Re: The Project Euler thread
In Python though yes

Re: The Project Euler thread
Son of a...
Just solved problem 88, but it is tricky to get in decent runtime. Right now my best is only 14s. :( EDIT: Oh FFS I am an idiot... much faster way to do this. EDIT: 0.2 seconds  can't believe I didn't do this in the first place. EDIT: Total time for problems 1 through 90: 28.940158 seconds 
Re: The Project Euler thread
Up to Problem 96, aaaghghghgh Sudoku. Nope. Bedtime
edit: (jk 97, 99, and 100 are quickfodder  96 and 98 can diaf) edit: actually 98 isn't horrible either edit: GAURUATUGH FINE I'LL DO SUDOKU. :( going to write the most fucking messiest code in the universe edit: Yay, first 100 down 
Re: The Project Euler thread
really tough 
Re: The Project Euler thread
nice one, leonid
EDIT: Total time for problems 1 through 100: 32.591266 seconds Code:
Problem 1 in 0.000006 s 
Re: The Project Euler thread
OMG finally. 
Re: The Project Euler thread
Wish people read my posts because I take extra time refining my code and explanations
As of now most of the posts I've made recently are still the very last post of each thread 
Re: The Project Euler thread
I read them
I just don't have much to say lol 
Re: The Project Euler thread
I'm talking about my posts in the euler problem threads btw, not this thread

Re: The Project Euler thread
OHHH
yeah it kinda sucks, cause nobody reads past the first three posts, let alone the first page 
Re: The Project Euler thread
Quote:
Why do they pick 28,123 when the same is true for all numbers greater than 20,161? 
Re: The Project Euler thread
Quote:
Unless you're asking why the problem writer chose to use that number specifically, in which case I don't know and it's really the writer's free choice. Perhaps he just simply wanted an excuse to use larger numbers, despite the small increase. It does kinda make sense though; once you find the limit of your hand analysis, you have no choice but to use a computer, and only then can you reduce that limit. The problem probably wants to demonstrate an example of this. I just tried this on my own and the 28123 limit is actually pretty easy to prove, and I really do have no idea how to get this down any lower. 
Re: The Project Euler thread
Quote:
I just don't have much to add because I don't find those problems as interesting as some of the harder ones. A comment though, I'm surprised about your approach to 181. That problems seems like it would have been really easy for you to hammer out and execute in quick runtime. edit: Stargroup: Yes that's right  in practice it's lower but the limit is analytically provable. Here is the proof: http://mathschallenge.net/full/sum_o...undant_numbers 
Re: The Project Euler thread
oh shit that's the method I came up with LOL

Re: The Project Euler thread
fair enough

Re: The Project Euler thread
Literally took me 3 minutes to solve Now I ran out of easy problems 
Re: The Project Euler thread
first one that I actually used pencil and paper for. 
Re: The Project Euler thread
woot 
Re: The Project Euler thread
Easy A question... Isn't problem 266 a 2partition problem (NPcomplete)? I don't see any way other than having to run an exponential (or pseudopolynomial) runtime algorithm that takes ages to finish 
Re: The Project Euler thread
There is a way
Every single problem gets tested against the minuterule before release. Problem 266 is doable in a lot less time than that, even 
All times are GMT 5. The time now is 03:56 PM. 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000  2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution