Pink Poogle Toy Forum

Fun and not as easy as the previous ones. Took me a quick Java program to solve.

I think us programmers are going to have this one all to ourselves, unless some moron goes and posts the answer.

I built a C program for the Armada Number crunching LC, and missed because of roundoff error. (of course, I was doing it in a brute force manner ... but I was still happy with it).

Tons of people on the neoboards claim they got this one within five minutes. Do you think they're all right? It sounds like it was a little trickier than they're letting on.

It depends.

First, it may just be intimidation tactics to try to get people to not bother entering -> "We all solved it" -> "Oh, then I guess it's not worth entering" -> *Yay! More np/chance of getting a trophy for us!*

Second, it may just be neoboard doofuses trying to be cool/make themselves look vastly intelligent -> "Oh yeah, that was easy, I got it right away, you're stupid if you have a hard time with it."

Third, there are few ways you can solve the problem other than writing a program, mainly because there are 899999 numbers in question. (You don't know if it's less than 500,000 or not.) You can't simply figure out what numbers meet the conditions by looking at it, it's too hard. Writing the program can be done by a good programmer in under 5 mins, however, I seriously doubt a ton of the people on the neoboards even have a clue what something as simple as "cout" means and how to use it.

I seriously doubt tons of people got it within five minutes. If you can find a way to solve it, I seriously recommend entering, as there probably won't be too terribly many people solving it this round.

Lol, I took one look at it and I just knew it. I got it within 30 seconds (including the time that it takes to read the problem)

Of course..I did use the calculator for a quick second to find the answer.

I'd be impressed if you could get the answer within 30 seconds. I don't even think Rainman would get it that fast.

I did it in 5 minutes. No program, just a spread sheet(which I guess work like a program... stick in every possible result and see which one works ).

Did everyone else get an answer whos digits added to 43?

A spread sheet basically counts as a program. Like I mentioned as well ... EXCEL was my program of choice this time.

Can someone confirm for me, please?

This one is pretty easy to confirm.

Did it match only 2 of the 3 criteria?
Do the digits add up to 43?
Is it 6 digits?

If those are all ok ... then it is the right number.

It applied to everything except adding to 43.

[edit] Oh shoot. I missed the LC saying the thing about 43. Nevermind...back to drawing board

Darn.

Yeah, the add the digits up to 43 is pretty important. Not many 6 digits numbers that are perfect squares or perfect cubes have digits that add up to 43. In fact, I could count how many of them exist on just one hand.

Urg...what am I doing wrong?! I just checked them all on a site that lists them, and I could find one that added to 44, but none that added to 43...........

woot! Thanks to xenaandgab for the excel(lent) tip
Took me some time cos i had trouble getting the sum function to regconise the individual units to have numerical value.