I'm bumping a "series" that I started last year, where we collectively work on problems from Project Euler.
This is Problem 4, finding the largest palindrome product.
A palindromic number reads the same both ways. The largest palindrome made from the product of two 2-digit numbers is 9009 = 91 × 99.
Find the largest palindrome made from the product of two 3-digit numbers.
Top comments (36)
Here's my Python solution!
How's the run time? I think yours is Python 2?
Here's mine in Python 3 :) It's a bit more complicated because I try to write them more flexible. Like how this problem shows 2 digit numbers as an example and 3 for the actual problem, so I wrote it to take the number of digits per number as an input
My typescript solution:
Please don't do this 😕 It's verbose for no reason. You can accomplish the same with just
return condition;
.cool! yes so much simple
thanks!
Here is my code on C (Brute force), the result was out after 0.172s.
Here's my Ruby solution. There's probably a much more clever way to do this. Probably a more Ruby way to do it for that matter.
If I understand it correctly (correct me if I'm wrong, I don't know Ruby), this doesn't work in general, as it prints the first palindrome product you find. But you don't know if it's the largest.
Unless you can prove it is 🤷♂️ (I have no idea).
I'm working backwards through the range of numbers beginning with '999.' Hence the extra verbosity in the block with the call to the downto method. (999..1).each do doesn't work, and (1..999).each do really shouldn't work either because ranges are not defined by their content, just a beginning state and an end state. So counting backwards the first palindrome I find is the largest. And the outer block isn't necessary, but I include it just for the sake of being thorough I guess.
The problem here is that the products you're getting aren't ordered. Which means that if you get a palindrome, you cannot be sure it's the largest.
In fact, I run your code and I got
999 * 91 = 90909
, which is not correct. Even if you limit your range to 999 to 100 (we're looking for 3-digit factors after all), you'd get995 * 583 = 580085
. But the largest palindrome is993 * 913 = 906609
, which comes after the others.Just did this super quick in JS.
while there are many explanations, easiest to understand was yours. the only part I struggle to understand is this one "isPalindrome(product) && product > largestPalindrome", can you please explain what it means?
Yes. Let's try reading it step by step:
Hope that helps, let me know if you still have questions!
Thank you, Faraz, I didn't know it was possible to use several conditional operators in one single line of code
A quadratic solution in JavaScript. I'm curious if there's a way to do this in linear time:
Not linear... but I think (without any actual proof 🤷♂️) (I'm a fraud 🤦♂️) that my solution does it in logarithmic time: dev.to/maxart2501/comment/b9m6
Edit: scratch that, no way it's not quadratic 😂 But then again, it's faster than the extensive check.
Love to work on the challenges, please keep this series running.
Here's my Rust Solution: Playground
a lazy c++ solution :)
First observation is that the number must be between 100^2 and 999^2 or in the range of [10000, 998001].
As the majority of numbers has 6 digits and we're looking for the largest, we ignore 5 digits numbers.
Based on this, we can construct a palindromic number as:
'abccba' =100000a+10000b+1000c+100c+10b+a
=100001a+10010b+1100c
=11(9091a+910b+100c) = p.q
This equation shows us, that either p or q, but not both must have a factor of 11!!!
def palindrome_number(x,y):
void solve()
{
fast;
ll n,largepalin=0;
cin>>n;
for(ll i=999;i>=100;i--)
{
for(ll j=999;j>=100;j--)
{
if((i*j)%11==0 && palin(i*j) && (i*j)<n) largepalin=max(i*j,largepalin);
}
}
cout<<largepalin<<endl;
return;
}
Sooo... there are so many good solutions, but they all kind of look the same, so I wanted a different approach 😁
What if, instead of starting with the factors and checking if their product is a palindrome, we start with palindromes and find two 3-digit factors?
We'd start with 999999, then 998899, then 997799... You get the point. So we can start with a 3-digit number (e.g. 356)... and get a palindrome out of it (e.g. 356653), and look for factors.
My solution in JavaScript:
I've tested it with up to 7 digits and it's still basically instantaneous. Over that limit you go over
Number.MAX_SAFE_INTEGER
and it becomes unreliable. I didn't bother usingBigInt
s, also because you can't get the square root out of them (you can approximate it, but it's a bother).P.S.: yes, I've used a label in JavaScript. Sue me 😂 (also useful if you have to break out of more than one cycle... which is usually rare).
Some comments may only be visible to logged-in visitors. Sign in to view all comments.