Talk:Minimum positive multiple in base 10 using only 0 and 1: Difference between revisions

From Rosetta Code
Content added Content deleted
m (corrected a correction.)
(Further comment.)
Line 4: Line 4:


:: That's all well and good.   But, the example that I was talking about shows that   '''9 ×  123,456,789'''   which is the number shown in the task's preamble,   not  '''9 × 12,345,679'''.     -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 19:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
:: That's all well and good.   But, the example that I was talking about shows that   '''9 ×  123,456,789'''   which is the number shown in the task's preamble,   not  '''9 × 12,345,679'''.     -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 19:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
:::: Yes, it was wrong originally but it's correct now. --[[User:PureFox|PureFox]] ([[User talk:PureFox|talk]]) 19:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


::Ah, it looks like an '8' has crept into the multiplier - I'll remove it. --[[User:PureFox|PureFox]] ([[User talk:PureFox|talk]]) 19:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
::Ah, it looks like an '8' has crept into the multiplier - I'll remove it. --[[User:PureFox|PureFox]] ([[User talk:PureFox|talk]]) 19:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:41, 29 February 2020

something's wrong

In the task's preamble   (in the E.G. section),   the 4th multiplication   (for a   B10   of   111,111,111),   the multiplier is incorrect.   The multiplier shown would yield a   B10   value of   1,111,111,101,   which isn't the minimum   B10   for a   N   of   9.     -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 18:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gerard, you multiply 'n' by the multiplier so 9 x 12,345,679 = 111,111,111 --PureFox (talk) 19:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
That's all well and good.   But, the example that I was talking about shows that   9 ×  123,456,789   which is the number shown in the task's preamble,   not  9 × 12,345,679.     -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 19:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it was wrong originally but it's correct now. --PureFox (talk) 19:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Ah, it looks like an '8' has crept into the multiplier - I'll remove it. --PureFox (talk) 19:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)