6 kyu
Blind Numbers
Loading description...
Mathematics
Fundamentals
View
This comment has been reported as {{ abuseKindText }}.
Show
This comment has been hidden. You can view it now .
This comment can not be viewed.
- |
- Reply
- Edit
- View Solution
- Expand 1 Reply Expand {{ comments?.length }} replies
- Collapse
- Spoiler
- Remove
- Remove comment & replies
- Report
{{ fetchSolutionsError }}
-
-
Your rendered github-flavored markdown will appear here.
-
Label this discussion...
-
No Label
Keep the comment unlabeled if none of the below applies.
-
Issue
Use the issue label when reporting problems with the kata.
Be sure to explain the problem clearly and include the steps to reproduce. -
Suggestion
Use the suggestion label if you have feedback on how this kata can be improved.
-
Question
Use the question label if you have questions and/or need help solving the kata.
Don't forget to mention the language you're using, and mark as having spoiler if you include your solution.
-
No Label
- Cancel
Commenting is not allowed on this discussion
You cannot view this solution
There is no solution to show
Please sign in or sign up to leave a comment.
according to Google: "10-adic numbers are base-10-expressed numbers that have an unlimited number of digits to the left of the decimal point"
If the description means "numbers in base 10", it should not specify "10-adic numbers".
how's this?
https://www.codewars.com/kumite/66e2d44e259739d800172285?sel=66e2d44e259739d800172285
I can't read that, I haven't solved the kata.
If you don't get any reviews here, could you take it to
Discord#reviewing
?ok, I'll wait a bit first
Above fork approved.
Numbers that don't contain
00
are called Blind Numbers. Count .. that are not Blind Numbers. So that do contain00
.And then the example excludes numbers that do contain
00
.Either the description is wrong, or it contains so many negatives I lost track, and should be improved.
Description fixed in this fork, blind numbers are now defined as numbers that do contain
00
.(Resolving)
Haskell translation
Approved
Hmmm I have an O(1) solution, but the numbers get really big before I can convert to int and perform the modulo operation ...
any suggestions?
Fork to close all open issues.
Approved, nice test restructuring
Nice kata, I wouldn't thought the solution could be so easy.
for real though, I could not have thought of that formula by myself. At least I got it to work.. :]
Yeah, sometimes things tend to get straight mathematical here.
I like the kata although I haven't finished solving it myself.
I do have issues with it. It is extremely hard to understand what the kata is about.
00
is unexpected and confusing given the narrative.Not an issue to the kata. Please, next time mark your questions as
Question
, not anIssue
.Which numbers will be huge? Maybe just provide an example of what you mean.
Try solving the kata without taking modulo, and you will understand. (sample tests are enough to see that)This sentence tripped me over. I thought it was wrong since there is a double negative.
There is nothing ambiguous about this sentence.The fact that the "Blind Numbers" are the ones without 00 is unexpected and confusing given the narrative.
00
resemble the glasses, that was probably author's intent.Thanks for the reply @dolamroth.
Not an issue to the kata. Please, next time mark your questions as Question, not an Issue.
I initially had the comment as a suggestion following exactly your logic. However, the fact that you only realise the space complexity of the Kata when doing it and not when assessing its complexity is an issue.
At the end, the difficulty of the kata is not properly described in the description. That is clearly an issue with the kata.
Regarding the narrative, you are right, it should have been a suggestion and presented in a different comment.
However, the narrative IS confusing and could be drastically improved. As I said, I actually loved the kata, I just found it incredible unintuitive to understand.
The statement problem is actually as simple as:
and so on...
Tests are using
describe
andit
blocks incorrectly.Fixed in this fork
Tests should import the test framework and solution explicitly.
Fixed in this fork
Typo
relly
in into paragraph.Overall the intro paragraph is very hard to understand and bad english. I am not trying to blame the author, but it should be rewritten to be understandable.
Edited the description a bit.
6 kyu... This is yet another fucking joke...
THIS IS 6 KYU, FOR FUCK SAKE: https://www.codewars.com/kata/5a626fc7fd56cb63c300008c/
Judging by the available languages, the kata you linked should have been
7 kyu
, though.I can pick litterally hundreds of other examples, if you want, that won't change a thing. The problem is: "you" (generic plural) are deflating the ranks over the years and "you" (still plural) are just incapable to see what "you" are doing, because "you" (...) just do not want to make the effort to compare to what's already existing and only want to rank according to your (moving, and that's the essence of the problem) personal feeling about how it was difficult for "you" (...).
Is that so hard to ask for "retrocontrol" when everyone is suggesting a rank? I still cannot get why so much people seems just incapable of that.
funny thing is: this is 4 kyu https://www.codewars.com/kata/5a59e029145c46eaac000062
What difference do you see with the present kata?
I do not agree with the language usage of @Blind4Basics , but I agree with his point. This kata is not
6kyu
at all!I am no expert, but if I were to be asked, I would say this is a
4kyu
kata.Also, the performance analysis should be included in the description of the kata. Its absence is what makes people think this kata is easier than it actually is.
3 years later, and because of ranking inflation, this (in my eyes) would be a solid 6 kyu puzzle right now.
Congrats, you're now part of the problem...
This comment has been hidden.
Can I see the duplicate kata?
Yet another variation of fibonacci
But not every can now it. It is another variation of fibonacci. But It is math calculator.
You have a constraint on x, but no where in the description do you mention what x is. Is it referring to N?
This comment has been hidden.
sorry I think the kata is different
(So linear solutions actually pass... Then it's even easier.)
I'm pretty sure my solution is correct; and the result for
4680
should be less than for5841
anyway.I already check my code and output is correct and you answer is correct. why you said it is issue?
OK, sorry.