studiot,

Because your calculation would look like my attachment.

This is not the pattern in the original, which has four digits in the second subtraction and concludes there.

And yes I've put the quotient on top rather than to the right.

Doesn't the submission below have four digits in the second subtraction, and finish there? Doesn't it match your map of 'X's? There is something I am not getting.

   132)100584(762
        924
       ------
         8184
         8184

Ratch

 

Ratch It's just regular long division, like you were taught in school, one digit at a time!

I doubt you learned your 62 times table all the way up to 132 any more than I did. Of course if you leaned you 762 time table all the way up to 132 you could do this in one hit, like Trachenberg.

Davebee,

The opportunity to present the first correct solution still exists.

 

Are you saying there is a problem with Ratch's solution 100536/142 = 708?

 

Are you saying there is a problem with Ratch's solution 100536/142 = 708

Yeah, those are the right numbers, but I must have missed the post. I'm having trouble keeping up with you guys.

 

studiot,

OK, davebee finally explained it so that I could understand what you wanted or meant. Had I known that, I could have tweaked my program to reject all solutions that did not conform to the quotient 70X format. I guess I was too dense to understand that you did not want to do partial division that required more than one digit, even though it matched the map you laid out. For me and davebee, it turned out to be a programming exercise.

Ratch

 

Second Solution:

. .... ____709___
142 ) 100678
......... 994
........ -------
......... 1278
......... 1278
......... ------
......... 0000

 

steveb,

Second Solution:

. .... ____709___
142 ) 100678
......... 994
........ -------
......... 1278
......... 1278
......... ------
......... 0000

Hmmm, that solution was rejected by my program because it contains a 7 in the dividend.

Ratch

 

Well fellas I don't claim originality for this one. It was just an old question in an old book and when I posted all I had was the numeric answer. I didn't think too much about it or that the logic was so deep. It was only when John Panhalt came up with different numbers I had to start working out the nuances.

The logic is quite cute though.