Talk:Palindromic gapful numbers: Difference between revisions
m (added a few words.) |
m (→Please clarify: added a comment.) |
||
Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
I had assumed that programmers would take/pick those (above) palindromic gapful numbers in increasing order, and it seemed unnecessary to state that. |
I had assumed that programmers would take/pick those (above) palindromic gapful numbers in increasing order, and it seemed unnecessary to state that. |
||
I must admit, I never heard of that phrase ''binned by last'', but once reading it, I knew what it meant. |
|||
Revision as of 00:24, 13 November 2019
Please clarify
I don't understand the second and third part of the requirements. What does this mean?
- Show (nine sets, like above) of palindromic gapful numbers:
- the last 15 palindromic gapful numbers (out of 100)
- the last 10 palindromic gapful numbers (out of 1,000) {optional}
Thanks. --Paddy3118 (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- Is it:
- The last fifteen of the first 100 binned-by-last digit gapful numbers >= 100
- --Paddy3118 (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Starting at 100 (which is the minimum that gapful numbers start at, as per the note on the task page that all positive integers below 100 are trivially gapful numbers), then ...
- generate 100 palindromic gapful numbers, and then take (pick) the last 15 of those 100 numbers.
- generate 1000 palindromic gapful numbers, and then take (pick) the last 10 of those 1000 numbers.
There is probably a better and cleaner (or more concise) way of expressing the above (two) sentences, but the (bottom/lower) limit of 100 kinda throws a monkey wrench into the works, er ... wording of the expression.
Another way of expressing the above would be:
- generate the 86th ──► 100th palindromic gapful numbers, ignoring those below 100.
- generate the 991st ──► 1000th palindromic gapful numbers, ignoring those below 100.
I had assumed that programmers would take/pick those (above) palindromic gapful numbers in increasing order, and it seemed unnecessary to state that.
I must admit, I never heard of that phrase binned by last, but once reading it, I knew what it meant.
I hope the parenthetic phrase (nine sets) was clear enough; If it wasn't for the output, I don't know how I would've expressed it. I assumed the output from the REXX example would make that clear enough. I had toyed with expanding that parenthesized expression, but it just got too overly wordy and inelegant, and even somewhat ugly. -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)