Talk:Iterated digits squaring: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
m (→Comments on (a nice) task: indent.) |
|||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
:I took your comments on board Bearophile, and de-emphasized the one mill limit and hopefully made it unattractive enough to see more combinatorics examples. |
:I took your comments on board Bearophile, and de-emphasized the one mill limit and hopefully made it unattractive enough to see more combinatorics examples. |
||
:What do you think? --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 08:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC) |
:What do you think? --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 08:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC) |
||
:: It's OK. --[[User:Bearophile|bearophile]] ([[User talk:Bearophile|talk]]) 09:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:07, 24 August 2014
Comments on (a nice) task
Hi,
- Do we need to keep the project Euler limit of 100million, wouldn't one million do?
- It might be best to explain the limit a bit more w.r.t. inclusive/exclusive end points.
- Do we need to mention caching in the task description?
Thanks. --Paddy3118 (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments.
- The original Euler problem ha a limit of 10 millions. I think it's not a good idea to lower the limit too much (like 1 million): the point of having a high limit is to nudge people away from the very short brute-force solutions and toward a little smarter combinatorics-based solutions. To show it can be done I have added a not too much long Python solution that solves the problem with 100 millions in less than half second on a slow PC.
- Regarding the limits, I have used standard mathematical notation, but the current <= < notation is OK.
- Regarding the caching, it can be explained in the task description, but in the solutions I'd like to see less catching and more (simple) combinatorics. --bearophile (talk) 08:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- I took your comments on board Bearophile, and de-emphasized the one mill limit and hopefully made it unattractive enough to see more combinatorics examples.
- What do you think? --Paddy3118 (talk) 08:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- It's OK. --bearophile (talk) 09:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)