Problem 038

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.
Raveler
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2007 1:15 pm

Problem 038

Post by Raveler » Tue Aug 28, 2007 1:35 pm

The description of problem 38 http://projecteuler.net/index.php?secti ... lems&id=38is very, very confusing. The two initial examples indicate that the products need to be consecutive digits 1 through n (max 9), which would make sense. But the trivial example 987654321 does either the inverse (concatenates 1x9, 1x8, 1x7, ..., 1x1), indicating that the order is irrelevant, or does 987654321x1. In either case, I think the optimal solution to the problem would be 987654312x1, which does not seem to work. And as far as I can see my solution is conform the problem specification, so maybe it should be specified more clearly?

Thanks! I love the website.

GraemeMcRae
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 8:59 pm

Re: Problem 38, confusing problem description

Post by GraemeMcRae » Tue Aug 28, 2007 3:09 pm

The question reads, "Excluding the trivial example, 987654321, what is the largest 1 to 9 pandigital number that can be formed this way?"

Raveler
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2007 1:15 pm

Re: Problem 38, confusing problem description

Post by Raveler » Wed Aug 29, 2007 11:20 am

You missed my point. Excluding 987654321, I'd say the second highest possible number is 987654312. Achieved by doing 987654312 x 1.

User avatar
ed_r
Posts: 1009
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 9:57 am

Re: Problem 38, confusing problem description

Post by ed_r » Wed Aug 29, 2007 11:35 am

You're right, it is poorly phrased. I can do no better than to quote, and agree with, what xenon said on the problem 38 solution topic:
987654321 is not the only 'trivial' number, 987654312 is another one. In fact all the permutations of the nine digits can be considered trivial.
I think the definition of non-trivial should be: the concatenation of at least two products. But that might be nit-picking...
!647 = &8FDF4C

GraemeMcRae
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 8:59 pm

Re: Problem 38, confusing problem description

Post by GraemeMcRae » Wed Aug 29, 2007 7:25 pm

Raveler wrote:You missed my point.
D'oh!

User avatar
ed_r
Posts: 1009
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 9:57 am

Re: Problem 38, confusing problem description

Post by ed_r » Wed Aug 29, 2007 8:13 pm

Hey, that's my line!





( Woo-hoo, I made Corporal! How much inanity do I need to post to make General, I wonder. )
!647 = &8FDF4C

Raveler
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2007 1:15 pm

Re: Problem 38, confusing problem description

Post by Raveler » Fri Aug 31, 2007 11:26 am

ed_r wrote:You're right, it is poorly phrased. I can do no better than to quote, and agree with, what xenon said on the problem 38 solution topic:
987654321 is not the only 'trivial' number, 987654312 is another one. In fact all the permutations of the nine digits can be considered trivial.
I think the definition of non-trivial should be: the concatenation of at least two products. But that might be nit-picking...
Thanks, this information helped me understand the problem. My suggestion (I guess that's what this forum is for) is to rephrase the problem and change it so that:
1. it's clearer that you need to concatenate products x1, x2, ... in order
2. you need to concatenate at least 2 products

User avatar
euler
Administrator
Posts: 3068
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 4:49 pm
Location: Cheshire, England
Contact:

Re: Problem 38, confusing problem description

Post by euler » Fri Aug 31, 2007 1:09 pm

Good points, Raveler, and thanks for taking the time to mention it. I've changed the wording of the last sentence from
"Excluding the trivial example, 987654321, what is the largest 1 to 9 pandigital number that can be formed this way?"
to
"Excluding the trivial example, 1 [times] (any permutation of 987654321), what is the largest 1 to 9 pandigital number that can be formed this way?"

http://projecteuler.net/index.php?secti ... lems&id=38

I hope that makes it clearer.

User avatar
hk
Administrator
Posts: 10403
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 9:34 am
Location: Haren, Netherlands

Re: Problem 38, confusing problem description

Post by hk » Fri Aug 31, 2007 6:29 pm

Aren't we excluding all pandigitals this way, so that the problem has no solution?
I think indeed that we must state that more than one product must be concatenated.
This reminds me of some other discussions...
Image

GraemeMcRae
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 8:59 pm

Re: Problem 38, confusing problem description

Post by GraemeMcRae » Fri Aug 31, 2007 7:13 pm

To address hk's concern, it might be necessary to introduce some terminology. For example,
Take the number 192, and multiply it by each of 1, 2, and 3:

    192 x 1 = 192
    192 x 2 = 384
    192 x 3 = 576

By concatenating each product we get the 1 to 9 pandigital, 192384576. We will call 192384576 the "concatenated product of 192 and (1,2,3)"

The same can be achieved by starting with 9 and multiplying by 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, giving the pandigital, 918273645, which is the concatenated product of 9 and (1,2,3,4,5).

