I agree with that suggestion that providing some initial code as a bug fix as well, as it would deepen the solver's consideration of operator precedence to do it as a correction, thanks!

Also I like the example! Change made.

I see what you're getting at there, however the copy and paste test alone for duplicate is just another way of saying testing for the same input and output conditions, which I've already addressed as not being the be all and end all. In terms of the wider point you make that this can then be used to bypass the challenge's original intent, the simple answer is that any learning challenge requires genuine participation otherwise it becomes negated so the author shouldn't need to design for teaching anyone who doesn't want to participate and I wouldn't recognise that as criteria.

By your redefinition there would be more duplicates I'm sure, however your redifinition of a duplicate Kata is too narrow and contrived to my understanding, given that Katas should (and mine does) have context, hence why a Kata title, discipline, description, estimated level are supplied in CW, rather than only the solution and tests. With the context, i.e. the full Kata, mine is not a duplicate, but without context and with modification freedom you define (copy and pasting between mine and any of the duplicates you propose is still not enough), then yes mine would be a duplicate.

@donaldsebleung.

Representations 1,2,3 of my logic are straw man since my argument is that the conditions of input and output alone of a programming challenge are less meaningful vs the context of it (especially, but not only, the described purpose, targeted discipline, targeted audience) to compare two challenges as being duplicates or not, in particular when one challenge can completely change those input and output conditions yet still be completely faithful to the original challenge. My logic would follow that the differences/similarity between your examples 1,2,3 barely enter the comparison in the first place if there is significant context to compare.

Example 4 is at least on the right page to discuss. If the example 4 comparison were made more accurately anologous to the comparisons with my Kata and to challenge the complete argument I have made. It would be as follows:

A bug-fixing challenge, where spotting a bug and fixing the code are the central challenges and, by defintiton of the discipline of the challenge, it should include intial code to fix, is a duplicate programming challenge to another, where the programmer has to write a function from scratch in any way he/she sees fit to achieve an output because getting that output is the central challenge, simply because the black box input and output conditions to test the bug fix happens to be the same as the other challenge (discounting the context similarity in your example that Multply puts in the name as that is not anologous to comparisons between my Kata and candidate duplicates you've put forward).

Can you not see how myopic it is to claim that these two programming challenges are duplicates, by ignoring their significant contexts? For my Kata it's even more obvious given the context it puts forward plus because the particular input and output conditions are not bound to the programming challenge for my Kata (hence I've been able to change those conditions once already to emphasise the use of operator precedence knowledge more) whereas the specifics of the initial code (but not input and output conditions) of a bug fix is heavily coupled to the intended challenge, so there is more debate there.

However, if you you cannot see where your example 4 bug fix Kata, now more fleshed out in context, and my Kata, have these significant differences to their comparisons, this is completely a case of not seeing the wood for the trees.

I did consider the issue in light of the arguments provided, regardless of reputation or number of voices, only that the points raised clearly did not convince me for the reasons I've explained.

Hi, since you appeared to be following up on the point JohanWiltink put forward, I'll assume you're simply (and ironically) repeating that same reasoning to make your conclusion. Since I've already addressed the problems with that argument, instantly replied to you asking for your reasons and given you time to respond, I'll now mark this as resolved.

Ok, given what you've said it seems worthwhile. Changed.

Thanks. I think I'll leave it, as it's consistent throughout the description and tested results, so everyone is getting the correct message, rather than changing the tests and invalidating everyone's solution.

Because?

Firstly, if one is so inclined to play with abstractions as you are with "Applying ( exceedingly ) simple mathematical formulas to values has been done", then one could stretch to define all new fundamental Katas as done, simply by going in reverse definition from more advanced Katas that obviously include several fundamentals. Then there's a death for all new Katas targeting a specific fundamental.

Secondly, the point of this Kata isn't to convert temperatures (at all), nor is it (just) applying formulas (although that is closer), the point of this Kata, as was described, is to test fundamental operator precedence knowledge through being able to implement something that requires working with that fundamental (an arithmetic formula is a good vehicle for that).

Now if a Kata targeted at operator precedence knowledge existed, then we could have a discussion over duplicates, regardless of the worked example.

Agreed, my error message is a bit misleading stating "no results", for failures that simply give incorrect results. Thanks.

I have made a change to the tested arithmetic requiring the programmer to be even more considerate of operator precedence, thanks to dinglemouse's suggestion.

This should satisfy the issue.

Thanks!

I've done the farenheit to celsius swap now, thanks :)

Done.

Ok, if that's what you meant, I see. I have made the changes to the Kata description so that the operators and operands must be written correctly from scratch. Thanks