Page 2 of 2
Re: Problem 238
Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 7:54 pm
by quilan
Yeah, my algorithm's all up to speed now & I confirm the results of everyone else. I think I see what the error might have been for mastro (Redundant p(0)'s maybe?).
Re: Problem 238
Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 8:07 pm
by JohnMorris
quilan wrote:Yeah, my algorithm's all up to speed now & I confirm the results of everyone else. I think I see what the error might have been for mastro (Redundant p(0)'s maybe?).
Yup, I reckon so.
Re: Problem 238
Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2009 8:22 pm
by ed_r
OK, there was a mistake. We're on the case. We hope to release a revised (and correct) version of the problem soon.
Thank you for drawing this to our attention.
This thread is now locked.
Edit : A revised version has been published; this thread is no longer locked - harryh
Re: Problem 238
Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2009 7:01 pm
by Taifu
NB: The first posts in this topic refer to an earlier version of problem #238, which unfortunately had an error.
To fix it, the problem statement was modified. As a result, the (partial) answers posted below are no longer valid.
-Edited by harryh
To help people reading here, it's enough to subtract p(0) from right side of partial answers
Ciao.
Marco aka Taifu.
P.S. Come on, you have to know how much p(0) is
