The Contribute page lists quite a lot of ways to contribute to the project, but does not prioritize them at all. What I want most is to get the number down (it’s been ~32k for a while now). What would help most to achieve that? I doubt writing new deciders is what’s needed at this point, as there are already deciders that deal with most of those 32k machines. First example that I’ve found just now is this one year old comment by TonyG and I’m sure there are more.
I have some mathematics and computer science background: I graduated in both from a university, quite a long time ago, and I’ve been working as a programmer for even longer.
Thank you very much for your post.
We’re currently in the process of pushing a Bouncer decider forward, specifically savask’s (discord user) implementation of @TonyG original method.
The method decides ~30k machines and has been reproduced several times (by @TonyG, @meithecatte, @Iijil). So we are very close to making it official, according to our standards.
What is left to do is to write a synthetic exposition of the method with correctness proofs. There is some preliminary stuff that has been added by @meithecatte in the official writeup, and in parallel, savask has been working on another writeup.
It is unfortunate that it is taking so long, I have been a bottleneck here since I have not found the time to work on the writeup yet as as been done for all previous methods.
The goal is to have a section for Bouncers with a running example that showcases all the steps of the algorithms and a theorem that states the correctness of the method. I would be happy to discuss it in more depth with you if you feel like it’s something you would like to participate to!
It’s not clear yet what will be the best thing to do once bouncers are done, as many techniques (including already approved ones, with higher parameters) could apply.
By the way, you are most welcome to join our Discord server where most of the discussions happen
Meanwhile, happy holidays!