Regex that only matches itself
codegolf.stackexchange.com
codegolf.stackexchange.com
Something like:
ps -ef | grep "myprogra[m]"
Sokath, his eyes open
"To understand monads, you first need to understand monads."
They are an abstraction, effectful computation is not inherent to them, they represent computational contexts, e.g. the list monad is used to model non-determinism, the maybe monad represents computations that can fail, both of these are pure.
This is an excellent set of posts for building an intuition about monads: http://mvanier.livejournal.com/3917.html
See this is the kind of thing that made learning Haskell so hard for me. I'm not a math guy, I'm terrible at math. I have no idea what "non-determinism" means, and I'd venture to guess that list monad is used to model "ordered collections of things".
But the idea of a list also suggests an ordering to me.
I'm fairly certain that in this context, non-determinism means that there can be more than one answer/result.
If you have a `Stream<Deck> decks;` of card decks, and want to get all the cards from all the decks, you might try to do something like `decks.map(deck -> deck.getCards().stream())`, but that will give you the type `Stream<Stream<Deck>>`. That sucks, we just want a single stream, not a stream of streams, so we call the function that flattens at the same time. `decks.flatMap(deck -> deck.getCards().stream())`.
Nondeterminism is just a standard use for this construction: given one choice, generate more choices, given that choice, generate more choices, do some computation with the choices, and then return the list of possible final results.
Perhaps their talent is actually just an attraction to studying it really hard. I, for instance, do not have the patience to study regex so much as to ever get the point where I could easily answer this question.
Everybody is a Genius. But if you judge a fish by
its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole
life believing that it is stupid.
- Albert EinsteinAlso no evidence that Einstein said it. Indeed he seems to contradict the general idea behind it.
Not everyone is a genius. Being amazing at woodwork or running is not "genius", it's admirable but different. Some people are [intellectual/intelligent] geniuses, period. Not everyone is.
The best way to take this aphorism IMO is "don't stress out if you're a fish and you're no good at climbing trees, if your thing is swimming that's good too".
Then you see "<^<()(?R){2}>\z|\1\Q^<()(?R){2}>\z|\1\Q>", and you can't even begin to parse it. For one, I didn't know you could add a quantifier to a recursive pattern. Then there is a backreference to what appears to be an empty capture, which is part of an alternation for fuck's sake, which also happens to include the \Q notation.
I imagine I am in the top 20-30% of regular expression users. And I straight up do not understand a single aspect of how this expression manages to match anything, let alone its intended purpose.
It doesn't matter how this regex was found. Whether it was obtained through an entirely manual process or assisted by some kind of AI, it's beyond incredible. 99.9999xxx% of senior software developers who have been programming for 30+ years could not come up with this if they were given 10 years to try and discover it out without 3rd party assistance.
>> These are smart people of course, but it's easy to get overly impressed
How bloody arrogant, and frankly a bullshit statement from someone who has no idea what they are talking about. This is amazing. Someone would have to sit down with me for at least a week - probably 3+ months - to even begin to explain to me exactly how this works.
Why did I take this comment so personally? I don't know, it sounds like the parent has never even seen a regular expression, and yet is trying to promote their own sense of worth as if they're a genius when in fact they have an IQ of 40. That somehow the people who managed to figure this out are only lucky to have done so, rather than there being any significant time or skill involved. I bet you there are less than a thousand human beings on Earth who could have solved this. It's likely that the people who fucking designed and wrote PCRE could not have even solved this.
Basically, stfu. Why do you have to comment only to diminish someone else's success story? You couldn't have solved this, so don't even try to minimize the achievements of others.
The interesting part comes up when you want to match an infinite set of strings with an algorithm. Probably the simplest such algorithm would be "regardless of input, accept" which isn't exactly useful but would suffice.
It's dissatisfying to have an algorithm that puts weird, arbitrary restrictions on composing languages; for example it's usually the case that if you take a language L1 and a language L2 that are both acceptable to the algorithm, the concatenation (for every string in L1 and every string in L2, the concatenation of their strings is in the new language) language is usually acceptable to the algorithm.
Some commonly used languages do not have all of these properties; in particular the intersection of two context-free languages may not be a CFL, nor the complement. Deterministic context free languages are even more restrictive. You seem to need to give some things up as you move up the language hierarchy in power; in particular string homomorphism and intersection seem to be mutually exclusive in languages more powerful than regular expressions.
If you're interested, the theory of abstract families of languages has been studied, although I do not know a lot about it myself.
Your regex is actually /a/ which does not match the string "/a/".
Edit: looks like slashes weren't even used in the example.
> […] for the sake of the challenge, let the expression be delimited (starting symbol, expression, ending symbol ex: /fancypantpattern/ or @[^2048]@), if you want to argue quotes as your delimiter, so be it. I think given the apparent difficulty of this problem it won't make much of a difference.
Deutsch&Lampson's original paper on qed showing s/// used for string substitution prior to it gaining regexps is here: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/blampson/04-On...
Incidentally the name 'grep' originated here, 'G/RE/P' was a qed command to do a Global Regular Expression match and Print the matches.
The regex ^a$ only matches "a", but it doesn't match itself.
I can still see the neat aspect of the post. But that is not a match.
The string "aaaa" is a Regular Expression that describes a language with exactly one string: "aaaa".
Some regular expression libraries have two operations: They can tell you if a string contains a match somewhere within it, or is exactly a match. Some other libraries only do the first operation, and you need to explicitly ask for "^aaaa$" to get an exact match.
This is one of the things on the differences between the formal definition of a Regular Expression, and a regex library.
HN's story ranking system is undisclosed to prevent startups and/or VCs from gaming things AFAIK, but I'm wondering if it pushes things up based on time of day.
Alternatively, maybe the people who check /new are only around at certain times.
In any case, I'm definitely checking /new a lot more myself. Most of the things I've posted haven't "stuck" either, I realize just how many people this seems to be hitting.
What do you mean by that? I don't think HN sniffs location so hour would it even work with a global audience?
I remember seeing someone do some data analysis of all of HN and noted that there was a certain time of day that always seemed to be consistently upvoted the most. I think I was overextrapolating that data, especially considering I've no idea what the article was called now so I couldn't review it.