Yes, but will Waldowski find it back there?Lord_Farin wrote: As for the question itself, it might be better asked in the Programming Languages section (mods?)
Problem 162
Forum rules
As your posts will be visible to the general public you
are requested to be thoughtful in not posting anything
that might explicitly give away how to solve a particular problem.
This forum is NOT meant to discuss solution methods for a problem.
See also the topics:
Don't post any spoilers
Comments, questions and clarifications about PE problems.
As your posts will be visible to the general public you
are requested to be thoughtful in not posting anything
that might explicitly give away how to solve a particular problem.
This forum is NOT meant to discuss solution methods for a problem.
In particular don't post any code fragments or results.
Don't start begging others to give partial answers to problems
Don't ask for hints how to solve a problem
Don't start a new topic for a problem if there already exists one
Don't start begging others to give partial answers to problems
Don't ask for hints how to solve a problem
Don't start a new topic for a problem if there already exists one
See also the topics:
Don't post any spoilers
Comments, questions and clarifications about PE problems.
Re: Problem 162
Re: Problem 162
First off, thank you Lord_Farin for the answer.
Second, I apologise for not noticing the Programming Languages section. I should have checked first. But I still feel there is justification for asking the question here, as the context is the problem. In any case, I apologise again.
Second, I apologise for not noticing the Programming Languages section. I should have checked first. But I still feel there is justification for asking the question here, as the context is the problem. In any case, I apologise again.

 Posts: 38
 Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 8:49 am
Re: Problem 162
Could someone post answer for the case of "at most 5 digits", please?
EDIT: Not needed any more. I have very peculiar situation here  answers up to and including "at most 13 digits" are correct, but after that start to differ  at 14 digits by only 6, at 16 digits by ~2000. I thought it had something to do with rounding (you can have that in c# while raising numbers to power), so I made it roundproof, but the error stays. Very interesting.
EDIT2: Managed to make my answer coincide with the correct one at 14 digits. Now they differ by only 36 at 15 digits and ~600 at 16 digits. I guess chances are virtually zero that my algorithm is fundamentally wrong  has to be some precision problem.
EDIT3: Problem solved. But this is stupid. Spending an hour or more on overflow issues, rounding, etc.. But as a reward, I guess, it takes less than 10ms for my program to deliver the answer.
EDIT: Not needed any more. I have very peculiar situation here  answers up to and including "at most 13 digits" are correct, but after that start to differ  at 14 digits by only 6, at 16 digits by ~2000. I thought it had something to do with rounding (you can have that in c# while raising numbers to power), so I made it roundproof, but the error stays. Very interesting.
EDIT2: Managed to make my answer coincide with the correct one at 14 digits. Now they differ by only 36 at 15 digits and ~600 at 16 digits. I guess chances are virtually zero that my algorithm is fundamentally wrong  has to be some precision problem.
EDIT3: Problem solved. But this is stupid. Spending an hour or more on overflow issues, rounding, etc.. But as a reward, I guess, it takes less than 10ms for my program to deliver the answer.
Re: Problem 162
I got 703 doing this by hand. I programmed the same method for this problem, but I can't seem to get the answer correct. Is there anyone I can PM with my numbers for 1116 digit numbers?daniel.is.fischer wrote:How many 4digit (decimal) numbers are there containing the digits 0 and 1?
According to your first post there would be (41)*(41)*10^{2} = 900.
But you've counted 1001 several times:
1) place 0 in second place, then 1 in first, fill remaining places
2) place 0 in second place, then 1 in last, fill
3) place 0 in third place, 1 in first, fill
4) place 0 in third place, 1 in last, fill.
Actually, there are only 703 decimal 4digit numbers containing the digits 0 and 1.
Err... and how do you PM someone anyway? Last PM I tried to send seems to be stuck in my outbox. Is there a way to actually send it or does it stay marked this way until the person reads it?
Edit: cancel that. Seems I misread the problem badly and was counting the number that contained all the digits 0A at least once...
 PurpleBlu3s
 Posts: 73
 Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 6:49 pm
Re: Problem 162
For 5 digits, is 16260 correct or very close?
Re: Problem 162
Wrong radix, I think. "Give your answer as a hexadecimal number."PurpleBlu3s wrote:For 5 digits, is 16260 correct or very close?
If treated as a decimal number, that answer is wrong at the second digit.
 PurpleBlu3s
 Posts: 73
 Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 6:49 pm
Re: Problem 162
Yeah that was the decimal version. I thought I was very close to a formula for the answer, but I guess not then. :<thundre wrote:Wrong radix, I think. "Give your answer as a hexadecimal number."PurpleBlu3s wrote:For 5 digits, is 16260 correct or very close?
If treated as a decimal number, that answer is wrong at the second digit.
 PurpleBlu3s
 Posts: 73
 Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 6:49 pm
Re: Problem 162
Is 10190 correct for at least 5 digits? (Making sure my brute force test works.)
EDIT: Nevermind  solved now.
EDIT: Nevermind  solved now.

