Project Euler Problem 338











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












I'm stuck on Project Euler problem 338. This is a cross post from StackOverflow where I initially posted, however, it was suggested that I post it here too since the problem mostly relies on math. The following is work towards a solution I have made.



Let's denote a rectangle with width and height $x$ and $y$ respectively $(x,y)$. To form new rectangles you can consider cutting a kind of stairway down the diagonal (as is shown in in the problem description) with d steps. But to form a new rectangle the following must hold: $d|x$ and either $(d-1)|y$ or $(d+1)|y$. The new rectangle then becomes either (${x(d-1)}over{d}$, ${yd}over{d-1}$) or (${x(d+1)}over{d}$, ${yd}over{d+1}$). Obviously the new rectangle's area is the same as the old rectangle's.



That was enough to confirm that $G(10)=55$ and $G(1000)=971745$ by looping through all relevant d and adding all new rectangles to a set being careful to count $(x,y)$ and $(y,x)$ only once.



The main issue with this method is that it's possible to make a new rectangle in two different ways. For example, $(9,8)$ can transform into both $(6,12)$ and $(12,6)$ with $d=3$ and either $d-1$ or $d+1$ dividing $y$. Or another example of $(4,4)$ transforms into both $(2,8)$ and $(8,2)$ with $d=2$ and $d=1$ respectively.



I was then lucky enough to read this blog post. It removes the need to check for duplicates by searching for one of the sides instead.



def F(w, h):
if w&1 and h&1: return 0
if w<h: w,h = h,w

r = 0
x = 1
while x**2 <= w*h:
if (w*h)%x!=0 or x==h:
x += 1
continue

if w%(w-x)==0 or x%(x-h)==0:
r += 1

x += 1

return r

def G(N):
s = 0
for w in range(1, N+1):
for h in range(1, w+1):
s += F(w,h)

return s


G(1012) would require far too long to solve regardless of how fast F is though. I think it's necessary to either use some kind of sieving algorithm where we loop through all x < 1012 counting how many (w,h) satisfy h $le$ w $le$ 1012, x|(wh), x $ne$ h and (w-x)|w or (x-h)|x $implies$ (x-h)|h.



I think an O(n2/3) algorithm must be possible... but I'm stuck here!



Edit: On the suggestion I've checked for a few basic patterns in G(n). If gcd(a,b)=1, G(ab) $ne$ G(a)G(b) in general (for instance G(2)=1, G(5)=8, G(10)=55). In fact it seems G(ab) $ge$ G(a)G(b).



Looking at G(2n) I have noticed it grows exponentially but very little else. It doesn't show any obvious patterns modulo small primes. The same goes for G(5n). In general, G(kn) grows about as fast as k2n.



Edit2: Here's the table of F(w,h) for $w$, $h$ $le$ 10:



    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
2 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2
3 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 2
4 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 2
5 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0
6 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 3
7 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
8 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2
9 0 2 0 3 0 1 0 2 0 2
10 1 2 2 2 0 3 1 2 2 1


It's symmetrical about the diagonal since F(w,h)=F(h,w).










share|cite|improve this question
























  • I see no reason to think it is possible to count by brute force. My first try would be to see if whenever $gcd(a,b)=1,$ does it follow that $G(ab) = G(a) G(b).$ I have no idea, by the way. Then I would check low powers and see if I could find a pattern in $G(2^k)$ and then $G(5^m).$
    – Will Jagy
    Sep 19 '11 at 22:09












  • Alright, I don't think I want to write any programs for this. Could you please post a little table of all the separate F(w,h) with 1 <= h <= w <= 10? Evidently the interesting relationships occur there, not in the cumulative function G.
    – Will Jagy
    Sep 20 '11 at 3:26










  • Sorry if it's not much related to the question. But I'm curious if we could prove that dividing into two staircases is the only way of forming another rectangle. How can we do this?
    – Jineon Baek
    Sep 20 '11 at 12:56






  • 6




    I voted to close because I do think that it is a very bad idea to have a collection of project Euler solutions here.
    – Phira
    Oct 4 '11 at 10:39















up vote
1
down vote

favorite












I'm stuck on Project Euler problem 338. This is a cross post from StackOverflow where I initially posted, however, it was suggested that I post it here too since the problem mostly relies on math. The following is work towards a solution I have made.



