On Dec 4, 2005, at 11:29 AM, Ryan Leavengood wrote:

> I don't know, I think this is cheating.

It's cheating to get correct answers quickly?  ;)

> Plus he is missing a bunch of weird numbers in his list.

I haven't compared the Array in question with the posted sequences.   
Perhaps it's not very complete.  Let me ask you this though, since  
we're talking about this:  Which is easier to debug, the sequence  
list or a broken calculation solution?

Didn't the solution also brute force answers when it left its list of  
known numbers?

One last question:  How well does your presumably fast solution do  
when it goes beyond the listed sequence?  Does it still find lots of  
answers, quickly?

I'm really not trying to be mean here and I apologize if I'm coming  
off that way.

I think what Hampton hit on is a simple cache optimization.  It's  
fast and very effective.  I don't think we should be so quick to toss  
it out as a viable approach...

James Edward Gray II