## Search found 68 matches

- Sat May 30, 2020 9:14 pm
- Forum: Clarifications on Project Euler Problems
- Topic: Problem 225
- Replies:
**1** - Views:
**725**

### Re: Problem 225

Yes.

- Fri May 15, 2020 3:58 pm
- Forum: Clarifications on Project Euler Problems
- Topic: Problem 329
- Replies:
**18** - Views:
**8154**

### Re: Problem 329

is it right to assume that the events "nth croak equals Xn", where Xn in {P, N}, are stochastically independent? I'm not sure I entirely understand the question, but I think the answer is "No". Let's put it this way. If the frog started near the small numbers (around 5 say), the...

- Fri May 15, 2020 3:42 pm
- Forum: Clarifications on Project Euler Problems
- Topic: Problem 284
- Replies:
**7** - Views:
**3728**

### Re: Problem 284

I am finding 9 results I won't tell you the values, but I will confirm that you are correct that you are missing some solutions. If your original solution isn't working, try it a different way (another language or method) and you might find them, the solution space is not so large for this range.

- Fri May 15, 2020 3:28 pm
- Forum: Clarifications on Project Euler Problems
- Topic: Problem 315
- Replies:
**29** - Views:
**12339**

### Re: Problem 315

We prefer not to give out more test cases. Given that it sounds as if your individual calculations are correct, perhaps it's something different - eg the prime number algorithm.hamsterofdeath wrote: ↑Wed May 06, 2020 10:58 pm i also tried a few numbers and confirmed the result manually. everything seems to be correct.

- Sun Mar 08, 2020 9:35 pm
- Forum: News, Suggestions, and FAQ
- Topic: Sort threads in forum by Kudos given
- Replies:
**2** - Views:
**1784**

### Re: Sort threads in forum by Kudos given

It's still there for me, hopefully for you too. Click on the gold star in the top right corner of the problem thread.

- Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:00 pm
- Forum: Clarifications on Project Euler Problems
- Topic: Problem 483
- Replies:
**1** - Views:
**1502**

### Re: Problem 483

Edited values out of above post and send PM.

- Wed Feb 27, 2019 10:59 am
- Forum: Clarifications on Project Euler Problems
- Topic: Problem 008
- Replies:
**102** - Views:
**37527**

### Re: Problem 008

Thanks, post moved as suggested. In terms of an answer, your alternative wording might indeed be better, but personally I'm reluctant to change the wording of a problem that has been around for so long. The older the problem, the more the wording should stand I feel, unless it really is misleading, ...

- Sun Jan 21, 2018 8:17 pm
- Forum: Recreational
- Topic: Winning Lottery with Prime Number!?
- Replies:
**8** - Views:
**12739**

### Re: Winning Lottery with Prime Number!?

Interesting talk. For fun, some years ago (20ish!) I did a very naive analysis of the UK lottery to try to determine popular numbers. My results were not very strong, but there was certainly some indication of 1-30 being more popular. However, I noticed another trend that might be worth exploring. A...

- Sun Dec 31, 2017 7:17 pm
- Forum: News, Suggestions, and FAQ
- Topic: Statistics on problems solved so far
- Replies:
**19** - Views:
**11132**

### Re: Statistics on problems solved so far

However, as of today, the count concerning the one 100% problem I have solved so far has disappeared (it was still there yesterday). Could it be that the way non-finalised difficulties are handled may have changed since yesterday? Or perhaps it is a bug? Yesterday, the table reported 18 available p...

- Fri Dec 29, 2017 8:00 pm
- Forum: Number
- Topic: Prime generation
- Replies:
**3** - Views:
**9576**

### Re: Prime generation

What you have got there are 4 of the lucky numbers of Euler. The others are the rather more trivial smaller values. It has indeed been proved that no larger numbers of this type exist, but I suspect the proof is not so easy. A simpler insight into why this should be would be interesting.

- Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:51 pm
- Forum: Clarifications on Project Euler Problems
- Topic: Problem 616
- Replies:
**16** - Views:
**5130**

- Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:39 pm
- Forum: Clarifications on Project Euler Problems
- Topic: Problem 287
- Replies:
**14** - Views:
**6522**

### Re: Problem 287

I think you're right that if you were using this as a genuine image encoding scheme, you'd also have to specify the size, which is not contained in the code itself as described here. However, for the purposes of this problem, we do know N, so the problem is completely determined, even if the encodin...

- Sat Dec 09, 2017 2:48 pm
- Forum: News, Suggestions, and FAQ
- Topic: About correct form of output
- Replies:
**3** - Views:
**1802**

### Re: About correct form of output

In those cases I believe 00012345 and 1.23450 would be correct.

I hope I'm not giving away too much (though it does provide a small amount of extra information) to say that whenever possible, we do try to avoid these sorts of circumstances that are likely to lead to answer formatting difficulties.

I hope I'm not giving away too much (though it does provide a small amount of extra information) to say that whenever possible, we do try to avoid these sorts of circumstances that are likely to lead to answer formatting difficulties.

- Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:54 pm
- Forum: News, Suggestions, and FAQ
- Topic: Difficulty Rating for New Problems
- Replies:
**20** - Views:
**6545**

### Re: Difficulty Rating for New Problems

If it makes you feel better, I did assess this one as Medium, but was out-voted. It's one of those that depends on you having mastered a technique from earlier in the problem set.philiplu wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:34 pm Hmm, I guess that means Poohsticks Marathon,Problem 589(View Problem) was supposed to be easy, given the standard posting cadence?

- Fri Dec 01, 2017 3:10 pm
- Forum: News, Suggestions, and FAQ
- Topic: Difficulty Rating for New Problems
- Replies:
**20** - Views:
**6545**

### Re: Difficulty Rating for New Problems

Interesting discussion. I would like to suggest 450 as another under-estimate. From it's position in the sequence, it must have been rated Medium, but turned out to be one of the hardest. I have a particular liking of this problem, since it was my first time in the top 100 (three months after its re...

- Sun Nov 05, 2017 11:41 pm
- Forum: Clarifications on Project Euler Problems
- Topic: Problem 041
- Replies:
**25** - Views:
**9876**

### Re: problem 41

This answer is wrong as an 8 digit pandigital number must consist of the digits 1-8.ethereal1m wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2017 5:33 pm I gotfrom my calculation but it's wrong.Code: Select all

`98765431`

- Thu Jun 08, 2017 7:38 pm
- Forum: Clarifications on Project Euler Problems
- Topic: Problem 353
- Replies:
**10** - Views:
**6396**

### Re: Problem 353

I'm sure I made the same mistake too.MuthuVeerappanR wrote: ↑Thu Jun 08, 2017 2:34 pm Thanks sjhillier. I solved it yesterday. Turns out one of my assumptions only fails for the k = 8 case.

- Thu Jun 08, 2017 2:33 pm
- Forum: Clarifications on Project Euler Problems
- Topic: Problem 261
- Replies:
**26** - Views:
**11239**

### Re: Problem 261

Thierry, your post has been edited, and I've sent you a PM.

- Thu Jun 08, 2017 2:13 pm
- Forum: Clarifications on Project Euler Problems
- Topic: Problem 353
- Replies:
**10** - Views:
**6396**

### Re: Problem 353

Well you certainly have to be precise, but no more so than many other problems. There are other possible error modes, but it would be wrong to say more.

- Thu May 25, 2017 7:25 pm
- Forum: Clarifications on Project Euler Problems
- Topic: Problem 604
- Replies:
**3** - Views:
**2720**