Could use tags: number theory, mathematics

resolved

Approved

Please use new python test framework.

It's a nice kata, but... what was emphatically not clear for me was that you must turn when you reach a +. Maybe you could point that out?

EDIT: Okay, on a later post you said otherwise, but I'm going to leave this comment as testament to how confusing this is!

Nope, not this time. There is enough information already in the Kata description and Hint.

The pictures above are fine, if you need them, but they are just a different representation of what is already written in the rules.

This clarification was very much needed. Thank you for clearing this up for me.

If there is some way, I want to politely request the author to kindly incorporate this explanation in problem description. Thank you!

That's exactly the paper I linked above (but spoiler tag I suppose ^^'), super interesting as you said.
That being said, this paper shows some impressive algorithms that are well above requirements for this kata.

Sorry for the delay. Indeed your assumption was correct.
Problem was in coprime pairwise test, only pairs with the first element of the list was tested, leading in some cases to no solution when one exists.

Realized a suggestions may be marked as resolved as well. My bad. ^^

since no responce within 2 weeks marking an issue as false positive. I guess my assumption was correct...

A begging suggestion, actually it's borderline issue, or so I believe.
Please refactor explaination about that 'ambiguity' stuff
because it's not clear enough.
At least not for guys not natively fluent in English.

It must be possible to follow the line with no ambiguity
(lookahead of just one step, and never treading on the same spot twice).

this "lookahead" part makes sence only after realizing what it should mean,
usually after 'attempt' failing and digging into discource.

also that Hint:

Imagine yourself walking a path where you can only see your very next step. Can you know which step you must take, or not?

don't help with this 'ambiguity' either. It looks like it suggests to use some pathfinding method.

It should more look like:

BEWARE OF AMBIGUITIES

if after '+' corner symbol line can be proceed in more than one direction the path is considered ambiguous which means: False.
so make sure each corner is a corner, not an intersection

example

If you look carefully, you can clearly see a lot of confused warriors in discussion and also a lot of solutions which rigs 'ambiguous' part in 'not very honest' ways. I wish that explaination could help them..