tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7577421612120825312.post2215113661538125050..comments2023-10-03T10:41:13.944+01:00Comments on Functional Fun: Project Euler Problem 4Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01345100698738870730noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7577421612120825312.post-1775226787011622272011-03-10T11:41:53.048+00:002011-03-10T11:41:53.048+00:00Gr8 blog keep it up :)Gr8 blog keep it up :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7577421612120825312.post-88387408874306444022009-10-05T09:30:34.163+01:002009-10-05T09:30:34.163+01:00AG
Thanks for the very encouraging comment!AG<br /> Thanks for the very encouraging comment!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01345100698738870730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7577421612120825312.post-91455748289492861872009-10-04T11:26:56.398+01:002009-10-04T11:26:56.398+01:00Hello Sam,
Your blog is extremely good work, I ha...Hello Sam,<br /><br />Your blog is extremely good work, I have learned so much in last 3 days cant explain, Wish more people were writing so clear and explanatory blogs and helping other's learn from their work and experience. Please keep up you good work and explaining new tricks with C# and obviously more of functional aspect. <br /><br />Btw i did my version of Euler, problem 4: <br /><br /> var number = (from a in Enumerable.Range(0, 1000)<br /> from b in Enumerable.Range(0, 1000)<br /> select a * b).Where(x => (x.ToString().ToCharArray().SequenceEqual(x.ToString().Reverse()))).Max();<br /><br /><br />I must say its a little quicker than your method as i did a diagnostics stopwatch test but i know you code is far better as its building more of re-usable extension methods.<br /><br />Anyhoo hope you have a good weekend and keep your readers glued to your blog.<br /><br />Cheers,<br />AG.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7577421612120825312.post-57138410365755123512008-10-13T19:37:00.000+01:002008-10-13T19:37:00.000+01:00Daniel, Yes. You're right. That would be more eff...Daniel,<BR/> Yes. You're right. That would be more efficient, as it would save recomputing cases that are already covered.<BR/><BR/>I'm glad you're finding my posts useful.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01345100698738870730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7577421612120825312.post-56502260285168332692008-10-11T03:09:00.000+01:002008-10-11T03:09:00.000+01:00I know you wrote this post back in April, but I ju...I know you wrote this post back in April, but I just discovered your blog today. I love what you are doing with project euler. I am learning a lot from looking at your code. On this one (Problem 4), I have a question. Wouldn't it be more efficient to change the following<BR/><BR/>from x in 100.To(999) <BR/>from y in 100.To(999) <BR/><BR/>to this<BR/><BR/>from x in 100.To(999) <BR/>from y in x.To(999) ?<BR/><BR/>I'm not trying to be nitpicking, just trying to learn.Daniel Olsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12199871165522708005noreply@blogger.com