Timeline for Project Euler 8 - Redux
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 3, 2017 at 14:27 | answer | added | Harald Scheirich | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jul 3, 2017 at 10:13 | answer | added | Toby Speight | timeline score: 2 | |
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:40 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://codereview.stackexchange.com/ with https://codereview.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| May 13, 2015 at 17:28 | vote | accept | Emily L. | ||
| Mar 13, 2015 at 4:20 | answer | added | user34073 | timeline score: 3 | |
| Mar 8, 2015 at 15:16 | comment | added | Loki Astari | Your idea is better. | |
| Mar 8, 2015 at 10:54 | comment | added | Emily L. | @LokiAstari The running time is just about instant. It has linear time complexity in the size of the input string. The number of adjacent factors to consider doesn't affect the run time. The problem can be partitioned into smaller problems by realizing that all 0s will create a zero product around them. Thus splitting the input into subproblems by the zeros creates simpler problems to solve. I'm partitioning the problem as is commonly said. I do not understand your proposal of keeping 13 running totals, could you elaborate? | |
| Mar 8, 2015 at 9:11 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackCodeReview/status/574497591070756864 | ||
| Mar 7, 2015 at 9:12 | comment | added | Loki Astari | Not sure what the partition() is doing. But Why not just keep 13 running totals. Then you just have to loop over the data once and you don't need the relatively expensive division. | |
| Mar 7, 2015 at 2:19 | comment | added | Loki Astari | What's your time? | |
| Mar 6, 2015 at 9:52 | history | asked | Emily L. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |