Ask yourself this question: what math is the program attempting when n = 0?

 

(There are other problems with the program, but they aren't what's making it crash.)

GabuEx

You're going to need 2 loops for this one: one to increment your target number, and one to loop over your divisions.

Try:

bool check=false;

int x=1;

int target=1;

while(!check){ *Note: a do...while will work, too, if it makes you more comfortable.

*second loop goes here, much like the one you put up earlier*

I used a "break" condition if (target%x!=0) here, and an else-if to check if x==20 and change the boolean to "true."

If the loop exited and check was still false, I incremented the target.

}

Then I spat it to the command line, and done.

It took forever to run: the answer is HUGE.

Hope this helps. :D

OrkHammer007

It's zombie thread time. sorry.
Anyhow, this time i'm more confuzzled than ever before. I got through problem 6 just fine, but the next step up the difficulty ladder (problem 5), is proving much more complicated. Here's the problem.

2520 is the smallest number that can be divided by each of the numbers from 1 to 10 without any remainder.
What is the smallest number that is evenly divisible by all of the numbers from 1 to 20?

and my code so far

int x=0;
for( int n=0; n (less than or equal to) 10; n++ )
{
     if( (x % n) != 0 )
     {
         x++;
     };
};

I'm only doing the first 10 as a proof of concept, since they give me the answer for that, so i can tell when i've done something wrong. As far as i can tell, i think i'm on the right path. "For each number up to ten, if x is not divisible by it, then increase x by 1.." it compiles fine, but it crashes at runtime for some reason. Anyone know what's going on? :?

Please rate these sigs and state wich one I should use. I have made eeach sig.

Rate and choose which I should use.

jewls555

[QUOTE="HardQuor"][QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]So you believe science is absolute? IT is perfect and has no flaws? Science is only as good as the human genetics will allow it to be. Our perception is not capable of answering everything, and never will be. Those that believe it can, are going to be sorely disappointed. EMOEVOLUTION

Ha. And i thought i was obnoxious concerning the topic. I said "Read more carefully" because your 2 questions would have been answered if you had. I said that  "Atheists believe in only that which can be proven possible" and NOT "Atheists believe that science is absolute, perfect, and flawless."

So since you've proven yourself too dense to understand it the first two times, i'll dumb it down for you: "Atheists believe in only things that have a sufficient amount of supporting evidence, given their resources. These things are subject to change as their resources do."

[QUOTE="HardQuor"]

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]Well, Atheists really aren't that different from theists. They both believe in something they have no way of proving. I don't mind that, because it's human nature to fill in the blanks. But, the fact is nobody has a definate answer. All they have is the belief in whatever system they are using to define their existance. There is nothing wrong with this by any means. What bothers me is that the two are more interested in trying to say the other is wrong, than doing anything positive.
EMOEVOLUTION

---edit---
spalling.

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]Well, Atheists really aren't that different from theists. They both believe in something they have no way of proving. I don't mind that, because it's human nature to fill in the blanks. But, the fact is nobody has a definate answer. All they have is the belief in whatever system they are using to define their existance. There is nothing wrong with this by any means. What bothers me is that the two are more interested in trying to say the other is wrong, than doing anything positive.
htekemerald

The way I see it atheists subscribe to the innocent till proven guilty ideal.  That is you need proof before making a claim

Where the Theists believe in the guilt to proven innocent ideal.  That is everything is real and need t be disproven.

Well, Atheists really aren't that different from theists. They both believe in something they have no way of proving. I don't mind that, because it's human nature to fill in the blanks. But, the fact is nobody has a definate answer. All they have is the belief in whatever system they are using to define their existance. There is nothing wrong with this by any means. What bothers me is that the two are more interested in trying to say the other is wrong, than doing anything positive.
EMOEVOLUTION

---edit---
spalling.