The task makes sense only, if for a given set of commands the cfg is unique.

If I want to code "if x=0 then goto y else goto z", I have to write:

JMP_ZERO x y
JMP z

JMP_ZERO x y ends the actual block. JMP z can only be at the end a block, too.
So JMP z has to be a new single statement block?

[QUOTE=Dieter;558982]
Unfortunately I don't understand the edge from 60 to 70.[/QUOTE]

That's clearly a mistake in the figure.

[QUOTE=SmartMersenne;559012]That's clearly a mistake in the figure.[/QUOTE]

Unless it implies that the chaos operator can let the program move to next instruction or force a jump to an instruction from the list, an even more "chaotic" (and undocumented) behaviour.

[QUOTE=0scar;559029]Unless it implies that the chaos operator can let the program move to next instruction or force a jump to an instruction from the list, an even more "chaotic" (and undocumented) behaviour.[/QUOTE]

I would normally call you "paranoid" but now I wouldn't be surprised given the low quality of the website recently.

[QUOTE=Dieter;559009]The task makes sense only, if for a given set of commands the cfg is unique.

If I want to code "if x=0 then goto y else goto z", I have to write:

JMP_ZERO x y
JMP z

JMP_ZERO x y ends the actual block. JMP z can only be at the end a block, too.
So JMP z has to be a new single statement block?[/QUOTE]

Yes, because you can't have any jump statements (JMP_ZERO above) in the middle of a block.

7 solvers on the 11th of the month! In May 2019 (several people want to cross a river, but there are restrictions...) there were 5 solvers on the 10th. Oded gave one more month to solve the challenge. At last there were 24 solvers on the end of the second month.
By the way - Gadi has removed the edge from 60 to 70 in the sample program.

[QUOTE=Dieter;559660]Gadi has removed the edge from 60 to 70 in the sample program.[/QUOTE]

"I think I'm paranoid / And complicated..."
(Garbage, Version 2.0, 1998)

At least, now the text seems unambiguous enough to ponder this problem...

[QUOTE=0scar;559669]"I think I'm paranoid / And complicated..."
(Garbage, Version 2.0, 1998)

At least, now the text seems unambiguous enough to ponder this problem...[/QUOTE]
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foSMxgcYL6U[/url]

Very nice song have not know it before

[QUOTE=Dieter;559660]7 solvers on the 11th of the month! In May 2019 (several people want to cross a river, but there are restrictions...) there were 5 solvers on the 10th.[/QUOTE]
In my opinion, May19 and Oct18 (different area triangles) were much harder than Oct20.
Perhaps now many frequent solvers actually submitted wrong solutions or no solutions at all due to the unclear/contradictory problem explanation.
At least, this is my case.
As soon as the picture was fixed, the number of correct solutions roughly doubled,
I guess it will further increase in few days, and this month will end up with about as many solvers as July20.

[QUOTE=0scar;559840]In my opinion, May19 and Oct18 (different area triangles) were much harder than Oct20.
Perhaps now many frequent solvers actually submitted wrong solutions or no solutions at all due to the unclear/contradictory problem explanation.
At least, this is my case.
As soon as the picture was fixed, the number of correct solutions roughly doubled,
I guess it will further increase in few days, and this month will end up with about as many solvers as July20.[/QUOTE]

For me, the explanation of uau (#10) was the breakthrough for the understanding of the challenge.

[QUOTE=0scar;559840]In my opinion, May19 and Oct18 (different area triangles) were much harder than Oct20.
Perhaps now many frequent solvers actually submitted wrong solutions or no solutions at all due to the unclear/contradictory problem explanation.
At least, this is my case.
As soon as the picture was fixed, the number of correct solutions roughly doubled,
I guess it will further increase in few days, and this month will end up with about as many solvers as July20.[/QUOTE]

I really doubt that it will come anywhere close to July20.