thanks. that helped. a lot. :)

that's not correct. a starts as the string in front of the variable.
for example in "(x+7)^12" it is the empty string "", in "(-x+7)^12" it is the minus sign "-", and in "(0x+7)^12" it is the digit zero "0".
in the second line this string is transformed to the numerical value. so for example "" turns into 1, "-" turn into -1 and "0" turns into 0.
now if a is 0 then the variable isn't relevant and we only have to compute 7^12.

one thing i don't get about this cool code is that "a" is defined to be "1" if it was 0 in the second line.
but for the first "else if" conditioning again you have the condition to whether a is 0 do smth. can anyone please clarify to me?

How else would you go about polluting prototypes?
string.toLowerCase()
string.toUpperCase()
string.toJadenCase()

Also in math it is different(based off of personal experiences), as there are only a few ways to do a problem. Coding is different as there are more ways to do a problem, and even so, your code should be different. Your code is the exact same. There are multiple ways to implement one approach --> many, many ways, and your trend is that you have the exact same solution as other people for more than one kata. So, you've 99.999...% cheated -> 100%.

The way to find cheaters is to follow them, so you can click on solutions of users I am folowing. If there is a trend, you have found a cheater. Just for people out there that don't know.

Apart from that you're reported here.
There are three possible cases:

1. You're a copycat.
2. You're a phenomenal mind-reader.
3. After solving the kata on your own, you submit other's solution in order to test(time complexity or correctness).

If the case is third one, please fork an existing solution to do that.

@alyssiabrookehall92 it takes you several hours to copy-paste other users' solutions?

how could someone cheat if all they do is work on katas its like saying if someone were doing a math problem and someone else in the room with them done the same math problem and their way of getting the correct answer is the same are you saying they cheated off each other even though they are not where near each other?????? I do not see how i could have cheated off someone on this kata when i spent several hours doing it and the only help i had was from my instructor who is teaching me how to do codeing

I don't see what you mean. How could someone come up with the same answer without cheating?

it is possible for someone to come up with the same answer as someone else without cheating. I spent multiple days working on this kata before i finally got the right answer. I hate that people are claiming I am cheating off someone. I am working hard to do codewars I have not cheated on a single kata. I work hard to get the answers I come up with.

I was trying to find the original author to follow :)

But it's still not consistent.

If I understand you correctly you say that curryPartial(curryPartial(double), redundant_parameter) == result is a valid test case
because curryPartial(double, redundant_parameter) == result is a valid test case.

But with the same reasoning curryPartial(double)(redundant_parameter) == result should also be a valid test case. And that's something most current solutions couldn't cope with.

In Python 3 the division of two integers (int / int) results in a float. And floats cannot represent big integers exactly.
If you need the exact results you can use integer division (int // int) and integer modulus (int % int) instead.