NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

## All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
• #### I bet New Scientist publishes a correction(Score:1)

by Limbic Region (3985) on 2008.06.08 17:48 (#63235) Homepage Journal
There are a total of 24 solutions to the puzzle. These 24 solutions are comprised of 10 unique integers. If you do not consider the reverse of an integer unique, there are 5 unique integers. No matter which way you slice this - there is no way to get to "six integers" unless the spec is incomplete.
• #### Re:(Score:1)

24 solutions? how did get them? can you show them?
• #### Re:(Score:1)

Well, first the math

there is 1 solution for 7, with reverse = 2
there is 3 solutions for 9, with reverse = 6
there is 1 solution for 11, with reverse = 2

2 * 6 * 2 = 24

I used a bit more complicated code than I am about to show, but you should be able to see how I came up with the 24 solutions

for my \$a (1 .. 9) {
for my \$b (grep {! /\$a/} 1 .. 9) {
for my \$c (grep {! /\$a|\$b/ 1 .. 9) {
my \$first = join '', \$a, \$b, \$c;

• #### Re:(Score:1)

well, you said: 1 solution for 7, with reverse 2. actually - there are 2 solutions for 7 (4 with reverse).

also - you didn't take into consideration the fact that digits cannot be reused between numbers generated for various dividers.

• #### Huh?(Score:1)

With regards to the math: What I posted about 24 solutions comprised of 10 different integers was correct (as is my code). I made a mistake when I was explaining where I came up with the 24 solutions because I didn't have the code or the results in front of me. My apologies.

also - you didn't take into consideration the fact that digits cannot be reused between numbers generated for various dividers

I am not sure I understand.

for my \$a (1 .. 9) { # 1 - 9
for my \$b (grep {! /\$a/} 1 .. 9) { # 1

• #### Re:(Score:1)

I'm sure they won't publish a correction.

Note that the spec says to find a 3-digit number which satisfies the criteria, not the 3-digit number. That there are multiple such numbers, and you could've found a different one, doesn't violate the spec.

Once you've done what it says, you will have 3 3-digit numbers, plus their reverses. That's 6 integers.

Yes, other people could validly come up with a different set of 6 integers. So what? There's nothing in the spec prohibiting that! As others have noted

• #### That's really too bad(Score:1)

I guess I won't be looking into New Scienties afterall

Having worked on interesting puzzles like this as long as I can remember, as well as knowing many people who have the same interest - this is the type of puzzle no one likes to work on.

A simple foot note that says: While multiple preliminary solutions are possible, the max and min will always be the same.

Would have gone a long way to making others and myself happier that our solutions were correct.

By the way - you have read into the spec.

Once you've don
• #### Re:(Score:2)

They're not usually this unclear. I think it's just a fluke, but I'd have to work through some others to be sure.