On Sat, 06 Jan 2001 13:25:21 GMT, George Cantor <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>In article <email@example.com>, > firstname.lastname@example.org (Randy Poe) wrote: >> >>First, the sum would be too large if either A or B >> >>were less than 2002. Second, the sum would be too >> >>small if both A and B were greater than 4002. So, >> >>one of the variables must be between 2002 and 4002, >> >>but an exhaustive search of that range, taking less >> >>than .00001 seconds, uncovers no solutions. >> >> The reasoning appears to be sound. Note that both A and B in >> the above solution are > 2002, and only one exceeds 4002. >> >> Apparently something was wrong in the validation step of the >> "exhaustive search". > >Yes, the validation step was flawwed. I accidently >confused a Truncation opcode with a Rounding opcode >when I tried detecting and correcting errors introduced >by the use of floating point variables. As far as I >knew, no one else was accounting for rounding errors.
Presumably(?) no one else was using floating-point arithmetic. Seems like an unreasonably clumsy approach: Although it's possible to do this search using floating-point if one accounts for the errors _properly_ I tend to doubt that you personally are capcable of figuring out exactly what it means to account for the errors _properly_ here.
>That's why, eventhough I noticed my results disagreed >with the rest of the group, I assumed I was correct. >Isn't that ironic?
I don't think "ironic" is quite the right word. I think you might learn something from the fact that you disagreed with everyone, and then incredibly it turned out that everyone else was actually right. But I doubt it will happen.
>Anyway, if I would have read all the posts I would have >known better than to claim no solutions, but as soon as >I read the post claiming an infinite number of solutions >I went insane! > > >-- >I'm a little crackpot short and stout. >I've got a new handle cuz of the drought. >When I get all steamed up then I shout, >snip a poster and flame the lout. > > - George (0+0=oo, for sufficiently large zeros) Canto > > >Sent via Deja.com >http://www.deja.com/