Problem 386
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.
Problem 386
I understand it is perhaps too early to ask for help in this problem, but i would appreciate if someone who solved it comment on my values:
EDIT: Values removed, at least for the time.
EDIT: Values removed, at least for the time.
Last edited by Djinx on Mon May 28, 2012 4:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Problem 386
Yes it is by some weeks.Djinx wrote:I understand it is perhaps too early to ask for help in this problem,
Re: Problem 386
Okay, then. Should I remove the post altogether?hk wrote:Yes it is by some weeks.Djinx wrote:I understand it is perhaps too early to ask for help in this problem,
Re: Problem 386
I leave that to your courtesy.
Re: Problem 386
Considering that the number of solvers has already crossed the 100 mark, and the peculiarity of problems I am facing, I feel justified in asking for help one more time.
I could find a formula for the answer, and it does work perfectly fine against values I found against those by brute force for n=100, 1000, 10000. I also verified my code for some random values under 10^8. However, the final answer is still not accepted.
EDIT: It all turned out to be an overflow error . I apologize for my impatience.
I could find a formula for the answer, and it does work perfectly fine against values I found against those by brute force for n=100, 1000, 10000. I also verified my code for some random values under 10^8. However, the final answer is still not accepted.
EDIT: It all turned out to be an overflow error . I apologize for my impatience.
Last edited by Djinx on Thu May 31, 2012 1:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Problem 386
That's a hallmark for overflow problems.Djinx wrote: I could find a formula for the answer, and it does work perfectly fine against values I found against those by brute force for n=100, 1000, 10000. I also verified my code for some random values under 10^8. However, the final answer is still not accepted.
So if you could be so kind as to remove all information about the problem itself, i.e. your spelled out assumptions that would be great.
Re: Problem 386
Hi, I just want to know whether the solution is under the limit of 32 bits.hk wrote: That's a hallmark for overflow problems.
And can anyone provide a sample case please.

 Posts: 100
 Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 8:49 pm
Re: Problem 386
Can someone confirm if the maximal antichain for 120120 = 30?
Re: Problem 386
Yes, the sum fits in 32 bits.
edit: Hidden because it was WRONG.
LarryBlake wrote:Can someone confirm if the maximal antichain for 120120 = 30?
Expand
Last edited by thundre on Thu Feb 07, 2013 1:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

 Posts: 100
 Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 8:49 pm
Re: Problem 386
Thundre, I just verified that my antichain of 30 elements contains no divisible numbers. Did you mean that 29 is the highest index starting at zero?
In any case, is it safe to say that there is no larger antichain for N(120120)?
In any case, is it safe to say that there is no larger antichain for N(120120)?
Re: Problem 386
30 is correct for 120120. I typed in 210210, which has a shorter maximal antichain.LarryBlake wrote:Thundre, I just verified that my antichain of 30 elements contains no divisible numbers. Did you mean that 29 is the highest index starting at zero?
In any case, is it safe to say that there is no larger antichain for N(120120)?
I apologize for the bad advice.

 Posts: 100
 Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 8:49 pm
Re: Problem 386
No problem, thanks for the reply.
Guess I won't be in the first 100 solvers for this one.
Guess I won't be in the first 100 solvers for this one.

 Posts: 3
 Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2015 3:22 pm
Problem 386
Hi,
since this problem is now nearly four years old and solved by over 400 the text is apparently clear enough.
Still, I was initially bemused for a few moments by the problem text.
The first line says
Let ...S(n) be the set of factors of n.
Then, a few lines lower:
For example: S(30) = {1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 15, 30} \
Are the factors of 30 not {2,3,5} ?
Shouldn't the first line say: divisors ?
since this problem is now nearly four years old and solved by over 400 the text is apparently clear enough.
Still, I was initially bemused for a few moments by the problem text.
The first line says
Let ...S(n) be the set of factors of n.
Then, a few lines lower:
For example: S(30) = {1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 15, 30} \
Are the factors of 30 not {2,3,5} ?
Shouldn't the first line say: divisors ?
Re: Problem 386
Factor and Divisor mean the same thing in this context. {2,3,5} are the prime factors or prime divisors.tinnderbox wrote:The first line says
Let ...S(n) be the set of factors of n.
Then, a few lines lower:
For example: S(30) = {1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 15, 30} \
Are the factors of 30 not {2,3,5} ?
Shouldn't the first line say: divisors ?
_{Jaap's Puzzle Page}