Cody

# Jon Agustsson

Rank
##### 540
Score
1 – 50 of 74
 Jon Agustsson received Renowned badge for Solution 103476 on 7 Dec 2016 on 31 May 2013 on 8 Mar 2013 on 8 Mar 2013 on 15 Jan 2013 on 4 Oct 2012 on 4 Oct 2012 on 7 Sep 2012 on 7 Sep 2012 on 7 Sep 2012 on 6 Sep 2012 Jon Agustsson submitted a Comment to Solution 133859 It is funny that this feval(@eval, '[~, ans] = max(x==y);') has smaller size than this [~, ans] = max(x==y); on 6 Sep 2012 on 6 Sep 2012 on 6 Sep 2012 on 6 Sep 2012 on 6 Sep 2012 on 6 Sep 2012 on 6 Sep 2012 on 6 Sep 2012 on 11 Jul 2012 on 8 Jul 2012 on 8 Jul 2012 on 6 Jul 2012 on 6 Jul 2012 on 6 Jul 2012 Jon Agustsson submitted a Comment to Solution 4286 Strange I can not delete my first comment. I wanted to format it a bit nicer :) on 6 Jul 2012 Jon Agustsson received Commenter badge for Solution 4286 on 6 Jul 2012 Jon Agustsson submitted a Comment to Solution 4286 Nice indeed. I am surprised that it is more efficient to solve this with a recursive function than a while loop. This solution has size 43: while n(end) > 1 n = [n mod(n(end),2)*(n(end)*2.5+1) + n(end)/2]; end Is the loop overhead greater than the recursion overhead? Or is the weak point having to go to n(end) at each iteration? on 6 Jul 2012 on 6 Jul 2012 on 6 Jul 2012 on 6 Jul 2012 on 6 Jul 2012 on 6 Jul 2012 on 6 Jul 2012 on 5 Jul 2012 on 28 Jun 2012 on 28 Jun 2012 on 27 Jun 2012 on 27 Jun 2012 on 27 Jun 2012 on 27 Jun 2012 on 27 Jun 2012 on 27 Jun 2012 on 27 Jun 2012 on 27 Jun 2012 on 27 Jun 2012 on 27 Jun 2012 on 27 Jun 2012
1 – 50 of 74