Post Reply 
challenge for programmable calculators
12-22-2013, 09:48 PM (This post was last modified: 12-22-2013 09:49 PM by Katie Wasserman.)
Post: #27
RE: challenge for programmable calculators
Quote:I was using the symmetry of abc(a+b+c) to bail out early for values ≥ 1000. We can do that since a ≤ b ≤ c.

Okay, I see the symmetry that you're using and the partial ordering. But I don't see why you don't need to test for the reverse digit ordering. For example, in 2 4 7 you test if 728 matches 247, but you don't test if 728 matches 742. In looking at the Python code, I don't see that test in there.

Am I still not understanding your speedup method or is there a bug in the code?

-katie

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Messages In This Thread
RE: challenge for programmable calculators - Katie Wasserman - 12-22-2013 09:48 PM
Proof using number theory - cruff - 12-24-2013, 05:43 PM
RE: challenge for programmable calculators - radwilliams - 12-24-2013, 05:57 PM



User(s) browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)