Project Euler/17 - Revision history

Admin: Replacing charlesreid1.com:3000 with git.charlesreid1.com

2019-10-09T03:46:10Z

Replacing charlesreid1.com:3000 with git.charlesreid1.com

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:46, 9 October 2019
Line 25:		Line 25:
	==Code==		==Code==

	Link to code: https://charlesreid1.com~~:3000~~/cs/euler/src/master/scratch/Round1_001-020/017		Link to code: https://git.charlesreid1.com/cs/euler/src/master/scratch/Round1_001-020/017

	==Flags==		==Flags==

	{{ProjectEulerFlag}}		{{ProjectEulerFlag}}

Admin at 09:02, 8 January 2018

2018-01-08T09:02:09Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:02, 8 January 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
			==The Problem==

	Problem 17 deals with the number of letters it takes to spell out a number.		Problem 17 deals with the number of letters it takes to spell out a number.

			https://projecteuler.net/problem=17

			==Solution==

	First, let it be said that this is a problem that shows how tremendously awful language rules can be, when contrasted with the happy certainty of mathematics.		First, let it be said that this is a problem that shows how tremendously awful language rules can be, when contrasted with the happy certainty of mathematics.
Line 5:		Line 11:
	This basically requires about 20 special cases, and from there things are relatively smooth. This program only goes up to 1,000, but it would be entirely plausible to extend this program to go even further and handle extremely large numbers in a more programmatic way.		This basically requires about 20 special cases, and from there things are relatively smooth. This program only goes up to 1,000, but it would be entirely plausible to extend this program to go even further and handle extremely large numbers in a more programmatic way.

	Much like this problem, the larger the digits go, the more digits you can name with a ~~single~~, ~~systematic~~ rules.		Much like this problem, the larger the digits go, the more digits you can name with set of singular, systematic rules.

			Consider, for example: naming the first 19 digits requires 19 separate rules. ("one", "two", "three", and so on through the teenagers.)

			But once we reach twenty and twenty one, we have a 20th rule that introduces the word "twenty", and the twenty-first rule that covers the next 9 numbers. (Take "twenty" and add the spelling of any nonzero number in the ones place, which doesn't require any new rules).

			Next, we get to thirty, and require a new label "thirty" but the same rule - add the spelling of any nonzero number in the ones place, thirty one, thirty two, thirty three, etc. Now, just a few rules can generalize and take us all the way to 99.

	~~Consider, for example: naming~~ the ~~first 19 digits requires 19 separate rules. ("one"~~, ~~"two", "three", and so on through the teenagers.) But once~~ we ~~reach twenty and twenty~~ one~~, we have a 20th~~ rule ~~that introduces~~ the word "~~twenty~~", and the ~~twenty-first rule that covers the next 9 numbers. (Take~~ "~~twenty~~" and ~~add~~ the ~~spelling~~ of ~~any nonzero number in the ones place, which doesn't require any new rules). Next~~, we get to thirty, and require a new label "thirty" but the same rule - add the spelling of any nonzero number in the ones place, thirty one, thirty two, thirty three, etc. Now, just a few rules can generalize and take us all the way to 99.		Once we get to the hundreds, we can name way more numbers - one additional rule (introducing the word "hundred") and following the pattern of adding "and" and the englishification of whatever comes after, takes us all the way to 999.

	Once we get to the hundreds, we can name way more numbers - one additional rule (introducing the word "hundred") and following the pattern of adding "and" and the englishification of whatever comes after, takes us all the way to 999. One more rule ("thousand") takes us to 999,999 new numbers. And now the system becomes more refined - all the special cases were all piled up at the very beginning.		One more rule ("thousand") takes us to 999,999 new numbers. And now the system becomes more refined - all the special cases were all piled up at the very beginning.

			==Code==

			Link to code: https://charlesreid1.com:3000/cs/euler/src/master/scratch/Round1_001-020/017

			==Flags==

	{{ProjectEulerFlag}}		{{ProjectEulerFlag}}

Admin: Admin moved page Project Euler/Number Spelling to Project Euler/17

2017-07-05T04:14:21Z

Admin moved page Project Euler/Number Spelling to Project Euler/17

← Older revision	Revision as of 04:14, 5 July 2017
(No difference)

Admin at 03:04, 5 July 2017

2017-07-05T03:04:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:04, 5 July 2017
Line 7:		Line 7:
	Much like this problem, the larger the digits go, the more digits you can name with a single, systematic rules.		Much like this problem, the larger the digits go, the more digits you can name with a single, systematic rules.

