Problem 011

[Seahawk]

Thanks lol. Well here is what I have got so far. And I think this is all the helper methods I will need. Blank it out if needed but it is just the multi-dimensional array and the methods.

Expand

[code]
snip[/code]

[Seahawk]

Also I keep getting this answer is it close?

Expand

51267216

I just tried another method of suppressing errors when I went out of range of the index so any other suggestions.

[hk]

You're forgetting that there is a second type of diagonal, going from top right to bottom left.
And I'm not sure why you have a go-up and go-down method.

[Seahawk]

Thank you so much! I will test it now!

[Seahawk]

I got it! You are the shizzle my nizzle! You can close if you want.

[BevPoseidon]

I have been staring at my code for the past hour trying to see where I made an error, but no go

I get the answer: 51267216
but that is wrong.

If anyone can see something wrong with my code, that would be a big help!

***CODE DELETED*** (Sorry, can't share the answer!)

I imported the grid from a text file for neatness.

[BevPoseidon]

Ahh, i found the problem. I new going away from the computer and coming back in an hour would do it

This line:
productDiagonalLeft = grid [x] [y] * grid [x - 1] [y - 1] * grid [x - 2] [y - 2] * grid [x - 3] [y - 3];

should be:
productDiagonalLeft = grid [x] [y] * grid [x - 1] [y + 1] * grid [x - 2] [y + 2] * grid [x - 3] [y +3];


WOOt

[Cruncher2]

i'm getting 5XXXXXXX (avoiding spoiler, even though the result is wrong)

and it's still wrong which is confusing me because i have proof-read my code 100 times, and even manually combed the grid, and that's the only product i can find that is even over 50000000

[rayfil]

Please don't create a new topic when one already exists. You may even find an answer to your problem in the existing one.

I do realize its your first post. Problem numbers below 100 have leading zeros on this forum.

[mulehack]

I've got the same problem as Cruncher, getting the 5xx number.

I'm quite certain I understand the problem and I've proof read my code many times.. but alas... I actually think there might be a bug on the site when you enter your answer :S. So, my code is in Java I thought I might post it in order to get some help :}

So did you not read the forum rules in big red letters at to top of the page? Please edit your post to remove the code and your description of your solution.
As for your error - how many diagonals does a square have?

I thought they would be hidden just as the other code snippets in previous posts :L
:C my apologies
but more importantly, thanks for the help <3

[jaap]

So, my code is in Java I thought I might post it in order to get some help :}

So did you not read the forum rules in big red letters at to top of the page? Please edit your post to remove the code and your description of your solution.
As for your error - how many diagonals does a square have?

[Otherworld]

So, my code is in Java I thought I might post it in order to get some help :}

You already know you're not aloud to do that. But, if you want, you can send your code to me and I'll see what's wrong.
Btw, this one is very simple, since it is only 20x20 grid. You can even bruteforce it

[formicFabricant]

So, my code is in Java I thought I might post it in order to get some help :}

You already know you're not allowed to do that. But, if you want, you can send your code to me and I'll see what's wrong.
Btw, this one is very simple, since it is only 20x20 grid. You can even bruteforce it

If by brute force you mean look for high numbers yourself and multiply them on a scrap of paper. Surely I'm not the only one who got this without code (and on the first guess)?

[Lord_Farin]

In your reply, I taste the assumption that if he meant something different with 'brute force', he could not have solved the problem therewith. However, I strongly suspect that by 'brute force' he means using the computer's massive iteration power to exhaust all possibilities (by going through each and every one of them).
The latter I agree on. See e.g. this problems discussion forum on the main site.

[slindeneau]

I recognize (now) that the problems title accurately states that they need to be in a straight line. However the problem text itself does not stipulate this. Quite frustrating to solve the more generic problem of adjacent numbers only to realize that only the more specific problems answer is the actual problem.

[sivakd]

The problem text says "four adjacent numbers in any direction (up, down, left, right, or diagonally)"

[slindeneau]

And I interpreted that as meaning the squares are adjacent if they are up, down, left, right or diagonally of their neighbor. As opposed to only being adjacent if they are up, down, left or right for instance.

Compare it to say, 'four adjacent numbers in any one direction (up,down, left, right or diagonally)' or even better, 'four adjacent numbers in any straight line (up,down,left, right or diagonally'.

[zoeyang]

This problem is the same as problem8!
We can solve this in four direction!

[Cruncher2]

I still don't understand how my answer could possibly be wrong...

i've looked over this 100's of times, and nothing is even close to my original answer, has anyone recently completed this?

[elr]

problem 11 is straightforward ,if over 50k people solved it there should be no problem with the problem