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
Or is it a BUG?"
"Let's call it an accidental feature. :-)"
--Larry Wall in <6909@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.
I bet New Scientist publishes a correction (Score: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)
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 done what it says, you will have 3 3-digit numbers, plus their reverses. That's 6 integers.
That's not what the spec has said, that's how you have interpreted it. That's probably the correct interpretation - but certainly not the only one.
I rather enjoy puzzles where the solution hinges upon realizing the spec doesn't say something the reader assumes it does - but it is painfully obvious once the solution is known.
In any event, I have no interest in getting New Scientist if the puzzles are presented consistently this way.
Reply to This
Parent
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.