Great,

so I got an Award for free this time (Difficulty Explorer).

Me likes

## Search found 55 matches

- Fri Nov 29, 2019 8:17 am
- Forum: News, Suggestions, and FAQ
- Topic: New awards.
- Replies:
**68** - Views:
**28014**

- Wed Aug 21, 2019 8:51 am
- Forum: News, Suggestions, and FAQ
- Topic: Errors/Warnings/Bugs
- Replies:
**575** - Views:
**153547**

### Re: Errors/Warnings/Bugs

Minor hickup at the moment..

seems that the profile pictures are currently not generated.

(like in https://projecteuler.net/profile/Jochen_P.png)

seems that the profile pictures are currently not generated.

(like in https://projecteuler.net/profile/Jochen_P.png)

- Fri Jul 12, 2019 7:55 am
- Forum: Clarifications on Project Euler Problems
- Topic: Problem 155
- Replies:
**17** - Views:
**7829**

### Re: problem 155

Claude,

to answer your first question:

D(13) is indeed a 5-digit figure but it starts with 3 and ends with an odd digit.

hth

Jochen

to answer your first question:

D(13) is indeed a 5-digit figure but it starts with 3 and ends with an odd digit.

hth

Jochen

- Mon May 06, 2019 1:51 pm
- Forum: News, Suggestions, and FAQ
- Topic: Errors/Warnings/Bugs
- Replies:
**575** - Views:
**153547**

### Re: Errors/Warnings/Bugs

same behaviour on https://projecteuler.net/country=Germany;page=8

- Tue Mar 26, 2019 7:39 am
- Forum: Clarifications on Project Euler Problems
- Topic: Problem 662
- Replies:
**6** - Views:
**4293**

### Re: Problem 662

Arrgh, cannot unsee this.

*Autistic screeching

*Autistic screeching

- Tue Jan 29, 2019 7:07 pm
- Forum: Clarifications on Project Euler Problems
- Topic: Problem 084
- Replies:
**29** - Views:
**11374**

### Re: Problem 084

Well, I sit here and are completely baffled. Got desperate and tried my code with two 4-sided die, and guess what; Green Tick :shock: [edit] an admin may edit this if it reveals too much: had to revert to numpy for random dice throws as the standard random implementation in python is too unreliable ...

- Tue Jan 29, 2019 7:01 pm
- Forum: Clarifications on Project Euler Problems
- Topic: Problem 084
- Replies:
**29** - Views:
**11374**

### Re: Problem 084

Yay! my code keeps insisting that "100024" is the modal string for two six-sided die :-D That's a tad bit frustrating .. Ah, and I implemented the rule to just accumulate the doubles except there are 3 of them, otherwise my result would be "101918" :shock: [edith says:] now that I ran it for a coupl...

- Mon Jan 07, 2019 7:47 am
- Forum: Clarifications on Project Euler Problems
- Topic: Problem 622
- Replies:
**6** - Views:
**5330**

### Re: Problem 622

Really interesting little problem (imho 15% is a bit low) In the mean time I know exactly what the maximum deck size for s(n) = 60 is, or any other amount of shuffles for that matter, (No, you can't shuffle this deck by hand or even forklift :D ) but the decks in between are still a mistery to me. Y...

- Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:08 pm
- Forum: Clarifications on Project Euler Problems
- Topic: Problem 485
- Replies:
**8** - Views:
**3318**

### Re: Problem 485

Finally!

one minor tweak made it general use ... Phew, that was hard work. [you may visit the problems forum post #91 to make fun of me ]

Now only one to go to reach level 8

one minor tweak made it general use ... Phew, that was hard work. [you may visit the problems forum post #91 to make fun of me ]

Now only one to go to reach level 8

- Tue Dec 04, 2018 1:34 pm
- Forum: Clarifications on Project Euler Problems
- Topic: Problem 485
- Replies:
**8** - Views:
**3318**

### Re: Problem 485

Crickey!

this was a real brainf* regarding zero based indexes and bounds and predictive computing in reachable ranges.

Brain hurts big time, but now I got the test case correct (below 1 msec)

[edit] sure enough my final answer is still wrong! I hate this problem [/edit]

this was a real brainf* regarding zero based indexes and bounds and predictive computing in reachable ranges.

