No, that is still not the purpose of this forum.

As Animus said, "it is not appropiate to ask for help for recent problems that have not even reached 100 solvers".

- Tue Feb 19, 2019 8:48 am
- Forum: Clarifications on Project Euler Problems
- Topic: Problem 656
- Replies:
**9** - Views:
**112**

No, that is still not the purpose of this forum.

As Animus said, "it is not appropiate to ask for help for recent problems that have not even reached 100 solvers".

- Fri Feb 01, 2019 6:27 pm
- Forum: Clarifications on Project Euler Problems
- Topic: Problem 090
- Replies:
**46** - Views:
**10840**

For the purposes of this problem, an "arrangement of two cubes" means a set of two cubes, where each cube is a set of six digits. Thus your "set of sets" interpretation is correct. If two "arrangements of two cubes" are found to differ from one another only be reordering the cubes, or by reordering ...

- Sun Nov 18, 2018 11:46 am
- Forum: Clarifications on Project Euler Problems
- Topic: Problem 643
- Replies:
**8** - Views:
**2163**

- Fri Nov 16, 2018 10:02 am
- Forum: Clarifications on Project Euler Problems
- Topic: Problem 420
- Replies:
**11** - Views:
**4018**

To be clear: 'squaring' a matrix refers specifically to matrix multiplication of a matrix with itself.

- Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:48 am
- Forum: News, Suggestions, and FAQ
- Topic: Errors/Warnings/Bugs
- Replies:
**469** - Views:
**73278**

I think the closing tag needs to contain '/code' rather than '\code'. In the thread for problem 633 in the forum, I posted my solution: https://projecteuler.net/thread=633;page=2#316037 The problem is that the "code" token or "code=Matlab" doesn't work: the token is printed out, and the code followi...

- Wed Sep 12, 2018 9:37 pm
- Forum: News, Suggestions, and FAQ
- Topic: Project Euler problem proposal rejects.
- Replies:
**4** - Views:
**1721**

I have already sent vamsikal3 a PM. The Admins are looking into this.

kenbrooker wrote: ↑Wed Sep 12, 2018 9:31 pmvamsikal3,

I hope my PM didn't thwart an

Administrator's reply to

your question?

- Tue Aug 14, 2018 6:56 pm
- Forum: Clarifications on Project Euler Problems
- Topic: Problem 353
- Replies:
**10** - Views:
**3680**

Are we supposed to calculate every single integer set of coordinates or are the only coordinates going to be (0,r,r) and stuff like that The admissible paths (from which you are asked to find the one with the lowest risk) are permitted to use any of the integer-coordinate points on the surface of $...

- Wed Aug 01, 2018 7:12 am
- Forum: Clarifications on Project Euler Problems
- Topic: Problem 381
- Replies:
**9** - Views:
**3572**

I've removed your values from public view, but I can confirm that they were all correct.enigmaticcam wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 11:44 pmI'm getting an answer, but it's not correct. However I'm able to produce the correct number when p < 10^2. Can someone confirm if the next few powers of 10 are correct?

- Mon Jun 25, 2018 8:36 am
- Forum: Clarifications on Project Euler Problems
- Topic: Problem 301
- Replies:
**9** - Views:
**1391**

Ah, I see. Nevertheless, the question is correct as stated.

{0, 0, 0} is a losing triple, but it does*not* count towards the answer.

If people need to count it to get the correct answer, it is likely they have an off-by-one error elsewhere.

{0, 0, 0} is a losing triple, but it does

If people need to count it to get the correct answer, it is likely they have an off-by-one error elsewhere.

- Mon Jun 25, 2018 7:29 am
- Forum: Clarifications on Project Euler Problems
- Topic: Problem 301
- Replies:
**9** - Views:
**1391**

I'm happy to clarify that {0,0,0} is indeed a losing triplet. The player is "unable to move (because no stones remain)".

- Mon Jun 11, 2018 5:46 pm
- Forum: Clarifications on Project Euler Problems
- Topic: Problem 062
- Replies:
**15** - Views:
**3481**

@Winthermute - I have merged your post with the existing clarification topic for this problem.

- Thu May 10, 2018 3:06 pm
- Forum: Clarifications on Project Euler Problems
- Topic: problem 206
- Replies:
**33** - Views:
**8613**

I expect your calculator is rounding to ten significant digits, so the fractional part has been truncated.

- Thu May 10, 2018 2:58 pm
- Forum: Clarifications on Project Euler Problems
- Topic: problem 206
- Replies:
**33** - Views:
**8613**

1928374655647382910 is not a perfect square.

- Thu May 10, 2018 2:50 pm
- Forum: Clarifications on Project Euler Problems
- Topic: problem 206
- Replies:
**33** - Views:
**8613**

@thechosenone98: I have moved your post to the correct forum for problem clarifications. Also, please do not post answers in public view !!! I have removed it from your post. To answer your question, 1388659302 is not a valid solution. The value you give for its square is not correct, and is not eve...

- Mon May 07, 2018 1:10 pm
- Forum: Clarifications on Project Euler Problems
- Topic: Problem 023
- Replies:
**52** - Views:
**13908**

Dear Liad777, I have moved your post to the existing thread for this problem. In general, the "Problem xxx" naming convention (with leading zeros) in this forum means it should be possible to find such threads where they already exist. As for your question, 28123 is merely an upper bound that you ar...

- Wed May 02, 2018 6:26 pm
- Forum: Recreational
- Topic: why are hints for solutions not allowed?
- Replies:
**2** - Views:
**2184**

Project Euler's approach has always been "If you can't solve it, you can't solve it", which is why PE does not provide an open forum for discussing solution methods.

You may be interested in this thread, in which a tangentially related point was discussed.

You may be interested in this thread, in which a tangentially related point was discussed.

- Sat Apr 28, 2018 12:25 pm
- Forum: Clarifications on Project Euler Problems
- Topic: Problem 352
- Replies:
**35** - Views:
**9769**

@hamsterofdeath: I sent you a PM.

- Fri Apr 27, 2018 6:16 pm
- Forum: Clarifications on Project Euler Problems
- Topic: Problem 493
- Replies:
**5** - Views:
**1708**

This is indeed the correct forum for discussing issues with understanding the wording of a problem. The problem only talks about the number of distinct colours in the draw. So, whether the balls have any other distinguishing marks (aside from their colour) is irrelevant. The order of the draw (and w...

- Wed Apr 18, 2018 6:32 pm
- Forum: Clarifications on Project Euler Problems
- Topic: Problem 064
- Replies:
**24** - Views:
**7113**

Dear Omri_Shavit,

I moved your post to the existing clarification thread for this problem.

Based on your workings for the first 13 cases, you understand the problem statement correctly.

Moreover, the continued fraction you provided for 9999 was correct - but your overall answer was much too low.

I moved your post to the existing clarification thread for this problem.

Based on your workings for the first 13 cases, you understand the problem statement correctly.

Moreover, the continued fraction you provided for 9999 was correct - but your overall answer was much too low.

- Thu Apr 05, 2018 6:24 pm
- Forum: Clarifications on Project Euler Problems
- Topic: Problem 141
- Replies:
**27** - Views:
**9091**

Yes, you are correct.Oliver1978 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 05, 2018 5:47 pmMy thoughts concerning the sample numbers from the description: 9 is in the list because with d=2 we get q=4, r=1. For this [1,2,4] there's the factor 2 forming this geometric sequence.

Am I right with this? Or am I completely going wrong?