Let's denote a rectangle with width and height $x$ and $y$ respectively $(x,y)$. To form new rectangles you can consider cutting a kind of stairway down the diagonal (as is shown in in the problem description) with d steps. But to form a new rectangle the following must hold: $d|x$ and either $(d-1)|y$ or $(d+1)|y$. The new rectangle then becomes either (${x(d-1)}over{d}$, ${yd}over{d-1}$) or (${x(d+1)}over{d}$, ${yd}over{d+1}$). Obviously the new rectangle's area is the same as the old rectangle's.



That was enough to confirm that $G(10)=55$ and $G(1000)=971745$ by looping through all relevant d and adding all new rectangles to a set being careful to count $(x,y)$ and $(y,x)$ only once.



The main issue with this method is that it's possible to make a new rectangle in two different ways. For example, $(9,8)$ can transform into both $(6,12)$ and $(12,6)$ with $d=3$ and either $d-1$ or $d+1$ dividing $y$. Or another example of $(4,4)$ transforms into both $(2,8)$ and $(8,2)$ with $d=2$ and $d=1$ respectively.



I was then lucky enough to read this blog post. It removes the need to check for duplicates by searching for one of the sides instead.



def F(w, h):
if w&1 and h&1: return 0
if w<h: w,h = h,w

r = 0
x = 1
while x**2 <= w*h:
if (w*h)%x!=0 or x==h:
x += 1
continue

if w%(w-x)==0 or x%(x-h)==0:
r += 1

x += 1

return r

def G(N):
s = 0
for w in range(1, N+1):
for h in range(1, w+1):
s += F(w,h)

return s


G(1012) would require far too long to solve regardless of how fast F is though. I think it's necessary to either use some kind of sieving algorithm where we loop through all x < 1012 counting how many (w,h) satisfy h $le$ w $le$ 1012, x|(wh), x $ne$ h and (w-x)|w or (x-h)|x $implies$ (x-h)|h.



I think an O(n2/3) algorithm must be possible... but I'm stuck here!



Edit: On the suggestion I've checked for a few basic patterns in G(n). If gcd(a,b)=1, G(ab) $ne$ G(a)G(b) in general (for instance G(2)=1, G(5)=8, G(10)=55). In fact it seems G(ab) $ge$ G(a)G(b).



Looking at G(2n) I have noticed it grows exponentially but very little else. It doesn't show any obvious patterns modulo small primes. The same goes for G(5n). In general, G(kn) grows about as fast as k2n.



Edit2: Here's the table of F(w,h) for $w$, $h$ $le$ 10:



    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
2 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2
3 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 2
4 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 2
5 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0
6 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 3
7 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
8 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2
9 0 2 0 3 0 1 0 2 0 2
10 1 2 2 2 0 3 1 2 2 1


It's symmetrical about the diagonal since F(w,h)=F(h,w).










share|cite|improve this question
























  • I see no reason to think it is possible to count by brute force. My first try would be to see if whenever $gcd(a,b)=1,$ does it follow that $G(ab) = G(a) G(b).$ I have no idea, by the way. Then I would check low powers and see if I could find a pattern in $G(2^k)$ and then $G(5^m).$
    – Will Jagy
    Sep 19 '11 at 22:09












  • Alright, I don't think I want to write any programs for this. Could you please post a little table of all the separate F(w,h) with 1 <= h <= w <= 10? Evidently the interesting relationships occur there, not in the cumulative function G.
    – Will Jagy
    Sep 20 '11 at 3:26










  • Sorry if it's not much related to the question. But I'm curious if we could prove that dividing into two staircases is the only way of forming another rectangle. How can we do this?
    – Jineon Baek
    Sep 20 '11 at 12:56






  • 6




    I voted to close because I do think that it is a very bad idea to have a collection of project Euler solutions here.
    – Phira
    Oct 4 '11 at 10:39













up vote
1
down vote

favorite









up vote
1
down vote

favorite











I'm stuck on Project Euler problem 338. This is a cross post from StackOverflow where I initially posted, however, it was suggested that I post it here too since the problem mostly relies on math. The following is work towards a solution I have made.



