A place to air possible concerns or difficulties in understanding ProjectEuler problems. This forum is not meant to publish solutions. This forum is NOT meant to discuss solution methods or giving hints how a problem can be solved.
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.
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
the c code itself is not that impressive, but the math i used i think is. i have (what i like to think is) a brilliant method to derive the numbers u see in array a[]
does anybody care? anybodys thoughts? i wanted to post this on the thing for it, but its locked for archive.
Last edited by matt271 on Thu Jul 16, 2009 7:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You should edit your post to get rid of that, because hide tag or not, we never want to give easy solutions to others; the spirit of Project Euler is that solvers work it out themselves.
Anyway, I suppose you could pm one of the admins and they might unlock it for a moment, depending on their feelings about the noteworthiness of your new solution. Hope this helps...
Want some
3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510
58209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679...?
Browsing through the forum I see several solutions that are O(log(n)).
If you think you can do better you can PM me. (Please with explanation, and not only code).
If it is as brilliant as you suggest it is, I could open the forum temporarily.
War ruins the life and health of untold numbers of innocent children.
I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but the first line of the problem says the sequence is formed by concatenating the positive integers - positive integers don't stop at 9 or 99, they continue forever. So there's no repeating or permutations involved.
TripleM thanks for such a quick response and that really helped. What I was unclear about, was that I wasn't making a distinction between, say '11' and a pattern sequence '1,1' (in my mind).
I knew that irrational numbers do not repeat, so the direction I started to think was that there was suppose to be more and more of '111's (or any 1-9) in front of the each number (1-9) after each cycle.
The other thing I would revert to thinking was that it was a pattern cycle and that wouldn't make it irrational, so thats where I was just grasping with the permutation thing.