Brain hurts big time, but now I got the test case correct (below 1 msec)

[edit] sure enough my final answer is still wrong! I hate this problem [/edit]

- Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:09 pm
- Forum: Clarifications on Project Euler Problems
- Topic: Problem 485
- Replies:
**8** - Views:
**3318**

### Re: Problem 485

Hi Ken, good hint, but my Divisor Count function is ok (got the correct result for S(1000,10) by doing it the naive way, which would take days for the original Problem) There is something obvious wrong with my S() implementation which I just don't see yet .. proofed only test cases yet, maybe there ...

- Mon Dec 03, 2018 5:38 pm
- Forum: Clarifications on Project Euler Problems
- Topic: Problem 485
- Replies:
**8** - Views:
**3318**

### Re: Problem 485

I keep getting 16739 for S(1000,10), pretty fast but obviously wrong. This drives me mad :evil: I'm pretty sure my algo for S() should work though. Got the wrong result for the problems answer in about 126 seconds :mrgreen: Anyone keen to give a second pair of eyes on my python code, or experienced ...

- Fri Nov 16, 2018 9:33 am
- Forum: Clarifications on Project Euler Problems
- Topic: Problem 420
- Replies:
**11** - Views:
**6076**

### Re: Problem 420

Nope, sorry. Still don't get it. Seems that I'm a bit thick today :( [edit] The only thing I see there is that the ratios on the diagonals are the same in every matrix, but how that accounts for those lesser matrices to be squared? No clue[/edit] [edit 2] Animus was so kind to link me to the corresp...

- Fri Nov 16, 2018 9:02 am
- Forum: Clarifications on Project Euler Problems
- Topic: Problem 420
- Replies:
**11** - Views:
**6076**

### Re: Problem 420

I don't get this at all.. Can someone explain to me how these matrices relate to each other? The sum of those matrices are different and I just can't make out any other relation :oops: taking the sample: https://projecteuler.net/project/images/p420_matrix.gif Maybe I'm just a bit undercaffeinated?

- Mon Oct 01, 2018 6:19 pm
- Forum: Clarifications on Project Euler Problems
- Topic: Problem 615
- Replies:
**3** - Views:
**2611**

### Re: Problem 615

well, yeah, sure. Thanks

should've seen the ease of selftesting.

Now to find out where and why the easy to spot pattern from the example values breaks

should've seen the ease of selftesting.

Now to find out where and why the easy to spot pattern from the example values breaks

- Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:43 am
- Forum: Clarifications on Project Euler Problems
- Topic: Problem 615
- Replies:
**3** - Views:
**2611**

### Re: Problem 615

Can someone confirm the 1000th number with at least 5 Prime Factors to be 9576 ?

thank you

thank you

- Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:33 am
- Forum: Clarifications on Project Euler Problems
- Topic: Problem 321
- Replies:
**17** - Views:
**6277**

### Re: Problem 321

Got it ... very nice pattern, not easy to spot

- Mon Sep 10, 2018 12:52 pm
- Forum: Clarifications on Project Euler Problems
- Topic: Problem 321
- Replies:
**17** - Views:
**6277**

- Tue Apr 03, 2018 8:48 pm
- Forum: Clarifications on Project Euler Problems
- Topic: Problem 333
- Replies:
**11** - Views:
**4957**

### Re: Problem 333

... way too long to get even sum P(q)=1 for q<10**3.

4600 in a bit more than an hour m(

Can't think of any other good way to optimize that anymore, there are way too many partitions to check.

There has to be a simple rule/formula for excluding terms in this, but damn, do I suck at maths

4600 in a bit more than an hour m(

Can't think of any other good way to optimize that anymore, there are way too many partitions to check.

There has to be a simple rule/formula for excluding terms in this, but damn, do I suck at maths

- Wed Mar 28, 2018 8:09 pm
- Forum: Clarifications on Project Euler Problems
- Topic: Problem 333
- Replies:
**11** - Views:
**4957**

### Re: Problem 333

Aye, thanx a lot!

I kind of left them out by purpose.. thought once again incorrectly that a partition must consist of n>1 elements. m(

Now to make this bugger efficient. Runs way too long to get P(q)=1 for q<10**6

I kind of left them out by purpose.. thought once again incorrectly that a partition must consist of n>1 elements. m(

Now to make this bugger efficient. Runs way too long to get P(q)=1 for q<10**6