Mike, I have had a lot of fun with Project Euler. Not something I do regularly, but they are interesting and challenging. I appreciate that you would discuss this with me, but to me it is important for you not to reveal a solution. That takes the fun out of it. If you would like to be a sounding board to help me find where I am messing up I would appreciate it.
My email is [email protected] Taking this offline makes it so we don't mess up other people's fun. Thanks, Don On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 1:06 PM, Don Guinn <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks. Busy today. Get back shortly. > > On Jan 18, 2018 12:58 PM, "'Mike Day' via Chat" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> OK - I've re-solved it - new method over 10 times faster than my old >> one, not as elegant as >> Roger's, naturally. Anyway, it does achieve the required answer, >> though I encountered one >> or two glitches on the way. >> >> Even when everything looks right, it's difficult to spot primes that you >> might have omitted. >> >> I won't post the code here, but am happy to discuss further with Don. >> >> Mike >> >> >> On 17/01/2018 00:16, Don Guinn wrote: >> >>> Has anyone solved problem 111? The web page says my answer is wrong, but >>> I >>> have checked and double-checked and can find no error. Perhaps I have >>> misunderstood the problem. Just wanted to talk with someone about it th >>> see >>> where I am messing up. >>> >>> Thanks >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >>> >> >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
