-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 546
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
series, largest-series-product: clarify "consecutive" #200
Conversation
series of 3 digits is 270 (9 * 5 * 6), and the largest product for a | ||
series of 5 digits is 7560 (7 * 8 * 3 * 9 * 5). | ||
|
||
Note that these series are only required to occupy *adjacent positions* in the original string; the digits need not be *numerically consecutive*. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
wrap? Considering that the above lines are wrapped
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, wrap. I always read the readmes either by opening them in a text editor, or catting them out onto the command-line. I like the wrapping.
It was unclear whether "consecutive" meant consecutive in *numerical value* or simply *positionally adjacent*. Due to this problem's origin in Project Euler, it was the latter. To avoid any confusion this commit does the following: * Replace the word "consecutive" in .yml files with "contiguous" * Clarifies in the .md files that the series of digits only need be positionally adjacent, not consecutive in numerical value. * Uses examples in .md files that should make clear that numerical value is not important. This should prevent any further confusion of the form expressed in the two issues * exercism/ruby#244 * exercism/ruby#262 This is the first subtask of #197.
wrapped to 72 |
series, largest-series-product: clarify "consecutive"
It was unclear whether "consecutive" meant consecutive in numerical
value or simply positionally adjacent. Due to this problem's origin
in Project Euler, it was the latter.
To avoid any confusion this commit does the following:
positionally adjacent, not consecutive in numerical value.
is not important.
This should prevent any further confusion of the form expressed in the
two issues
This is the first subtask of #197.