c4countdown

Hi Everyone,

If anyone has any objection to this post then please remove it (I am fairly new to forums and very new to this one).

I am a software engineer and whilst watching countdown I worked out that it is possible to use every combination of numbers in the numbers game to work out if a solution is possible.

Having checked the web I found a couple of solutions, both of which missed solveable (new word?) number combinations and not wierd combos either, regular ones from the show.

I have now written a piece of software that uses every combination of numbers to ascertain a solution and it does it in less than 28 seconds (even on a slooooooooooow PC).

I will never charge for this software but would love to offer it free to anyone who wants a copy. It has been downloaded by around 2000 people during the last 3 months (from CNET) and all bugs have now been eradicated. I am not looking for anything out of this as it was undertaken on a purely research basis and is not finished to the usual standards expected by my company.

The URL is http://www.contactconsultants.co.uk/pro ... ckoner.exe (my company is Contact Consultants who offer any support or help completely free of charge).

Many thanks to all

David Wadsworth

I haven't tried your program yet (no Linux support ) but I'd be surprised if it were as good as this one, which doesn't require a separate download and is quite a lot faster than 28 seconds. But it's a cool project to mess around with so well done on that front. Oh and yours has the best name.

Stewart Gordon's cdsolve is my numbers solver of choice; despite the less glamorous name it's lightweight and very speedy. AFAIK it finds all possible solutions. The source code is available on his site too, if you don't mind D.

The word SOLVABLE is valid on Countdown, by the way.

Thanks but I don't want .net on my machine.

I have always used Countup which seems to work fine for all combinations.

I had a feeling Charlie wouldn't object to that post because it is your program.

If it would have been somebody else's, then he would have thought otherwise.

Thanks to all for your kind comments.

Yah I didnt think mine would be the fastest or even the best but it is a fun project to kick around and the solution is neat!

The average solve time is two seconds but it continues through all solutions looking for the shortest (in steps).

My next project is a attempt to find the solution to 'Deal Or No Deal' ...

Wait ... I have it ... x = Random(1, NumberOfContestants) in any language.

I had intended to write RR for non-windows OS's but 88-90% of PC's use Windows and 100% of people with attitude use Linux.
(Sorry I saw this on another forum and couldn't wait to use it)

Roll on the 24th eh?

David Wadsworth

David Wadsworth wrote: The average solve time is two seconds but it continues through all solutions looking for the shortest (in steps).

Why not make it find the shortest one first?

Will it have Rachel Riley's smily face included?

David Wadsworth wrote:Thanks to all for your kind comments.

Yah I didnt think mine would be the fastest or even the best but it is a fun project to kick around and the solution is neat!

The average solve time is two seconds but it continues through all solutions looking for the shortest (in steps).

My next project is a attempt to find the solution to 'Deal Or No Deal' ...

Wait ... I have it ... x = Random(1, NumberOfContestants) in any language.

I had intended to write RR for non-windows OS's but 88-90% of PC's use Windows and 100% of people with attitude use Linux.
(Sorry I saw this on another forum and couldn't wait to use it)

Roll on the 24th eh?

David Wadsworth

DOND solution, lmao. I tried to download the programme but there's no support for Apple Mac's either, I'm sure it's great anyway! Must have taken you a considerably amount of time to compile.

How so, Thomas?

Jason Larsen wrote:How so, Thomas?

I'm just guessing, to compose a programme that can solve any number's game must be programmed with every single outcome. Such as every possible number selection and every target number.

Thomas Wood wrote:

Jason Larsen wrote:How so, Thomas?

I'm just guessing, to compose a programme that can solve any number's game must be programmed with every single outcome. Such as every possible number selection and every target number.

Yeah but think how long Microsoft Word must've taken, what with them having to program in every document that would ever be written. No wonder it's so expensive.

Its the only way to be sure .....

The big trick is to get WinDoze to do the task quick enough.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Thomas Wood wrote:I'm just guessing, to compose a programme that can solve any number's game must be programmed with every single outcome. Such as every possible number selection and every target number.

Yeah but think how long Microsoft Word must've taken, what with them having to program in every document that would ever be written.

Ah, but they cheated and missed some out. This is why Word keeps trying to "correct" what you type in.

David Wadsworth wrote:Its the only way to be sure .....

Nuke it from orbit?

Thomas, why would it matter what kind of computer you have?

David Wadsworth wrote:all bugs have now been eradicated

Um... Do you by any chance work for Microsoft?

Jason Larsen wrote:Thomas, why would it matter what kind of computer you have?

Apple Mac is a completely different (& better) OS to Windows. Mac's don't run .exe install files, they run .dmg so I can't install it sadly.

I'm the only person from Seattle here, Rosemary.

Thomas Wood wrote:Apple Mac is a [...] better OS to Windows.

and then Thomas Wood wrote:Mac's don't run .exe install files, they run .dmg so I can't install it sadly.

Matt Morrison wrote:

Thomas Wood wrote:Apple Mac is a [...] better OS to Windows.

and then Thomas Wood wrote:Mac's don't run .exe install files, they run .dmg so I can't install it sadly.

This highlights what I never understand about Mac vs. Windows arguments. I don't get why people pay for Macs when they can get Linux for free, and both come with the same main disadvantages associated with Not Being Windows.

(and just so I'm clear, I'm not saying Windows is better, just that if you're going to use a good OS but have to put up with not being able to run .exes, why pay for it if you don't have to?)

Michael Wallace wrote: This highlights what I never understand about Mac vs. Windows arguments. I don't get why people pay for Macs when they can get Linux for free, and both come with the same main disadvantages associated with Not Being Windows.

(and just so I'm clear, I'm not saying Windows is better, just that if you're going to use a good OS but have to put up with not being able to run .exes, why pay for it if you don't have to?)

It's SHINY!!!!!!! And if that isn't worth £500, I don't know what is.