Project Euler Forum

I've read and re-read the description of no. 571 again and again. Also I've made up a little programme which helped me find the smallest n-super-pandigital numbers for 2 <= n <= 10. I also get the results proposed in the description, but the sum of them [2..10] is something completely different. In my case the sum ends with ...621.

For n = 7 I get 16...3 as smallest number, as an example.

Could anyone verify, and possibly contact me through PM? (To those who've already solved this problem!)

You're adding the smallest super-pandigital number for each base from 2 to 10 (or 12). That's not what the question is asking for. In each base, there are many super-pandigital numbers (I suspect infinitely many). You want the smallest ten, all in the same base (10 for the example, 12 for the problem).

So it's the sum of the ten smallest pandigital numbers in base n, and those numbers have to be pandigital in all bases < n as well.

Thanks @DJohn for pointing this out. Solved it

Another sloppily stated problem. Where is the high standard of clarity, the Project Euler problems used to have?

It should be mentioned that zeros in the highest position do not count.

Also that you need the result in base 10. It is highly non-obvious, given that you are talking about base n all around.

As far as I know leading zeroes are not allowed on Project Euler since the beginning.
In case of doubt, from "The sum of the 10 smallest 10-super-pandigital numbers is 20319792309." you can deduce that the answer should be given in base 10. (just try the computed answer and you will see).
So I think the high standard of clarity is still present.
Please save us your unjustified criticism.
Don't think that if we changed one wording all your criticism is justified.

Ok, sorry.

hk wrote:As far as I know leading zeroes are not allowed on Project Euler since the beginning.
In case of doubt, from "The sum of the 10 smallest 10-super-pandigital numbers is 20319792309." you can deduce that the answer should be given in base 10. (just try the computed answer and you will see).
So I think the high standard of clarity is still present.
Please save us your unjustified criticism.
Don't think that if we changed one wording all your criticism is justified.

I don't recall ever having a problem with wether or not leading zeros should be considered; normal usage seems to prevail. I do not know how many times leading zeros have occurred, but problem 358 is an example of one such problem. Here is a quote from the problem: "Note that for cyclic numbers, leading zeros are important."

Thanks for all the time and effort y'all give to Project Euler; it is great fun for a 70-year old, who wanted to learn C++.

Thanks for the nice words.
Actually, I should have written:
"Leading zeroes are not allowed, unless stated otherwise."

A n-super-pandigital number is a number that is simultaneously pandigital in all bases from 2 to n inclusively. However, I don't know if a number can be a pandigital in base i if it has a leading zero.
Can a number in base i have a leading zero?

EDIT: I'm thinking that leading zeroes aren't allowed. Am I right?

I moved this to the correct forum and merged it with the existing thread.
Unless otherwise stated numbers on Project Euler don't have leading zeroes, regardless of the base.