06 Jan 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ranjan sinhaFirst of all, the multiple solutions (4, 61) and (16, 73) were not ever suggested to be solutions to the original version of the problem. That post of mine was in response to CoolPlayer, who suggested I use my program to test up to (999, 999).
In any case one could make valid assumption about the implicit ( hidden) logic employed by him. It was you who also found out the multiple solutions e.g. (4,61), (16,73) within the 1<n1,n2<100 range, contradicting his (Plumber's) assertion.
Those "solutions" (they are not really solutions, but I will call them that for convenience) only work if n1 and n2 are allowed to go up to 999. Yes, allowing n1 and n2 to go higher than 100 actually creates "solutions" with n1 and n2 lower than 100!
My post about (4, 61) etc. has no bearing on posts made by The Plumber, who was only concerned with the original version of the problem (n1 and n2 below 100). I still agree with him that (4, 13) is the only solution to the original version.
Also, note that The Plumber claimed to have used a spreadsheet to solve the problem. You really can't confirm that his logic is incomplete without seeing that spreadsheet.
06 Jan 05
Originally posted by ranjan sinha🙄
True . Plumber was the first to come up with the correct answer, albeit , without clearly spelling out the logic behind his assertion or the finding. I never assumed his assertion was without logic. Only he said that he didn'd give any logic. In any case one could make valid assumption about the implic ...[text shortened]... as soon as you disclosed the other solutions , found in your computer search. .
07 Jan 05
3 edits
Originally posted by BigDoggProblem🙂 not = to 😉
First of all, the multiple solutions (4, 61) and (16, 73) were [b]not ever suggested to be solutions to the original version of the problem. That post of mine was in response to CoolPlayer, who suggested I use my program t ...[text shortened]... firm that his logic is incomplete without seeing that spreadsheet.[/b]
BUT
😉 = 🙄