Problem 293

A place to air possible concerns or difficulties in understanding ProjectEuler problems. This forum is not meant to publish solutions. This forum is NOT meant to discuss solution methods or giving hints how a problem can be solved.
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.

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


See also the topics:
Don't post any spoilers
Comments, questions and clarifications about PE problems.
Post Reply
kingvash
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 2:57 am

Problem 293

Post by kingvash »

I am having a hard time understanding why 15 is not on the list 15 = 3 * 5 and it seems like those are consecutive primes.


EDIT:
sorry it is a late night.
Last edited by kingvash on Sat May 22, 2010 8:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
harryh
Posts: 2091
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:33 pm
Location: Thessaloniki, Greece

Re: Problem 293

Post by harryh »

"An even positive integer N will be called admissible, if ...." 8-)
User avatar
sfabriz
Posts: 175
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 12:18 am
Location: London - UK

Re: Problem 293

Post by sfabriz »

Got me on this one too :shock:
Image
albert
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 12:36 pm

Re: Problem 293

Post by albert »

Somehow consecutive primes suggest that 3*5 is a possibility.
Fortunate numbers are numbers that are the product of all primes under a certain limit.
I would prefer the phrasing that pseudo-Fortunate means divisible by all primes under a certain limit, and not divisible by primes above or at that limit.
Now it is suggested that a product of only factors 2 is an exception, while it is not.
After I got my answer rejected and I discovered that 15 was missing from the list, it took me a long time before I found that i missed the word even in the description.

Groetjes Albert
TripleM
Posts: 382
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Problem 293

Post by TripleM »

To be honest, if you didn't read a word in the description then that's not really the problem's fault.

And powers of 2 are a special case, as the word 'consecutive' only applies to two or more numbers. Other definitions like the one you proposed or the one in the problem's forum are rather clumsy wording.

While there is no need to change the statement at all, perhaps it would be best to change the first sentence as follows:
A positive integer N will be called admissible, if it is a power of 2 or its distinct prime factors are consecutive primes, starting from 2.
User avatar
Oliver1978
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: Erfurt, Germany

Re: Problem 293

Post by Oliver1978 »

Pushed... So speaking of "factors are consecutive primes" means always counting from 2?
49.157.5694.1125
User avatar
dawghaus4
Posts: 56
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2013 2:22 am

Re: Problem 293

Post by dawghaus4 »

leghorn wrote:Pushed... So speaking of "factors are consecutive primes" means always counting from 2?

Since an admissible number must be even, 2 must be a prime factor. Thus, the consecutive primes must start at 2.

Regardless, I agree with TripleM's comment; the wording could be better.

Tom
User avatar
Oliver1978
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: Erfurt, Germany

Re: Problem 293

Post by Oliver1978 »

Well, I think I've got what I needed. But, like so many times, the final result is wrong. Which brings me to this: Consider the numbers, 2, 4, 8 and 16. The PFN for each number is 3. So does the sum make 1, because I have only one distinct PFN, or 3, because that one PFN has the value 3?

Also, is the sum for N < 1000 equal to 39?

[edit] Clarification Update [/edit]

To clarify things myself (there was a typo in my code):
1. The sum for 2, 4, 8 and 16 would be 3.
2. The sum for N < 1000 is not 39.

Differing opinions are appreciated.
49.157.5694.1125
User avatar
jaap
Posts: 559
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 3:57 pm
Contact:

Re: Problem 293

Post by jaap »

leghorn wrote:Consider the numbers, 2, 4, 8 and 16. The PFN for each number is 3. So does the sum make 1, because I have only one distinct PFN, or 3, because that one PFN has the value 3?
It doesn't say to count the distinct PFNs, but to sum them, i.e. add them together. Therefore from the results for 2,4,8,16 you would add 3 to the sum it asks you to calculate. As it asks for the sum of the distinct PFNs, you include the 3 only once in the sum, even though it occurs as a PFN many times.
leghorn wrote:Also, is the sum for N < 1000 equal to 39?
No. Try finding out what the PFN for 512 is.

Edit: I wrote this before/during the edit in the previous post.
Circling
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2020 7:33 am
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: Problem 293

Post by Circling »

Can someone verify the following info?

Sum of distinct PFN for n below 10 ** 2: 17
Sum of distinct PFN for n below 10 ** 3: 50
Sum of distinct PFN for n below 10 ** 4: 109

Are the admissable numbers supposed to be less than 10 ** 9, or is the problem asking for the sum of all different PF numbers below 10 ** 9?

EDIT: I solved it. It was an issue related to how I stored the admissable numbers.
Last edited by Circling on Sun May 09, 2021 8:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
Problem 54 is terrible
User avatar
neverforget
Posts: 39
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 10:10 pm

Re: Problem 293

Post by neverforget »

Circling wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 3:00 pm Are the admissable numbers supposed to be less than 10 ** 9, or is the problem asking for the sum of all different PF numbers below 10 ** 9?
The former. The admissible numbers have to be less than 10^9. The question is the sum of all distinct pseudo-Fortunate numbers for those numbers.
Image
Post Reply