What is the largest 1 to 9 pandigital 9-digit number that can be formed as the concatenated product of an integer by at least two consecutive integers?
Last edited by GraemeMcRae on Sat Sep 01, 2007 2:27 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
rayfil
Administrator
Posts: 1401
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 4:30 am
Location: Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: Problem 38, confusing problem description

Post by rayfil » Sat Sep 01, 2007 12:14 am

And, in order to be more specific, that last sentence might be:

Code: Select all

What is the largest 1 to 9 pandigital 9-digit number that can be formed as the concatenated product of j>1 by at least two different integers?
Specifying a 9-digit number would remove any ambiguity as to numbers containing more than 9 digits but having all the digits from 1 to 9.
The j>1 removes the possibility of answers such as 1x9876 concatinated with 1x54321.
The "at least two different integers" does not put any restriction as to which integers as long as they are all different.
When you assume something, you risk being wrong half the time.

GraemeMcRae
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 8:59 pm

Re: Problem 38, confusing problem description

Post by GraemeMcRae » Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:10 am

Maybe my earlier last sentence too specifically described the form of the answer, so I took the liberty of editing my proposal and replacing the last sentence with yours, so that people reading this thread who have not yet solved the problem won't get unnecessarily specific hints.

However I'm concerned that the new last sentence is not specific enough. Doesn't it admit solutions such as 3 x (3292,18107) = 987654321 ?

Or one I particularly like: 4931 x (2,7) = 986234517
Last edited by GraemeMcRae on Sat Sep 01, 2007 7:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
rayfil
Administrator
Posts: 1401
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 4:30 am
Location: Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: Problem 38, confusing problem description

Post by rayfil » Sat Sep 01, 2007 2:14 am

You are absolutely right. The word "different" could be changed to "consecutive" which would disallow your examples. It would also remove the necessity of specifying j>1.
When you assume something, you risk being wrong half the time.

User avatar
euler
Administrator
Posts: 3068
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 4:49 pm
Location: Cheshire, England
Contact:

Re: Problem 38, confusing problem description

Post by euler » Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:46 am

I like the phrase "concatenated product of x and (a,b,c)".

This seems to work...
Take the number 192, and multiply it by each of 1, 2, and 3:

    192 x 1 = 192
    192 x 2 = 384
    192 x 3 = 576

By concatenating each product we get the 1 to 9 pandigital, 192384576. We will call 192384576 the "concatenated product of 192 and (1,2,3)"

The same can be achieved by starting with 9 and multiplying by 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, giving the pandigital, 918273645, which is the concatenated product of 9 and (1,2,3,4,5).

What is the largest 1 to 9 pandigital 9-digit number that can be formed as the concatenated product of an integer with (1,2, ... , n) where n > 1?

GraemeMcRae
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 8:59 pm

Re: Problem 38, confusing problem description

Post by GraemeMcRae » Sat Sep 01, 2007 7:02 pm

LOL, that's what I wrote before rayfil scared me off it! (I changed it because I thought it might give more hints than the original problem, and I didn't want to tip off the people who hadn't solved 38 yet.)

User avatar
euler
Administrator
Posts: 3068
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 4:49 pm
Location: Cheshire, England
Contact:

Re: Problem 38, confusing problem description

Post by euler » Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:09 pm

I must say that although it is over four years ago that I wrote the problem I think that I always intended the examples given to suggest that it should be the product of an integer with the set of natural numbers 1, 2, 3, ... , n. However, inadvertently it seems that I'd created a more challenging problem with some people making it more difficult than I intended by trying out sets of consecutive integers not necessarily starting with one.

I know that compared with other problems it is fairly contrived - not as elegant and natural as some of the other problems - but I am ever aware of ensuring that the range of difficulty should be as large as possible and this one should rank in the easiest half of problems. I think that the new wording makes the purpose of the problem much clearer and more accessible, consequently placing it at the appropriate difficulty level.

Raveler
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2007 1:15 pm

Re: Problem 38, confusing problem description

Post by Raveler » Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:36 pm

Thank you, the new problem description is much better. Up until where I'm now (problem 49) 38 has been the most confusing (but not most difficult).

there are some silly problems (such as 17, which is more annoying than challenging, took me a while to figure out I was using "fourty" instead of "forty", you tend to overlook it), but I liked most of them so far. Great fun.

Reinderien
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 7:54 am

Problem 38

Post by Reinderien » Tue Sep 30, 2008 7:57 am

In http://projecteuler.net/index.php?secti ... lems&id=38, one sees:
(1,2,3)
(1,2,3,4,5)
(1,2, ... , n)

Parentheses indicate open intervals. Shouldn't these intervals be closed? ie. with [ ]

Cheers.

User avatar
jaap
Posts: 538
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 3:57 pm
Contact:

Re: Problem 38

Post by jaap » Tue Sep 30, 2008 8:16 am

They are not intervals (which only use 2 numbers in the notation).
They are n-tuples, i.e. ordered (multi-)sets.

Reinderien
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 7:54 am

Re: Problem 38

Post by Reinderien » Tue Sep 30, 2008 3:22 pm

Interesting, thanks.

Post Reply