Anonymous user
Talk:Kaprekar numbers: Difference between revisions
m
→Just for fun: added a new talk section.
m (→Just for fun: added a new talk section.) |
|||
| (43 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
==We've been linked to from a prestigious source==
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:6-8YE2tEQKwJ:oeis.org/A006886+site:https://oeis.org/A006886+%22Rosetta%2BCode%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences] has a link to this RC page! (The link is to the google cache - for the highlight) --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 22:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
And on this entry [https://oeis.org/A194218 A194218] we get mentioned a second time as a place to compare programs! This is just brilliant to me as I have admired OEIS for what it collates for some time. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 06:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
: Sweet. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 13:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
==Java count missing==
Just add (and show), the count of how many there are <1million and you will have completed the stretch goal! --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 14:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Line 30 ⟶ 36:
::Right. The "whole numbers" verbage avoids the issue of explaining that chains of zeros do not fulfil the criteria, (although we would probably still need to keep that as a note to remind the task implementers.) --[[User:Markhobley|Markhobley]] 16:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
:::"Whole numbers", to me, includes 0 so I don't think that works that way. Is "whole numbers" an official mathematical set like "natural numbers"? Maybe say "split in to two positive parts"? --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 16:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
::::There isn't a consensus on the definition of a whole number, natural numbers, or counting number (especially in grammer/grade/highschool/secondary school texts). See the links for "Mathworld" http://mathworld.wolfram.com/WholeNumber.html, http://mathworld.wolfram.com/NaturalNumber.html, http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CountingNumber.html, all those seem to prefer defintions based on integers (positive integers, nonnegative integers, negative intergers, ∙∙∙ --[[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 19:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
:::Generally zero is not considered to be a whole number, but there are people who would disagree. We could use the term "integers greater than or equal to one" --[[User:Markhobley|Markhobley]] 19:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Line 110 ⟶ 118:
:::--[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 01:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
::::Great, that looks identical to mine (except I cheated and didn't split 1, because it's not really the same as the rest). --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 01:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
:::::Note that many details of that line format were listed as "for example". Now that we have examples, perhaps that sentence should be removed as superfluous? Or does someone want to promote them to extra credit work? --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 11:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
==Incomplete output==
Line 128 ⟶ 137:
::[[User:Toucan|Toucan]] 11:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
:True. I added the non-base10 extra requirement, and the printing part is there to clearly show if a solution decoupled the numerical aspect from a number's string representation. The base 17 was specifically chosen because languages often can handle base conversion up to 16 natively, so 17 may require a hand-rolled string conversion, which can also be interesting while not difficult. Plus, if you print it out in base 17, it's much easier for a human reader to see the correctness of the solution. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 21:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
== Just for fun ==
For fun I tried reversing the digits in the squared number (e.g. using "5203" as the "squared number" for 55 instead of "3025") to see if there would be any pattern in the new results. There were some overlaps for numbers that were all repeating digits. I didn't see anything notable. I got 17 rakerpak (kaprekar backwards....get it?) each for base 10 and 17. The code isn't notable either (just add a bit to one line to reverse the string representation of the squared number). I thought it would be kinda neat to think about. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 15:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
== ooRexx ==
I tried this for ooRexx
Had to change # to n
But get a syntax error for j=100000 since s=1E+10
It works with Numeric Digits 14
--[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] 14:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
| |||