 |
|
||||||||||||
Was that a tumble weed that rolled by?....
OK Knight's tour is admittedly involved, I recently read that Steve Wozniak solved this puzzle using BASIC so it's certainly doable.
Let's shoot for something fun and easy for Simple LabVIEW Puzzle #5. This one was made famous by Abbott And Costello. Costello manages to prove to Abbot three separate ways that 13 X 7 = 28.
The question is how many other number combinations can be made to follow these same simple rules of revised math and what are they? -SS
Congradulation OlivierL! And what is your prize? Why you get to pick the next Simple LabVIEW #6 challenge. <insert one man clapping>
Remember keep it fairly simple but fun. If you choose not to accept this "prize" the automated system will automatically choose one for you
Again thank you for playing. -SS
I cringe at the orange wires imposed by the "power of three". I prefer the compound multiply node instead, keeping things all blue. 
While Labview does a good job folding your duplicate operations, I would prefer of you would place the constant computations out by a few loops, where the inputs change for the first time. You are also doing twice too many tests (A^3+B^3 vs. B^3+A^3) that's why you need to check for degenerate solutions.
Here's my alternative. (I am still not sure if you are theoretically guaranteed to get the lowest solution this way.)
... and here's a version that does not use the outer array:
My VIs have built-in error handling and return "0" if you solution is found (e.g. if the upper limit is too low). It is left to the student to figure out why.
(note the Rube Goldberg construct in my previous version. We can remove the "index array" and tap in the the +1 output nearby instead. We need to keep the "index array" if we want to precompute the cubes in the init loop, and thus avoiding duplicate work, e.g. as follows)
|
||
|
||
My Profile | Privacy |
Legal |
Contact NI
© 2011 National Instruments Corporation. All rights reserved. |  E-Mail this Page
|
||
|
||