Regarding Sniper16's issue below.
Resolution states that the first input is not present in tests, but it is.
First column has x2 1's but expects true.
As of May 13th, 2019: https://gyazo.com/49dfb0cbf5b40bbf0b76d2c7b71b35f1

First Input IS present among the tests in C#.
Not resolved. First column has x2 1's.
As of May 13th, 2019: https://gyazo.com/49dfb0cbf5b40bbf0b76d2c7b71b35f1
Made new issue.

C# Translation ready for review

In the details, the assumption is made that 0 ^ 0 = 1.
In that case, in my understanding, the test case for {0,0,0} should expect 1 (0 ^ (0 ^ 0)) -> (0 ^ 1) -> 1
There is a test case in the setup that has the expected value for {0,0,0} to be 0.
Is the test case incorrect or am I just missing something?

Should prevent loops in case someone tries an infinite loop.

Needs more tests and should really use long as a return type if dealing with times/durations.

The parameters for the method should be two ints rather than an array of ints if only two ints are allowed. If an array is used than problem should specify and test for one, three -> n arguments.

Needs more test cases.
Maybe return -1 if none occur odd times. So either there is one occurring odd times or none.

Hey,
I would be interested in creating a Java version of this. Can I create it here or do you mind if I created a new one for Java?

The math skills were not the point of this kata. This kata does not have arithmetic or any other math related tags attached it besides algorithms, because there is the possibility of a loop. Your reasons for why this kata should be 8kyu are faulty because no first year java course, let alone first course, should be looking at OOP. I find your comment negative and not constructive towards a well implemented kata. Please, in the future, provide positive or constructive feedback based on the parameters of the kata and pursue kata that you would personally enjoy.

One of the enjoyable katas so far for me.

In the details, it was mentioned that input should not be null. I took that to mean that I should validate against null input. If your intent was for warriors to validate against null input maybe add a test case for it? If that wasn't your intent, could you clarify the details for future warriors?