Post History
Rockstar, cracked by Hakerh400, 126 bytes I never thought of languages that would ignore everything except the strings - I should have stated that the solution should be irreducible. Hakerh400 get...
Answer
#4: Post edited
by
Shaggy
·
2021-08-06T09:55:34Z (over 2 years ago)
# ???, 126 bytes## Unintentionally [cracked by Hakerh400](https://codegolf.codidact.com/posts/283109#answer-283109)I never thought of languages that would ignore everything except the strings - I should have stated that the solution should be irreducible. Hakerh400 gets the win here but I won't reveal the intended solution yet in case someone wants to try for it.- Let the cops be "Cops"
- The conjunction is " and "
- The robbers are "Robbers"
- Say the cops with the conjunction with the robbers
- (This would also work for a lot less bytes ...
- Say "Cops and Robbers"
- ... but it would be a polyglot with Perl)
- # Rockstar, [cracked by Hakerh400](https://codegolf.codidact.com/posts/283109#answer-283109), 126 bytes
- I never thought of languages that would ignore everything except the strings - I should have stated that the solution should be irreducible. Hakerh400 gets the win here but Razetime got the correct answer after the fact.
- Let the cops be "Cops"
- The conjunction is " and "
- The robbers are "Robbers"
- Say the cops with the conjunction with the robbers
- (This would also work for a lot less bytes ...
- Say "Cops and Robbers"
- ... but it would be a polyglot with Perl)
#3: Post edited
by
Shaggy
·
2021-08-05T11:23:40Z (over 2 years ago)
- # ???, 126 bytes
- Let the cops be "Cops"
- The conjunction is " and "
- The robbers are "Robbers"
- Say the cops with the conjunction with the robbers
- (This would also work for a lot less bytes ...
- Say "Cops and Robbers"
- ... but it would be a polyglot with Perl)
- # ???, 126 bytes
- ## Unintentionally [cracked by Hakerh400](https://codegolf.codidact.com/posts/283109#answer-283109)
- I never thought of languages that would ignore everything except the strings - I should have stated that the solution should be irreducible. Hakerh400 gets the win here but I won't reveal the intended solution yet in case someone wants to try for it.
- Let the cops be "Cops"
- The conjunction is " and "
- The robbers are "Robbers"
- Say the cops with the conjunction with the robbers
- (This would also work for a lot less bytes ...
- Say "Cops and Robbers"
- ... but it would be a polyglot with Perl)
#2: Post edited
by
Shaggy
·
2021-08-04T22:33:14Z (over 2 years ago)
- # ???, 126 bytes
- Let the cops be "Cops"
- The conjunction is " and "
- The robbers are "Robbers"
Say the cops with the conjunction with the robbers
- # ???, 126 bytes
- Let the cops be "Cops"
- The conjunction is " and "
- The robbers are "Robbers"
- Say the cops with the conjunction with the robbers
- (This would also work for a lot less bytes ...
- Say "Cops and Robbers"
- ... but it would be a polyglot with Perl)
#1: Initial revision
by
Shaggy
·
2021-08-04T15:23:54Z (over 2 years ago)
# ???, 126 bytes
Let the cops be "Cops"
The conjunction is " and "
The robbers are "Robbers"
Say the cops with the conjunction with the robbers