This looks nice, but by defining 'string.lower()' within the for loop instead of a variable outside of it requires python to perform the lower function during each iteration of the for loop instead of just once if written outside the for loop. Which imo makes this a lesser candidate for 'best practice' than other solutions.

This should be a 7 on Python IMO, not a 6. Too easy.

My solution was similar to yours. Could simplify your return and list comprehension.

@sean_little the description states: 'If the list is made up of only negative numbers, return 0 instead.' The 'max' would end up being a 0 and thus 0 is returned.

nice solution!

Yes, agreed on Python! As long as you know the built in functions it's pretty easy.

Very clever, friend!

Agree! At least in Python this should be at least a 6kyu

This solution isn't as nice in Python 3

I have a feeling I'm missing some math component of this question. I can exclude non-coprimes with 10, but when the answer is over 10k charcters in length, I'm timing out the attempt. I've made pretty effecient iterators for finding the cycle, but still times out. Am I missing some easy math calculation to find this or is it really just creating an efficient iterator for finding unique combinations of such a long length? I've spent several hours on this one :/