	Consider, for example: the first 20 digits ~~require 20~~ rules. But once we reach twenty one, we have a twenty-first rule that covers the next 9 numbers. (Take "twenty" and add the spelling of any nonzero number in the ones place, which doesn't require any new rules). Next, we get to thirty, and require a new label "thirty" but the same rule - add the spelling of any nonzero number in the ones place, thirty one, thirty two, thirty three, etc. Now, just a few rules can generalize and take us all the way to 99. ~~That's eight new rules ("twenty", "thirty", "forty", and so on) to cover 80 additional numbers. Whew!~~		Consider, for example: naming the first 19 digits requires 19 separate rules. ("one", "two", "three", and so on through the teenagers.) But once we reach twenty and twenty one, we have a 20th rule that introduces the word "twenty", and the twenty-first rule that covers the next 9 numbers. (Take "twenty" and add the spelling of any nonzero number in the ones place, which doesn't require any new rules). Next, we get to thirty, and require a new label "thirty" but the same rule - add the spelling of any nonzero number in the ones place, thirty one, thirty two, thirty three, etc. Now, just a few rules can generalize and take us all the way to 99.

	Once we get to the hundreds, we can name way more numbers - one additional rule (introducing the word "hundred") takes us all the way to 999. One more rule ("thousand") takes us to 999,999 new numbers. And now the system becomes more refined - all the special cases were all piled up at the very beginning.		Once we get to the hundreds, we can name way more numbers - one additional rule (introducing the word "hundred") and following the pattern of adding "and" and the englishification of whatever comes after, takes us all the way to 999. One more rule ("thousand") takes us to 999,999 new numbers. And now the system becomes more refined - all the special cases were all piled up at the very beginning.

Admin at 03:02, 5 July 2017

2017-07-05T03:02:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:02, 5 July 2017
Line 14:		Line 14:


	{{~~ProjectEulerSpelling~~}}		{{ProjectEulerFlag}}

Admin at 03:02, 5 July 2017

2017-07-05T03:02:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:02, 5 July 2017
Line 10:		Line 10:

	Once we get to the hundreds, we can name way more numbers - one additional rule (introducing the word "hundred") takes us all the way to 999. One more rule ("thousand") takes us to 999,999 new numbers. And now the system becomes more refined - all the special cases were all piled up at the very beginning.		Once we get to the hundreds, we can name way more numbers - one additional rule (introducing the word "hundred") takes us all the way to 999. One more rule ("thousand") takes us to 999,999 new numbers. And now the system becomes more refined - all the special cases were all piled up at the very beginning.




			{{ProjectEulerSpelling}}

Admin at 03:02, 5 July 2017

2017-07-05T03:02:13Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:02, 5 July 2017
Line 3:		Line 3:
	First, let it be said that this is a problem that shows how tremendously awful language rules can be, when contrasted with the happy certainty of mathematics.		First, let it be said that this is a problem that shows how tremendously awful language rules can be, when contrasted with the happy certainty of mathematics.

	This basically requires about 20 special cases, and from there things are relatively smooth. This program only goes up to 1,000, but it would be entirely plausible to extend this program to go even further.		This basically requires about 20 special cases, and from there things are relatively smooth. This program only goes up to 1,000, but it would be entirely plausible to extend this program to go even further and handle extremely large numbers in a more programmatic way.

			Much like this problem, the larger the digits go, the more digits you can name with a single, systematic rules.

			Consider, for example: the first 20 digits require 20 rules. But once we reach twenty one, we have a twenty-first rule that covers the next 9 numbers. (Take "twenty" and add the spelling of any nonzero number in the ones place, which doesn't require any new rules). Next, we get to thirty, and require a new label "thirty" but the same rule - add the spelling of any nonzero number in the ones place, thirty one, thirty two, thirty three, etc. Now, just a few rules can generalize and take us all the way to 99. That's eight new rules ("twenty", "thirty", "forty", and so on) to cover 80 additional numbers. Whew!

			Once we get to the hundreds, we can name way more numbers - one additional rule (introducing the word "hundred") takes us all the way to 999. One more rule ("thousand") takes us to 999,999 new numbers. And now the system becomes more refined - all the special cases were all piled up at the very beginning.

Admin: Created page with "Problem 17 deals with the number of letters it takes to spell out a number. First, let it be said that this is a problem that shows how tremendously awful language rules can..."

2017-07-05T02:57:40Z

Created page with "Problem 17 deals with the number of letters it takes to spell out a number. First, let it be said that this is a problem that shows how tremendously awful language rules can..."

New page

Problem 17 deals with the number of letters it takes to spell out a number.

First, let it be said that this is a problem that shows how tremendously awful language rules can be, when contrasted with the happy certainty of mathematics.

This basically requires about 20 special cases, and from there things are relatively smooth. This program only goes up to 1,000, but it would be entirely plausible to extend this program to go even further.