-xor % %2)0 x))(reduce(fn[c n](concat(map #(concat %[n])c)[(list n)]c))'()k)))0))


                                If I had barfed on the screen, it would've looked better than this



                                Try it online!






                                share|improve this answer






















                                • This only seems to check prefixes of the input.
                                  – Nitrodon
                                  Aug 23 at 17:50










                                • Ah crap you're right. I'll update it when I have the time
                                  – Lispy Louie
                                  Aug 23 at 18:10










                                • Alright, that should do it.
                                  – Lispy Louie
                                  Aug 23 at 23:27










                                • This looks exponential time, but I don't know enough Clojure to confirm. The challenge requires a polynomial-time algorithm.
                                  – user2357112
                                  Aug 23 at 23:28












                                up vote
                                0
                                down vote










                                up vote
                                0
                                down vote









                                Clojure, 182 166 149 127 bytes



                                (defn f[k]((frequencies(map(fn[x](reduce #(bit-xor % %2)0 x))(reduce(fn[c n](concat(map #(concat %[n])c)[(list n)]c))'()k)))0))


                                If I had barfed on the screen, it would've looked better than this



                                Try it online!






                                share|improve this answer














                                Clojure, 182 166 149 127 bytes



                                (defn f[k]((frequencies(map(fn[x](reduce #(bit-xor % %2)0 x))(reduce(fn[c n](concat(map #(concat %[n])c)[(list n)]c))'()k)))0))


                                If I had barfed on the screen, it would've looked better than this



                                Try it online!







                                share|improve this answer














                                share|improve this answer



                                share|improve this answer








                                edited Aug 23 at 23:27

























                                answered Aug 23 at 16:56









                                Lispy Louie

                                1794




                                1794











                                • This only seems to check prefixes of the input.
                                  – Nitrodon
                                  Aug 23 at 17:50










                                • Ah crap you're right. I'll update it when I have the time
                                  – Lispy Louie
                                  Aug 23 at 18:10










                                • Alright, that should do it.
                                  – Lispy Louie
                                  Aug 23 at 23:27










                                • This looks exponential time, but I don't know enough Clojure to confirm. The challenge requires a polynomial-time algorithm.
                                  – user2357112
                                  Aug 23 at 23:28
















                                • This only seems to check prefixes of the input.
                                  – Nitrodon
                                  Aug 23 at 17:50










                                • Ah crap you're right. I'll update it when I have the time
                                  – Lispy Louie
                                  Aug 23 at 18:10










                                • Alright, that should do it.
                                  – Lispy Louie
                                  Aug 23 at 23:27










                                • This looks exponential time, but I don't know enough Clojure to confirm. The challenge requires a polynomial-time algorithm.
                                  – user2357112
                                  Aug 23 at 23:28















                                This only seems to check prefixes of the input.
                                – Nitrodon
                                Aug 23 at 17:50




                                This only seems to check prefixes of the input.
                                – Nitrodon
                                Aug 23 at 17:50












                                Ah crap you're right. I'll update it when I have the time
                                – Lispy Louie
                                Aug 23 at 18:10




                                Ah crap you're right. I'll update it when I have the time
                                – Lispy Louie
                                Aug 23 at 18:10












                                Alright, that should do it.
                                – Lispy Louie
                                Aug 23 at 23:27




                                Alright, that should do it.
                                – Lispy Louie
                                Aug 23 at 23:27












                                This looks exponential time, but I don't know enough Clojure to confirm. The challenge requires a polynomial-time algorithm.
                                – user2357112
                                Aug 23 at 23:28




                                This looks exponential time, but I don't know enough Clojure to confirm. The challenge requires a polynomial-time algorithm.
                                – user2357112
                                Aug 23 at 23:28










                                up vote
                                -1
                                down vote














                                Python 2, 88 bytes





                                lambda l:~-sum(x<1for x in f(l))
                                f=lambda l:l and[n^l[0]for n in f(l[1:])]+f(l[1:])or[0]


                                Try it online!






                                share|improve this answer
















                                • 1




                                  @Downvoters could one of you explain what is wrong with this answer?
                                  – ovs
                                  Aug 24 at 16:32















                                up vote
                                -1
                                down vote














                                Python 2, 88 bytes





                                lambda l:~-sum(x<1for x in f(l))
                                f=lambda l:l and[n^l[0]for n in f(l[1:])]+f(l[1:])or[0]


                                Try it online!






                                share|improve this answer
















                                • 1




                                  @Downvoters could one of you explain what is wrong with this answer?
                                  – ovs
                                  Aug 24 at 16:32













                                up vote
                                -1
                                down vote










                                up vote
                                -1
                                down vote










                                Python 2, 88 bytes





                                lambda l:~-sum(x<1for x in f(l))
                                f=lambda l:l and[n^l[0]for n in f(l[1:])]+f(l[1:])or[0]


                                Try it online!






                                share|improve this answer













                                Python 2, 88 bytes





                                lambda l:~-sum(x<1for x in f(l))
                                f=lambda l:l and[n^l[0]for n in f(l[1:])]+f(l[1:])or[0]


                                Try it online!







                                share|improve this answer












                                share|improve this answer



                                share|improve this answer










                                answered Aug 23 at 18:41









                                ovs

                                17.5k21058




                                17.5k21058







                                • 1




                                  @Downvoters could one of you explain what is wrong with this answer?
                                  – ovs
                                  Aug 24 at 16:32













                                • 1




                                  @Downvoters could one of you explain what is wrong with this answer?
                                  – ovs
                                  Aug 24 at 16:32








                                1




                                1




                                @Downvoters could one of you explain what is wrong with this answer?
                                – ovs
                                Aug 24 at 16:32





                                @Downvoters could one of you explain what is wrong with this answer?
                                – ovs
                                Aug 24 at 16:32



                                Popular posts from this blog

                                How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

                                Bahrain

                                Postfix configuration issue with fips on centos 7; mailgun relay