Did any distro give concrete reasons for why they have actively chosen not to package it, or perhaps they just haven't given it much thought yet?
NateNate60
This is not what I would consider a "political reason". A political reason would be something like refusing to package it because of what political party Howard supports.
There is plenty of software you'll find in these repositories that aren't under the GPL. CMake uses BSD, the Apache web server uses the eponymous Apache license, LibreOffice and Firefox use MPL, Godot and Bitcoin Core use the MIT license, and I'm sure there are plenty of other software licenses that I haven't thought of yet.
So obviously I ended up in the middle of this bell curve. How would that cause the perception of the ball's acceleration to differ?
Either that or because they want to feel like a big boy all mighty and powerful by telling the federal government to kick rocks
If the set of all strings of composite length is a regular language, you can use that to prove the set of all strings of prime length are also a regular language.
But it's also easy to prove that the set of language of strings of prime length is not regular, and thus the language of strings of composite length also can't be regular.
You got downvoted here but you're absolutely right. It's easy to prove that the set of strings with prime length is not a regular language using the pumping lemma for regular languages. And in typical StackExchange fashion, someone's already done it.
Here's their proof.
Claim 1: The language consisting of the character 1
repeated a prime number of times is not regular.
A further argument to justify your claim—
Claim 2: If the language described in Claim 1 is not regular, then the language consisting of the character 1
repeated a composite number of times is not regular.
Proof: Suppose the language described in Claim 2 is regular if the language described in Claim 1 is not. Then there must exist a finite-state automaton A that recognises it. If we create a new finite-state automaton B which (1) checks whether the string has length 1 and rejects it, and (2) then passes the string to automaton A and rejects when automaton A accepts and accepts when automaton A rejects, then we can see that automaton B accepts the set of all strings of non-composite length that are not of length 1, i.e. the set of all strings of prime length. But since the language consisting of all strings of prime length is non-regular, there cannot exist such an automaton. Therefore, the assumption that the language described in Claim 2 being regular is false.
Average Matt Parker code
"at least 2 characters repeated [at least] twice" implies the string's length is divisible by a number greater than 1.
Yeah but it's just so tempting... It validates so many inputs so easily...
They said—
A line with exactly 0 or 1 characters, or a line with a sequence of 1 or 3 or more characters, repeated at least twice
Note—
...or a line with a sequence of 1 or 3 or more characters, repeated at least twice
It should be—
...or a line with a sequence of 2 or more characters, repeated at least twice
The regex in the post will match "abab". Their original description (line 2 of this comment) will not match "abab".
Economic murder-suicide pact
nooooo don't take away my socialism