Oh. I'm sorry if the description causes a misunderstanding, but what I actually mean is that sculk sensors detects player action then, if there are any sculk shriekers near sculk sensors, it transports the signal to them. If the signal accumulates to 3, warden spawns. I will change the description in order to present the idea clearer. Sorry for my bad English again.

As long as the problem is alright, actual logic can be emitted.

No, what I mean is the description contains a wrong description of the actual kata's logic, aka what we need to implement to pass the kata. Not to mention there are contradictory sentences in said description:

In other words, sculk sensor detects player action in a radius of 8(inclusive) and if there are any sculk shriekers in a radius of 8(inclusive) again, transport the signal to them and warden spawns

Warden spawns near a sculk shrieker when either a player stands on it or triggered by sculk sensor for 3 times

Thank you fot your additional information. A kata is not necessarily needed to follow the exact same system of minecraft. As long as the problem is alright, actual logic can be emitted.

The description contains a wrong description of the actual logic. The actual logic would be as follows:

• A sculk sensor is triggered whenever a player action is within a distance of 8 (Euclidean distance) of it
• A sculk shrieker is triggered whenever a sculk sensor within a distance of 8 (Euclidean distance) of it is triggered
• A warden spawns if there have been 3 or more of sculk shriekers being triggered (not necessarily from the same/distinct ones)
• Also, a warden spawns if a player action is directly at a sculk shrieker

What I meant by example is to also include a wakthrough as why the expected result is true or false. Since this isn't a puzzle, revealing some of the steps wouldn't be giving the answer away and would hopefully resolve any doubts the user might have after reading the description.

Thank you for your advice! This will be improved soon.

The description needs way more clarification.

• what coordinate system convention is used for player_action => it isn't clear if it's (y,x) or (x,y)
• it isn't mentioned that player actions can happen outside of the map
• how is radius supposed to be calculated? Is it inclusive (i.e. up to and including 8)?
• a small example in the description would probably help significantly

My bad. There isn't a "*" when there's a parenthese.

It is guaranteed these forms of presentation of the variable s will not appear in the test cases:

Which forms?

• 2(x+1) (should with ) -> 2(x+1)

Both forms appear.

• z + 1 (should not have spaces) -> z+1

Both forms appear in sample tests.

Yes. If you persist to change the description, I will delete that line.
I've received lots of people telling me to read the Kata Authoring Guidlines, I've read it many times, ofc.
Why think this kata won't get approved without seeing others' reactions? It is a humiliation for an author to unpublish a kata by himself, after spending hours creating it.
Thank you for your suggestion. I hope to see you again. Have a nice day.

IMO the kata won't get approved. I suggest unpublishing it.

Before you create a new one, please check the Kata Authoring Guidlines.

Ad 1.,2.: If you don't explicitly disable a/some module/s, you shouldn't state this in the description as it's misleading.

1. Yes. It's becuz you already can't use some Python modules in Codewars.
2. At first I tried to use the module "py-expression-eval" but apparently Codewars doesn't support it.
3. What's wrong with "eval"? While you have to deal with other problems except calculating strings as values, I think using "eval" is defntely okay.
4. Yes. While most of the low-level katas are similar, IMO this kata is just a higher level of summation compared to other summation katas.
   I hope you can understand it.

it's still too close, and those kata are already rather bad, so... (edit: I mean: the idea is already covered there, and the overall logic is somewhat lacking interest: "itertools+eval")

What Kata is this a duplicate of? Is it maybe "Equal to 24"? In this case, this Kata would not be an exact duplicate, since here parentheses are not allowed here whereas they are in "Equal to 24". Hence, this could be considered an easier version of "Equal to 24".