## Problem with Python csp library[edit]

The downloaded library relied on a utils.unique() function which is not part of the utils standard library. I had to edit the source of csp.py to use set() instead. --Paddy3118 17:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

## Is this cheating?[edit]

Is it ok to work out intermediate equations yourself and input those instead of the pyramid? --Mwn3d 21:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

- See rationalization of 100 doors? --Michael Mol 21:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

## The Go rant[edit]

The first Go solution lists a blank program after much protesting, saying that this problem is easily solved by hand thus not worth programming for. It ignored the fact that a human with a pencil and stack of paper is (more than) Turing complete, thus by the same logic nothing is ever worthy of a program. I think it's really uncalled for. --Ledrug 06:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

- It does look like the Go author should have discussed the quality of the task here first rather than on the task page. --Paddy3118 08:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Concur. And it does raise a fair point about the task description. The task should probably more clearly request a solver for arbitrary missing elements of Pascal's triangle (Granted, the simplest solution is to generate Pascal's Triangle for as many rows necessary, and fill in the missing bits. I don't want to say that's too simple to be interesting; for some people, that's an interesting problem to tackle. For others, it's going to be too trivial. ) --Michael Mol 11:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- The rant, moved here from the task page: —Sonia 19:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

- Concur. And it does raise a fair point about the task description. The task should probably more clearly request a solver for arbitrary missing elements of Pascal's triangle (Granted, the simplest solution is to generate Pascal's Triangle for as many rows necessary, and fill in the missing bits. I don't want to say that's too simple to be interesting; for some people, that's an interesting problem to tackle. For others, it's going to be too trivial. ) --Michael Mol 11:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The following solution is based on several observations on the task:

- The task does not ask for solutions to any generalization of the problem, only this one problem.
- The (twice) linked reference in the task description similarly does not describe any generalizations, but only this one problem.
- The talk page notes that intermediate work need not be coded, and indeed, a number of existing solutions do intermediate work.
- The entire problem is solvable with elementary algebra, thus a decision to actually code any part of the problem is arbitrary.
- Any part coded is not only done frivolously, but represents unnecessary chances for errors.
- Skills needed to develop this solution are prerequisite to any other solution. No other solution is easier.
- The task does not specify program output. This program provides the solution to the problem in a form that is clear to anyone wishing to further adapt the program to their needs.

package main

func main() {

// bottom row given: [X] [11] [Y] [4] [Z]

// given sum relation of bricks,

// next row up: [x+11] [y+11] [y+4] [z+4]

// middle row: [x+y+22] [2y+15] [y+z+8]

// given brick=40 and relation y=x+z,

// middle row: [40] [2y+15] [3y-10]

// continuing sum relation of bricks,

// next row up: [2y+55] [5y+5]

// top brick: [7y+60]

// given top brick = 151,

// 7y = 91: y = 13

// x + y = 18: x = 5

// z = y - x: z = 8

}