Let's denote a rectangle with width and height $x$ and $y$ respectively $(x,y)$. To form new rectangles you can consider cutting a kind of stairway down the diagonal (as is shown in in the problem description) with d steps. But to form a new rectangle the following must hold: $d|x$ and either $(d-1)|y$ or $(d+1)|y$. The new rectangle then becomes either (${x(d-1)}over{d}$, ${yd}over{d-1}$) or (${x(d+1)}over{d}$, ${yd}over{d+1}$). Obviously the new rectangle's area is the same as the old rectangle's.



That was enough to confirm that $G(10)=55$ and $G(1000)=971745$ by looping through all relevant d and adding all new rectangles to a set being careful to count $(x,y)$ and $(y,x)$ only once.



The main issue with this method is that it's possible to make a new rectangle in two different ways. For example, $(9,8)$ can transform into both $(6,12)$ and $(12,6)$ with $d=3$ and either $d-1$ or $d+1$ dividing $y$. Or another example of $(4,4)$ transforms into both $(2,8)$ and $(8,2)$ with $d=2$ and $d=1$ respectively.



I was then lucky enough to read this blog post. It removes the need to check for duplicates by searching for one of the sides instead.



def F(w, h):
if w&1 and h&1: return 0
if w<h: w,h = h,w

r = 0
x = 1
while x**2 <= w*h:
if (w*h)%x!=0 or x==h:
x += 1
continue

if w%(w-x)==0 or x%(x-h)==0:
r += 1

x += 1

return r

def G(N):
s = 0
for w in range(1, N+1):
for h in range(1, w+1):
s += F(w,h)

return s


G(1012) would require far too long to solve regardless of how fast F is though. I think it's necessary to either use some kind of sieving algorithm where we loop through all x < 1012 counting how many (w,h) satisfy h $le$ w $le$ 1012, x|(wh), x $ne$ h and (w-x)|w or (x-h)|x $implies$ (x-h)|h.



I think an O(n2/3) algorithm must be possible... but I'm stuck here!



Edit: On the suggestion I've checked for a few basic patterns in G(n). If gcd(a,b)=1, G(ab) $ne$ G(a)G(b) in general (for instance G(2)=1, G(5)=8, G(10)=55). In fact it seems G(ab) $ge$ G(a)G(b).



Looking at G(2n) I have noticed it grows exponentially but very little else. It doesn't show any obvious patterns modulo small primes. The same goes for G(5n). In general, G(kn) grows about as fast as k2n.



Edit2: Here's the table of F(w,h) for $w$, $h$ $le$ 10:



    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
2 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2
3 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 2
4 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 2
5 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0
6 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 3
7 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
8 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2
9 0 2 0 3 0 1 0 2 0 2
10 1 2 2 2 0 3 1 2 2 1


It's symmetrical about the diagonal since F(w,h)=F(h,w).










share|cite|improve this question















I'm stuck on Project Euler problem 338. This is a cross post from StackOverflow where I initially posted, however, it was suggested that I post it here too since the problem mostly relies on math. The following is work towards a solution I have made.



Let's denote a rectangle with width and height $x$ and $y$ respectively $(x,y)$. To form new rectangles you can consider cutting a kind of stairway down the diagonal (as is shown in in the problem description) with d steps. But to form a new rectangle the following must hold: $d|x$ and either $(d-1)|y$ or $(d+1)|y$. The new rectangle then becomes either (${x(d-1)}over{d}$, ${yd}over{d-1}$) or (${x(d+1)}over{d}$, ${yd}over{d+1}$). Obviously the new rectangle's area is the same as the old rectangle's.



That was enough to confirm that $G(10)=55$ and $G(1000)=971745$ by looping through all relevant d and adding all new rectangles to a set being careful to count $(x,y)$ and $(y,x)$ only once.



The main issue with this method is that it's possible to make a new rectangle in two different ways. For example, $(9,8)$ can transform into both $(6,12)$ and $(12,6)$ with $d=3$ and either $d-1$ or $d+1$ dividing $y$. Or another example of $(4,4)$ transforms into both $(2,8)$ and $(8,2)$ with $d=2$ and $d=1$ respectively.



I was then lucky enough to read this blog post. It removes the need to check for duplicates by searching for one of the sides instead.



def F(w, h):
if w&1 and h&1: return 0
if w<h: w,h = h,w

r = 0
x = 1
while x**2 <= w*h:
if (w*h)%x!=0 or x==h:
x += 1
continue

if w%(w-x)==0 or x%(x-h)==0:
r += 1

x += 1

return r

def G(N):
s = 0
for w in range(1, N+1):
for h in range(1, w+1):
s += F(w,h)

return s


G(1012) would require far too long to solve regardless of how fast F is though. I think it's necessary to either use some kind of sieving algorithm where we loop through all x < 1012 counting how many (w,h) satisfy h $le$ w $le$ 1012, x|(wh), x $ne$ h and (w-x)|w or (x-h)|x $implies$ (x-h)|h.



