Problem 105 (View Problem)
I'm out of ideas where my mistake might be for this problem. I'm getting that 31 of the sets are special sum sets, is this too low or too high?
Problem 105
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.
See also the topics:
Don't post any spoilers
Comments, questions and clarifications about PE problems.
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
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
See also the topics:
Don't post any spoilers
Comments, questions and clarifications about PE problems.
-
thundre
- Posts: 356
- Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 10:01 am
Re: Problem 105
Answered in PM.idantlol wrote:Problem 105 (View Problem)
I'm out of ideas where my mistake might be for this problem. I'm getting that 31 of the sets are special sum sets, is this too low or too high?
-
idantlol
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 1:14 pm
-
vstastny
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 3:07 pm
Re: Problem 105
Hi, I'm trying to figure out why the sequence
348, 329, 343, 344, 338, 315, 169, 359, 375, 271
is not considered to be the special sum sets. My algorithm has identified this one to be the special sum set, unfortunately, this is not correct. Could anyone give me an example why this sequence cannot form the special sum set. Thank you.
348, 329, 343, 344, 338, 315, 169, 359, 375, 271
is not considered to be the special sum sets. My algorithm has identified this one to be the special sum set, unfortunately, this is not correct. Could anyone give me an example why this sequence cannot form the special sum set. Thank you.
-
jaap
- Posts: 588
- Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 3:57 pm
- Contact:
Re: Problem 105
It fails the second property:vstastny wrote:Hi, I'm trying to figure out why the sequence
348, 329, 343, 344, 338, 315, 169, 359, 375, 271
is not considered to be the special sum sets. My algorithm has identified this one to be the special sum set, unfortunately, this is not correct. Could anyone give me an example why this sequence cannot form the special sum set. Thank you.
169+271+315+329+338 < 344+348+359+375
-
vstastny
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 3:07 pm
Re: Problem 105
Thanks jaap, problem solved.jaap wrote:It fails the second property:vstastny wrote:Hi, I'm trying to figure out why the sequence
348, 329, 343, 344, 338, 315, 169, 359, 375, 271
is not considered to be the special sum sets. My algorithm has identified this one to be the special sum set, unfortunately, this is not correct. Could anyone give me an example why this sequence cannot form the special sum set. Thank you.
169+271+315+329+338 < 344+348+359+375