the k=0 rule would make sense if the problem was turned into a problem where you have to select the amount of dice with n being the limit
@_@, but currently for every other output it seems to only care about the sum if u rolled all the dice

You're right, I understood it over time.

Several results make no sense. Like "act(0, 6, 0, 1)": How can you throw zero dices one time? That is physically impossible. You can only reach zero points by not throwing the dices at all, no matter how many you have.
Or "act(1, 6, 0, 1)": How can you throw one dice with side values of 1-6 and reach zero points? The minimum you can reach with one throw is 1.
Or "act(0, 6, 1, 0)": You have no dice, but you reach a score of 1 by throwing them zero times? How is that supposed to work?
Or "act(1, 6, 7, 0)": You can score a maximum of 6 points with a throw, but with zero throws you can score 7 points...?
My opinion: A target of zero can only be achived with zero throws, no matter how many dices and sides you have. If the target is >0, then there should be >0 dices, otherweise return -1 or "Error". A target larger than the maximum points you can achieve should either be removed or also lead to -1 or "Error".

I do not understand the logic here. You do not pick how many dice you can roll, it is n dice. There is no way (0 ways) to have a roll sum of k = 0 when you roll at least one die. This outcome should only be possible when both n and k are 0. If you ask for 1 when k = 0 and n > 0, you implictely say that we get to choose how many dice we can roll, which is a different problem than what the kata is asking for. It also makes the sum of probabilities for each k bigger than 1, which does not make sense.

fixed

fixed

especially when you read it as

s sides numbered from 1 to 0

agreed, is this not unlike a vacuous truth?

I agree that if k = 0, the answer should always be 1, regardless how many dice you have, even if you have 0 dice. What do others think?

I think s = 0 does not make any sense at all. I could just remove cases like this. What do you think?

Description amended in your fork.

I agree it could be deduced, but do we still want to change a spec after approval? Is it worth it?

edit: sorry, I had misunderstood. I agree with you, the tests as they are are not logical

don't you mean the other way around, A.includes(finiteSet) ?

This is not an issue, but a suggestion to change the specification.