Hello all,
I know that quite some folk have solved this one already and it doesn't look too daunting, really - except that: well I'm getting 186 and not 184 as result for F_3(100).
Is that a typo that has been missed because people have gone straight on to the grown-up stuff with Sigma_k F_k(10^3) - or should I perhaps go and study Chapter 2 of 'Basic Arithmetic for Massive Dummies'?
Any input is welcome. Cheers,
Claude
Problem 647
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.
-
jaap
- Posts: 588
- Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 3:57 pm
- Contact:
Re: Problem 647
It really is 184. If you want, you can send me the pairs (A,B) that make up the sum by private message (you should have only four, and remember that A, B are positive so non-zero), and I'll tell you what is wrong.DeKlod wrote: Fri May 17, 2019 4:38 pm I know that quite some folk have solved this one already and it doesn't look too daunting, really - except that: well I'm getting 186 and not 184 as result for F_3(100).
-
DeKlod
Re: Problem 647
Thanks for your quick response, jaap.
And thanks also for the offer of a PM conversation. I won't bother you just yet as I've actually only got three pairs so clearly there's something massively wrong with my approach.
Back to the drawing board then.
Cheers,
Claude
********
EDIT 10 minutes later: Now I get 184 with 4 couples... Forgot the simplest of basic checks. Would it be Friday today by any chance?
And thanks also for the offer of a PM conversation. I won't bother you just yet as I've actually only got three pairs so clearly there's something massively wrong with my approach.
Back to the drawing board then.
Cheers,
Claude
********
EDIT 10 minutes later: Now I get 184 with 4 couples... Forgot the simplest of basic checks. Would it be Friday today by any chance?