# [Community Puzzle] Queneau Numbers

Some testcases are wrong. 15 is not actually a Queneau number, since the sequence has order of 5.
It repeats 3 times in the output, while the definition of a Queneau number states that permutation should consist of a single cycle of length n.

1 Like

summoning @_CG_VonRickroll

Hmmâ€¦ Youâ€™re right. Rather than change the tests, though, Iâ€™d recommend changing the description to state â€śQueneau-like numbersâ€ť, and to define this as the set of numbers n such that the Queneau-Daniel permutation Qn is of order m, where m is a factor of n. Make sense?

Otherwise we will likely invalidate the more than 200 existent solutions.

• danBhentschel

magaiti is right and the problem has not been corrected (see also http://oeis.org/A054639).

Arenâ€™t you high-level enough for that?

1 Like

@JBM Apparently not (I could farm the levels, but I donâ€™t know which level you have to reach so that does not motivate me much). Anyway I would not modify anything without discussing about it on the forum beforehand.

@Kirbiby Nice correction! Thanks!

The level needed to edit approved puzzles, IIRC, is 29.

Ok, well I was only ~400 XP away. Now Iâ€™m high-level enough and I can confirm itâ€™s Lvl 29.

Maybe have I missed something, but I do not think the erratum is very clear.

The fourth test fails because it does not match the erratum part of the statement (the cycle length is 5, not exactly 15), but I still had 100% after submitted my code.

Is it possible to change the test cases without changing the validation cases?

Maybe my english is not good enough

In broad terms, the erratum means â€śforget about the Queneau number definition, just do N permutations and check you fall back on the starting positionâ€ť

1 Like

Hi @Kirbiby, I should have double-checked before posting, because you are right : your erratum section explains everything.

I had forgotten I was an english newbie and I have read too fast. Nevertheless, I think your broad terms alternative is much clearer

But, unless I am mistaken, you have not completly answered my question : I was wondering if replacing the fourth test case with a test without sub-cycles would be a good idea. It would not invalidate existing solutions, the test case would match the validation case, and the erratum section would not be needed anymore.