Talk:Largest five adjacent number: Difference between revisions

Content added Content deleted

Inline

Revision as of 16:36, 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)

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. --PureFox (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:21, 27 September 2021 (view source) Thundergnat (talk \| contribs) m (Maybe crap but the criticism is misplaced.) ← Older edit		Revision as of 16:36, 27 September 2021 (view source) PureFox (talk \| contribs) (Commented) Newer edit →
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)