2. the only shape that doesn't have anything wrong with it
Noah Gutierrez
It's the most normal, that's something wrong with it? lol
Carson Smith
yes, its the most normal, so its the oddest one
James Green
5th one because it is a circle as well as smaller than 3 out of the five. All of the other shapes only differ in one feature except for the circle.
Jonathan Wood
It's 3 Stupid
Aiden Brooks
I'm convinced there is no right answer
Colton Lopez
user, you only need one formula for odd lengths and one for even lengths, and they're almost the same. Look up 0-1-infinity principle. Bonus if you do it recursively.
Mason Young
They are all heteroclites in their own regard, no two are the same.
Parker Butler
it's 4
Elijah Long
Crap. Thanks I'll try that
Isaiah Gutierrez
why be such a smartfag user? for(int i=0; i
Anthony Price
You are responding to the right answer.
Brody Butler
op, you're doing this stupidly convert the number to a string, write a loop to see if it's a palindrome.
Ian Young
I just went full retard :(
Robert Russell
Why do you even want to write it like that? Just take an input n and return nn' where n' is n with the digits reversed.
Kayden Thompson
Why would you waste time checking every number? It is easy to generate them in order.
Aaron Cooper
It's 2. Think oc it this way, all the other shapes have already one trait that none of the other share.. 2 has nothing exclusive to it, so it's different from the rest
Caleb Gonzalez
2. All of its attributes are shared by others in the set. There are other reds, other squares, other outlined shapes, and others of that size. Unlike the rest it has nothing that sets it apart from the others in the set.
Jeremiah Edwards
But them 2 does have something that sets it apart... this is a self reference paradox.
Christopher Miller
Nah, just limit your comparisons to first-order properties, not second-order or above.
Hudson Perez
everybody but you knows it's 2
Christopher Roberts
But that feels almost as arbitrary as deciding that size or color is the distinguishing attribute. It is not satisfying.
Asher Fisher
Fuck numbers. Just do it with strings.
Tyler Powell
Yep just got it using strings. I'm a retard. Thanks everyone
Jayden Wilson
Nah, it still makes sense. First-order properties of these elements >Size >Shape >Color >Border I would do a matrix here, but the for setting would be atrocious on Sup Forums, so instead I'll just point out that each element shares 2 of the 4 properties with any other element, except #2, which shares 3 with each other.
>Remove #2 from the set >Each remaining element shares 2 of 4 first-order properties with the others
For any other element, it's removal leaves an inconsistent set, with varying number of similarities between elements.
Ethan Wood
Even though I'd say the answer is 2, I consider that "problem" flawed. If we consider "different size" to be number 1's unique characteristic then it is, in fact, not unique, since the circle also possesses different dimensions from the other squares (the circle is evidently the same height as the squares, therefore has a smaller total area and could technically be inscribed on top of them)
Elijah Thompson
Won't get a Google job with a String answer. It's less memory efficient. You can do it with integers.
Camden Bailey
this is the odd 1 out
Jaxon Stewart
The green one duh lol
Carter Powell
6. It's number is white, it's colored white and the shape is unlike any of the others.
Austin Ross
This is what SJW's want you to believe about white males.
Joseph Martin
Human time and code readability is more valuable than machine time. Google is really going downhill if they have forgotten this.
Henry Richardson
1) So it IS faster to do this with ints than strings? I have it done with strings for any number put ints only up to 5 digits long
