Talk:Palindromic gapful numbers: Difference between revisions

m
→‎Please clarify: (hopefully) added clarification.
(Added comment.)
m (→‎Please clarify: (hopefully) added clarification.)
Line 13:
:--[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 19:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
:::Yes, that's my understanding and it must be correct as it's what Gerard's REXX entry does and he's the author of the task. --[[User:PureFox|PureFox]] ([[User talk:PureFox|talk]]) 20:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 
<br>
-----
<br>
 
::: Starting at &nbsp; '''100''' &nbsp; (which is the minimum that gapful numbers start at, as per the note on the task page that all positive integers below &nbsp; '''100''' &nbsp; are trivially gapful numbers), &nbsp; then ...
 
:::::* &nbsp; generate &nbsp; &nbsp; '''100''' &nbsp; palindromic gapful numbers, &nbsp; and then take (pick) the last &nbsp; '''15''' &nbsp; of those &nbsp; &nbsp; '''100''' &nbsp; numbers.
:::::* &nbsp; generate &nbsp; '''1000''' &nbsp; palindromic gapful numbers, &nbsp; and then take (pick) the last &nbsp; '''10''' &nbsp; of those &nbsp; '''1000''' &nbsp; numbers.
 
::: There is probably a better and cleaner way of expressing the above (two) sentences, &nbsp; but the (bottom/lower) limit of &nbsp; '''100''' &nbsp; kinda throws a monkey wrench into the works, er ... &nbsp; wording of the expression.
 
::: Another way of expressing the above would be:
 
:::::* &nbsp; generate the &nbsp; &nbsp; '''86<sup>th</sup>''' ──► &nbsp; '''100<sup>th</sup>''' palindromic gapful numbers, ignoring those below &nbsp; '''100'''.
:::::* &nbsp; generate the &nbsp; '''991<sup>st</sup>''' ──► '''1000<sup>th</sup>''' palindromic gapful numbers, ignoring those below &nbsp; '''100'''.
 
 
I had assumed that programmers would take/pick those (above) palindromic gapful numbers in increasing order, &nbsp; and it seemed unnecessary to state that.
 
 
I hope the parenthetic phrase &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; '''(nine sets)''' &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; was clear enough; &nbsp; If it wasn't for the output, I don't know how I would've expressed it. &nbsp; I assumed the output from the REXX example would make that clear enough. &nbsp; I had toyed with expanding that parenthesized expression, but it just got too overly wordy and inelegant, and even somewhat ugly. &nbsp; &nbsp; -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 00:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)