Talk:Kaprekar numbers: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
The wikipedia page says "Let X be a non-negative integer. X is a Kaprekar number for base b if there exist non-negative integers n, A, and positive number B satisfying ...". In other words A can be zero. Why do we have to have a bunch of text claiming that A cannot be zero but A can be an empty string and that it is meaningful to add an empty string to a number? (Can't we just take advantage of the fact that leading zero digits do not change the value of a number?) --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 20:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC) |
The wikipedia page says "Let X be a non-negative integer. X is a Kaprekar number for base b if there exist non-negative integers n, A, and positive number B satisfying ...". In other words A can be zero. Why do we have to have a bunch of text claiming that A cannot be zero but A can be an empty string and that it is meaningful to add an empty string to a number? (Can't we just take advantage of the fact that leading zero digits do not change the value of a number?) --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 20:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
:To me the text "However a conceptual single split at the very end or before the first digit that produces one empty string does have the empty string counted" means that A can be zero. Unless I'm confused about what A and B are. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 22:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 22:30, 7 June 2011
Java count missing
Just add (and show), the count of how many there are <1million and you will have completed the stretch goal! --Paddy3118 14:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- I had actually added it as a test because I saw the other examples do it, but for some reason I didn't read it as a requirement so I took it out. Mornings are hard. --Mwn3d 14:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- :-)
--Paddy3118 17:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- :-)
Why the complexity?
The wikipedia page says "Let X be a non-negative integer. X is a Kaprekar number for base b if there exist non-negative integers n, A, and positive number B satisfying ...". In other words A can be zero. Why do we have to have a bunch of text claiming that A cannot be zero but A can be an empty string and that it is meaningful to add an empty string to a number? (Can't we just take advantage of the fact that leading zero digits do not change the value of a number?) --Rdm 20:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- To me the text "However a conceptual single split at the very end or before the first digit that produces one empty string does have the empty string counted" means that A can be zero. Unless I'm confused about what A and B are. --Mwn3d 22:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)