I think an O(n2/3) algorithm must be possible... but I'm stuck here!



Edit: On the suggestion I've checked for a few basic patterns in G(n). If gcd(a,b)=1, G(ab) $ne$ G(a)G(b) in general (for instance G(2)=1, G(5)=8, G(10)=55). In fact it seems G(ab) $ge$ G(a)G(b).



Looking at G(2n) I have noticed it grows exponentially but very little else. It doesn't show any obvious patterns modulo small primes. The same goes for G(5n). In general, G(kn) grows about as fast as k2n.



Edit2: Here's the table of F(w,h) for $w$, $h$ $le$ 10:



    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
2 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2
3 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 2
4 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 2
5 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0
6 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 3
7 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
8 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2
9 0 2 0 3 0 1 0 2 0 2
10 1 2 2 2 0 3 1 2 2 1


It's symmetrical about the diagonal since F(w,h)=F(h,w).







number-theory combinatorics algorithms project-euler






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited May 23 '17 at 12:39









Community

1




1










asked Sep 19 '11 at 21:57









ForeverStuck

181




181












  • I see no reason to think it is possible to count by brute force. My first try would be to see if whenever $gcd(a,b)=1,$ does it follow that $G(ab) = G(a) G(b).$ I have no idea, by the way. Then I would check low powers and see if I could find a pattern in $G(2^k)$ and then $G(5^m).$
    – Will Jagy
    Sep 19 '11 at 22:09












  • Alright, I don't think I want to write any programs for this. Could you please post a little table of all the separate F(w,h) with 1 <= h <= w <= 10? Evidently the interesting relationships occur there, not in the cumulative function G.
    – Will Jagy
    Sep 20 '11 at 3:26










  • Sorry if it's not much related to the question. But I'm curious if we could prove that dividing into two staircases is the only way of forming another rectangle. How can we do this?
    – Jineon Baek
    Sep 20 '11 at 12:56






  • 6




    I voted to close because I do think that it is a very bad idea to have a collection of project Euler solutions here.
    – Phira
    Oct 4 '11 at 10:39


















  • I see no reason to think it is possible to count by brute force. My first try would be to see if whenever $gcd(a,b)=1,$ does it follow that $G(ab) = G(a) G(b).$ I have no idea, by the way. Then I would check low powers and see if I could find a pattern in $G(2^k)$ and then $G(5^m).$
    – Will Jagy
    Sep 19 '11 at 22:09












  • Alright, I don't think I want to write any programs for this. Could you please post a little table of all the separate F(w,h) with 1 <= h <= w <= 10? Evidently the interesting relationships occur there, not in the cumulative function G.
    – Will Jagy
    Sep 20 '11 at 3:26










  • Sorry if it's not much related to the question. But I'm curious if we could prove that dividing into two staircases is the only way of forming another rectangle. How can we do this?
    – Jineon Baek
    Sep 20 '11 at 12:56






  • 6




    I voted to close because I do think that it is a very bad idea to have a collection of project Euler solutions here.
    – Phira
    Oct 4 '11 at 10:39
















I see no reason to think it is possible to count by brute force. My first try would be to see if whenever $gcd(a,b)=1,$ does it follow that $G(ab) = G(a) G(b).$ I have no idea, by the way. Then I would check low powers and see if I could find a pattern in $G(2^k)$ and then $G(5^m).$
– Will Jagy
Sep 19 '11 at 22:09






I see no reason to think it is possible to count by brute force. My first try would be to see if whenever $gcd(a,b)=1,$ does it follow that $G(ab) = G(a) G(b).$ I have no idea, by the way. Then I would check low powers and see if I could find a pattern in $G(2^k)$ and then $G(5^m).$
– Will Jagy
Sep 19 '11 at 22:09














Alright, I don't think I want to write any programs for this. Could you please post a little table of all the separate F(w,h) with 1 <= h <= w <= 10? Evidently the interesting relationships occur there, not in the cumulative function G.
– Will Jagy
Sep 20 '11 at 3:26




