# \$10K coding deathmatch

Thu Nov 2 16:23:05 MST 2006

```Thus said Shane Hathaway on Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:30:02 MST:

> Eh? I'm not sure you understand the problem correctly.

I didn't at first, which is why I posted my first message. By the time I
posted my second message I thought I understood it, but I could still be
wrong. My question was about which sequence though.

> The problem is just asking  whether successive elements vary more than
> a certain  amount, where  the maximum  variance is  one less  than the
> number of elements in the sequence.

Here is the original question again:

We are looking for sequences of n > 0 integers where the absolute values
of the  differences of successive  elements are  included in the  set of
numbers 1 through n - 1.

Doesn't this say  to check the absolute value of  the difference between
two numbers in a sequence against a set of numbers 1, ... n-1? I suppose
one could infer that this is a  test for the maximum variance of any two
integers in the sequence against one less than the number of elements in
the sequence and  1, but then why  bother calling it a set  of numbers 1
through n-1?  Why not:

We are  looking for  sequences with  n > 0  elements where  the absolute
values of  the differences of  successive elements  are all less  than n
elements - 1 and greater than 1?

Thus, in his original example:

4 1 2 3

Tests would be  made for 3, 1 and finally  1 against the set { 1 2 3 },
right?

Andy
--
[-----------[system uptime]--------------------------------------------]
4:21pm  up 4 days,  6:07,  1 user,  load average: 1.00, 1.00, 1.00

```