 Posts: 11
 Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 12:44 pm
Re: Problem 162
This one was very difficult for me, as I am not very good at calculating combinatorics with confidence. Usually the examples given in the problem are more useful then here. There could've been an example for 4 digit numbers instead of just 3 digit numbers. Would have helped a lot with the debugging.
Re: Problem 162
For those who use Math.Pow(x,y) function of C# it may be useful (actually  very useful  as i spen two hours debugging the bug) to know that if you try to convert the result to long you may loose significant bits if the result is close to 2^64.....

 Posts: 41
 Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2014 2:06 pm
 Location: The Netherlands
Re: Problem 162
After a few hours of typing in answers with only the last 4 digits wrong, I've finally solved. But I still have a few questions:
How did all those people solve it? All those formula's... I've solved it like kotulek (almost exactly the same, but other language) and I don't understand what they are doing. It doesn't help that all formula's seem to differ just a bit. There's also something wrong with the formula from rayfil, the only one who explained it a bit: it's mostly weird characters like Ã and ¬. So could anyone explain that to me?
Second question: first I tried it in C, but I forget to adapt my pow() to unsigned long long, so it didn't work and I thought the numbers were just to big. Then I tried Python, but strangely, I had a precison problem: because I divided bij n, it handled the numbers as floats, not integers. Even when I typed int(.../n), it didn't work. Is there a way around this: it would seem strange if Python, with unlimited precision with integers, couldn't handle division.
How did all those people solve it? All those formula's... I've solved it like kotulek (almost exactly the same, but other language) and I don't understand what they are doing. It doesn't help that all formula's seem to differ just a bit. There's also something wrong with the formula from rayfil, the only one who explained it a bit: it's mostly weird characters like Ã and ¬. So could anyone explain that to me?
Second question: first I tried it in C, but I forget to adapt my pow() to unsigned long long, so it didn't work and I thought the numbers were just to big. Then I tried Python, but strangely, I had a precison problem: because I divided bij n, it handled the numbers as floats, not integers. Even when I typed int(.../n), it didn't work. Is there a way around this: it would seem strange if Python, with unlimited precision with integers, couldn't handle division.
 nicolas.patrois
 Posts: 118
 Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 4:54 pm
 Contact:
Re: Problem 162
14/5=2 in Python 2 but 14/5=2.8 in Python 3. Use 14//5 in Python 3 if you want the integer quotient.

 Posts: 41
 Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2014 2:06 pm
 Location: The Netherlands
Re: Problem 162
Thanks!
Re: Problem 162
Sorry about that mishap. This is the very first report regarding this anomaly. Something may have changed in the site script since that post in October 2007. It did seem to display correctly at that time.There's also something wrong with the formula from rayfil, the only one who explained it a bit: it's mostly weird characters like Ã and ¬. So could anyone explain that to me?
I have now edited the post to replace what had been used at the time to indicate a multiplying sign (being currently displayed as a series of funny characters such as what you described) by the more standard "*" sign.
When you assume something, you risk being wrong half the time.
 Breaker71413901
 Posts: 5
 Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 12:35 am
Re: Problem 162
This is the first time I am posting in such a thread.
For this problem, my program's results for the exactly 3, 4 and 5 long numbers agrees with those of this thread's and also for my brute forced exactly 6. But when I add all the results from exactly 3 to exactly 16 and convert it to hexadecimal, I get a wrong answer.
I am using Python 2.something.
My algorythm is the same as for some other problems I already got a correct answer.
How am I able to get some guide without spoiling any details of the problem or breaking any rules?
For this problem, my program's results for the exactly 3, 4 and 5 long numbers agrees with those of this thread's and also for my brute forced exactly 6. But when I add all the results from exactly 3 to exactly 16 and convert it to hexadecimal, I get a wrong answer.
I am using Python 2.something.
My algorythm is the same as for some other problems I already got a correct answer.
How am I able to get some guide without spoiling any details of the problem or breaking any rules?
Re: Problem 162
You can PM me your results for up to 6, up to 7, ... hexadecimal digits and I'll tell you the 1st wrong value.
Re: Problem 162
All values are correct.
 Breaker71413901
 Posts: 5
 Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 12:35 am
Re: Problem 162
Thanks. The problem was with my converting. I guess I should not use online converters again, I was just being lazy.