I find it interesting how different my approach has to be if I want a J solution compared to a C or Java solution. I often try to impose my imperative version onto J and start getting stuck trying to express it, such as in this case. I often find that I can't really use J for the solution because of the size of the array I'd have to create / or in general the memory required - I'm sure there's some other way round it.
On 20 Oct 2011, at 13:21, Mike Day wrote: > Yes, I'm sure it is Euler 121. I don't think the actual answer has been > posted in this thread, so that's ok. > > FWIW, my solution (a few years old, now) appears not to have used > the comb verb. On this machine, it runs in ~0.05 sec using ~1MB of > space. > > I wish all my Euler solutions were as nifty. > > Mike > > On 20/10/2011 8:07 AM, Nick Simicich wrote: >> Is this euler 121? >> >> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 6:24 PM, David Vaughan<[email protected] >>> wrote: >>> Thanks, this was the method I had envisaged. I wasn't thinking about it in >>> the J way originally - this is something I'm trying to work on. >>> >>> > ..........[ I've snipped the rest - Mike] > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
