Ooops, sorry. I got confused between "minor issue"/"major issue" for beta katas (which both lead to the label "issue") and the tag "suggestion". I guess, there's no way for me to change that now, so I mark the issue/suggestion as resolved. Thanks for pointing this out.

I suggest to add 'regular expressions' as tag.

@ChristianECooper mentions the same issue. The word "method" in the kata's description should be replaced by "attribute". Then patch your code with one @ant30's suggestions.

I find the topic exciting, but the terminology is notoriously tricky. In particular,

• What do you mean by a "random number"? Is minimum a random number? You probably want to ask for a random number generator instead.
• Which distributions do you allow? Judging from the comments/tests, the only requirement seems to be that the endpoints of the intervals are supported. On the other hand, most people probably think of a uniform distribution on the entire interval.

Thanks for providing your rationale about "only good input". I haven't given the issue that much thought. -- I will do now. :-)

That's a very nice puzzle. As in the case of Nim, the winning condition is already a huge hint towards the correct move. But the connection to this kata is cool. Thanks for pointing this out.

Re 1. (first part) The description also mentions that the function should return None for integers without Zeckendorf representation. So, the test should fail if the function does not return None for input -1.

Re 1. (second part) I agree that the empty list [] is a reasonable output for input n = 0 and have changed the description (and test cases) accordingly. Thanks for the suggestion.

Re 2. I completely agree. Actually, 6kyu is the rank I suggested and that's the only assessment that I see in the stats.

The description should either mention that the three numbers are always pairwise distinct -- or describe the expected if they are not. For example on input [0, 0, 0].

I can't find a documentation for the object-option in the matrix call. (Omitting it leads to overflow mistakes.) Can somebody please explain this or point to a documentation?

To clarify the meaning of "copy" in this kata, you could point to Python's explanation/implemention of deep vs. shallow copies. The latter suffice here.

Two issues in the kata description:

• adding braces/brackets for indices -- like in the code snippet -- might improve readability and and avoid ambiguity like in x\mu = x\lambda + \mu. The latter should really be x[\mu] = x[\lambda + \mu].
• typo before the first link: "Loyd's" should be "Floyd's"