* surya k [2011-08-27 20:51]:
>
> here, as the loop goes on, i*j can never become smaller in any case.
> which is why I think it, as long as "PNum" gets a new number, its
> bigger palindrome than the previous.. so, at the end of the loop.
> we'll get largest palindrome number..
>
> On 8/25/11,
surya k wrote:
> If you take a close look at my code.
>
> for i in range (1,100) :
> for j in range (i,100) :
>Temp = palindrome(i*j)
>
> here, as the loop goes on, i*j can never become smaller in any case.
> which is why I think it, as long as "PNum" gets a new number, its
> bigger
On 8/27/2011 8:21 AM surya k said...
If you take a close look at my code.
for i in range (1,100) :
for j in range (i,100) :
Temp = palindrome(i*j)
here, as the loop goes on, i*j can never become smaller
Of course it can... i=3 * j=90 is less than i=4 * j=4...
Emile
__
If you take a close look at my code.
for i in range (1,100) :
for j in range (i,100) :
Temp = palindrome(i*j)
here, as the loop goes on, i*j can never become smaller in any case.
which is why I think it, as long as "PNum" gets a new number, its
bigger palindrome than the previous.. so,
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 6:49 PM, surya k wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm doing a puzzle where it asked me to find the largest palindrome number
> formed by the product of two three-digit numbers. They mentioned an example
> saying that 9009 is the largest palindrome number formed by two two-digit
> numbers (99
Hi,
I'm doing a puzzle where it asked me to find the largest palindrome number
formed by the product of two three-digit numbers. They mentioned an example
saying that 9009 is the largest palindrome number formed by two two-digit
numbers (99 * 91).
I've written my code this way.. and I tested it w