Alright, I don't think I want to write any programs for this. Could you please post a little table of all the separate F(w,h) with 1 <= h <= w <= 10? Evidently the interesting relationships occur there, not in the cumulative function G.
– Will Jagy
Sep 20 '11 at 3:26












Sorry if it's not much related to the question. But I'm curious if we could prove that dividing into two staircases is the only way of forming another rectangle. How can we do this?
– Jineon Baek
Sep 20 '11 at 12:56




Sorry if it's not much related to the question. But I'm curious if we could prove that dividing into two staircases is the only way of forming another rectangle. How can we do this?
– Jineon Baek
Sep 20 '11 at 12:56




6




6




I voted to close because I do think that it is a very bad idea to have a collection of project Euler solutions here.
– Phira
Oct 4 '11 at 10:39




I voted to close because I do think that it is a very bad idea to have a collection of project Euler solutions here.
– Phira
Oct 4 '11 at 10:39










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
0
down vote













By analyzing $sum_{i=1}^{N} F(i,N)$ and comparing it with $sum_{i|N} lfloor frac{N}{i+1} rfloor + lfloor frac{N}{i-1} rfloor$, I observe that $sum_{i=1}^{N}F(i,N)$ may be equal to $$sum_{i|N}( lfloor frac{N}{i+1} rfloor + lfloor frac{N}{i-1} rfloor+1) - sum_{(ij)|N}1 - sum_{i(i+1)|N}1.$$ Numerical results of small cases agree with the formula, and formal proof is appreciated.






share|cite|improve this answer





















    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














     

    draft saved


    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f65903%2fproject-euler-problem-338%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    0
    down vote













    By analyzing $sum_{i=1}^{N} F(i,N)$ and comparing it with $sum_{i|N} lfloor frac{N}{i+1} rfloor + lfloor frac{N}{i-1} rfloor$, I observe that $sum_{i=1}^{N}F(i,N)$ may be equal to $$sum_{i|N}( lfloor frac{N}{i+1} rfloor + lfloor frac{N}{i-1} rfloor+1) - sum_{(ij)|N}1 - sum_{i(i+1)|N}1.$$ Numerical results of small cases agree with the formula, and formal proof is appreciated.






    share|cite|improve this answer

























      up vote
      0
      down vote













      By analyzing $sum_{i=1}^{N} F(i,N)$ and comparing it with $sum_{i|N} lfloor frac{N}{i+1} rfloor + lfloor frac{N}{i-1} rfloor$, I observe that $sum_{i=1}^{N}F(i,N)$ may be equal to $$sum_{i|N}( lfloor frac{N}{i+1} rfloor + lfloor frac{N}{i-1} rfloor+1) - sum_{(ij)|N}1 - sum_{i(i+1)|N}1.$$ Numerical results of small cases agree with the formula, and formal proof is appreciated.






      share|cite|improve this answer























        up vote
        0
        down vote










        up vote
        0
        down vote









        By analyzing $sum_{i=1}^{N} F(i,N)$ and comparing it with $sum_{i|N} lfloor frac{N}{i+1} rfloor + lfloor frac{N}{i-1} rfloor$, I observe that $sum_{i=1}^{N}F(i,N)$ may be equal to $$sum_{i|N}( lfloor frac{N}{i+1} rfloor + lfloor frac{N}{i-1} rfloor+1) - sum_{(ij)|N}1 - sum_{i(i+1)|N}1.$$ Numerical results of small cases agree with the formula, and formal proof is appreciated.






        share|cite|improve this answer












        By analyzing $sum_{i=1}^{N} F(i,N)$ and comparing it with $sum_{i|N} lfloor frac{N}{i+1} rfloor + lfloor frac{N}{i-1} rfloor$, I observe that $sum_{i=1}^{N}F(i,N)$ may be equal to $$sum_{i|N}( lfloor frac{N}{i+1} rfloor + lfloor frac{N}{i-1} rfloor+1) - sum_{(ij)|N}1 - sum_{i(i+1)|N}1.$$ Numerical results of small cases agree with the formula, and formal proof is appreciated.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Oct 8 at 15:20









        Hang Wu

        344110




        344110






























             

            draft saved


            draft discarded



















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f65903%2fproject-euler-problem-338%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Plaza Victoria

            Puebla de Zaragoza

            Musa