Problem 571

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

Problem 571

Post by Oliver1978 »

I've read and re-read the description of no. 571 again and again. Also I've made up a little programme which helped me find the smallest n-super-pandigital numbers for 2 <= n <= 10. I also get the results proposed in the description, but the sum of them [2..10] is something completely different. In my case the sum ends with ...621.

For n = 7 I get 16...3 as smallest number, as an example.

Could anyone verify, and possibly contact me through PM? (To those who've already solved this problem!)
49.157.5694.1125

DJohn
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 11:24 am

Re: Problem 571

Post by DJohn »

You're adding the smallest super-pandigital number for each base from 2 to 10 (or 12). That's not what the question is asking for. In each base, there are many super-pandigital numbers (I suspect infinitely many). You want the smallest ten, all in the same base (10 for the example, 12 for the problem).

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

Re: Problem 571

Post by Oliver1978 »

:?: So it's the sum of the ten smallest pandigital numbers in base n, and those numbers have to be pandigital in all bases < n as well.
49.157.5694.1125

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

Re: Problem 571

Post by Oliver1978 »

Thanks @DJohn for pointing this out. Solved it :D
49.157.5694.1125

ignat_s
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 12:16 am

Re: Problem 571

Post by ignat_s »

Another sloppily stated problem. Where is the high standard of clarity, the Project Euler problems used to have?

It should be mentioned that zeros in the highest position do not count.

Also that you need the result in base 10. It is highly non-obvious, given that you are talking about base n all around.
Image

User avatar
hk
Administrator
Posts: 10697
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 9:34 am
Location: Haren, Netherlands

Re: Problem 571

Post by hk »

As far as I know leading zeroes are not allowed on Project Euler since the beginning.
In case of doubt, from "The sum of the 10 smallest 10-super-pandigital numbers is 20319792309." you can deduce that the answer should be given in base 10. (just try the computed answer and you will see).
So I think the high standard of clarity is still present.
Please save us your unjustified criticism.
Don't think that if we changed one wording all your criticism is justified.
Image

ignat_s
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 12:16 am

Re: Problem 571

Post by ignat_s »

Ok, sorry.
Image

User avatar
dawghaus4
Posts: 54
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2013 2:22 am

Re: Problem 571

Post by dawghaus4 »

hk wrote:As far as I know leading zeroes are not allowed on Project Euler since the beginning.
In case of doubt, from "The sum of the 10 smallest 10-super-pandigital numbers is 20319792309." you can deduce that the answer should be given in base 10. (just try the computed answer and you will see).
So I think the high standard of clarity is still present.
Please save us your unjustified criticism.
Don't think that if we changed one wording all your criticism is justified.
I don't recall ever having a problem with wether or not leading zeros should be considered; normal usage seems to prevail. I do not know how many times leading zeros have occurred, but problem 358 is an example of one such problem. Here is a quote from the problem: "Note that for cyclic numbers, leading zeros are important."

Thanks for all the time and effort y'all give to Project Euler; it is great fun for a 70-year old, who wanted to learn C++.

User avatar
hk
Administrator
Posts: 10697
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 9:34 am
Location: Haren, Netherlands

Re: Problem 571

Post by hk »

Thanks for the nice words.
Actually, I should have written:
"Leading zeroes are not allowed, unless stated otherwise."
Image

Ellenion
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 10:09 pm

Problem 571

Post by Ellenion »

A n-super-pandigital number is a number that is simultaneously pandigital in all bases from 2 to n inclusively. However, I don't know if a number can be a pandigital in base i if it has a leading zero.
Can a number in base i have a leading zero?

EDIT: I'm thinking that leading zeroes aren't allowed. Am I right?
Image

User avatar
hk
Administrator
Posts: 10697
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 9:34 am
Location: Haren, Netherlands

Re: Problem 571

Post by hk »

I moved this to the correct forum and merged it with the existing thread.
Unless otherwise stated numbers on Project Euler don't have leading zeroes, regardless of the base.
Image

Post Reply