Talk:Largest five adjacent number: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
Thundergnat (talk | contribs) m (Maybe crap but the criticism is misplaced.) |
No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
: Withholding judgement on whether (or what) is crap. It's random; if it didn't generate five 9s in a row then you won't get 99999. --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 16:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC) |
: Withholding judgement on whether (or what) is crap. It's random; if it didn't generate five 9s in a row then you won't get 99999. --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 16:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC) |
||
:: It started off as 'Find the four adjacent digits in the 1000-digit number that have the greatest product' even though the Ring answer was 99638 - hence Nigel's comment. --[[User:PureFox|PureFox]] ([[User talk:PureFox|talk]]) 16:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
I would make it the first thousand digits of pi so all solutions have the same answer. As it is who can argue with any 5 digit number?--[[User:Nigel Galloway|Nigel Galloway]] ([[User talk:Nigel Galloway|talk]]) 17:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 17:40, 27 September 2021
You say its 99638, but 9*9*9*9=6,561. So either the task description is crap or your ring implementation is.--Nigel Galloway (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Withholding judgement on whether (or what) is crap. It's random; if it didn't generate five 9s in a row then you won't get 99999. --Thundergnat (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I would make it the first thousand digits of pi so all solutions have the same answer. As it is who can argue with any 5 digit number?--Nigel Galloway (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)