49

I was on a technical job interview today, and it was time to give me some programming exercises. I finally came to the last question:

Given the numbers:

116 104 105 115 32 105 115 32 99 111 114 114 101 99 ?

What is the next number?

To really understand my mindset, I encourage you to stop reading, and really try to figure out what the next number is. Spend a few minutes, and if you still cannot figure it out, then read on

I first spent 5 minutes looking for a pattern, at which I didn't find any. I started to feel stupid. Mind you, the guy was staring at me, waiting for an answer. I felt kinda stupid.
So I was given a clue. This is not a mathematical question

I spent another 5 minutes, and he said The sequence is important.

Then another 5 minutes, and he said He believed only programmers would understand this

Still another 5 minutes and I had yet to understand what the last number was. He gave a final clue which allowed me to solve it, and it was Think of the numbers as replacment for some sort of Alphabet.

Now I encourage you to come up with the answer, however I also want to know from people, why would he even ask a question like this? What has this to do with programming, and what does he accomplish from seeing me using 20 minutes in desperate agony pondering?

IAdapter
  • 62,595
  • 73
  • 179
  • 242
Shervin Asgari
  • 23,901
  • 30
  • 103
  • 143
  • 23
    Stuff like this on SO makes me ponder getting into professional software development altogether. 32 is definitely a clue, but that doesn't somehow deprive the question of its idiocy. – David Titarenco Sep 06 '10 at 18:30
  • BTW, what was the job name and description for which you interviewed? – NVRAM Sep 06 '10 at 18:34
  • It was for a Senior Java developer / Architect position – Shervin Asgari Sep 06 '10 at 18:37
  • 6
    Senior Java developer / Architect !!! Always makes my day. – zaf Sep 06 '10 at 18:45
  • Shervin, you should change your profile and put Senior Java Developer / Architect now ;) –  Sep 06 '10 at 18:48
  • 2
    Having a crypto background I assumed it was a phrase after about 30 seconds :) – Paul Gregoire Sep 06 '10 at 18:59
  • 3
    Now I understand why so many programmers hate to look for a job. Its really evil that it has to be translated by hand/mind and not programmed. – IAdapter Sep 06 '10 at 19:50
  • @David: This is only the tip of the iceberg (if even that). – L̲̳o̲̳̳n̲̳̳g̲̳̳p̲̳o̲̳̳k̲̳̳e̲̳̳ Sep 06 '10 at 21:50
  • 2
    Why didn't he just ask you to recite the ASCII table in base 10 and get it over with? Giving interviewees puzzles only tells you how much they enjoy doing puzzles, and rarely anything useful about what kind of programmer they might be. – JohnFx Sep 06 '10 at 22:02
  • 4
    If this had been in hex I might just buy it as a realistic task. It's not unusual to look at a view of memory and try to work out what the heck it is. But "what's the next term in the sequence?" seems almost designed to throw you off the scent, when the interviewer could have asked instead, "what does this mean?". And of course if you know you're looking at some memory, you analyse differently from something that's presented more like a maths problem. – Steve Jessop Sep 06 '10 at 22:51
  • 2
    This is the typical kind of crap a non-programming manager who once took a programming course back in the '50s thinks that a "real programmer" would like and really sink his teeth into. An idiot, in short. – JUST MY correct OPINION Sep 07 '10 at 03:23
  • 7
    A real programmer would sort these numbers: 32, 32, 99, 99, 101, 104, 105, 105, 111, 114, 114, 115, 115, 116. Now you see that most of the numbers are doubled. Therefore 116 should be also doubled. So the correct answer is 116 :-) – Greg Dan Sep 07 '10 at 07:57
  • OK, I got this - more or less - straight away. It would have taken me two minutes or so in an interview (to do arithmetic etc). However, I would also have answered this correctly 25 years ago when I was 14 and didn't actually know anything beyond some basic BASIC on my Oric-1. Dumbass interview questions like this only tell you about the candidates geekiness. A great geek is not necessarily a good programmer. (ref Oric-1 http://www.old-computers.com/MUSEUM/computer.asp?c=180) – Binary Worrier Sep 08 '10 at 06:29
  • Any person with basic knowledge of HTML would answer this question. t = t, and this is the char you are missing. – Piotr Rochala Sep 08 '10 at 08:17
  • @greg dan, i think it is but for a different reason :D – Stephan Muller Sep 08 '10 at 12:07
  • 1
    Any sequence of data makes no sense to a programmer, while there is no MIME type given. – PeterMmm Sep 08 '10 at 12:29
  • @Greg Dan: What about 101 and 104? They both appear only once, so your theory isn't correct – Shervin Asgari Sep 08 '10 at 12:54
  • If asked this in an interview, without context, I would honestly have struggled for a while until the last clue(s). Then I'd have asked what the point was - what the heck does it show about you? I suppose it depends on what the interview was for, exactly - i.e. what level of abstraction away from memory you were typically expected to work on. – Rob Jan 02 '11 at 01:52

23 Answers23

36

First the answer: 116 - it's the decimal form of the ASCII letters "this is correc" so the letter 't' comes next.

But, while I figured out (given your clues) the pattern, I'd make a few comments:

  • Presumably he was trying to see how you attacked a difficult, even nebulous problem.
  • If he truly sat silent for 5 minutes at a time, then he needs to work on his interviewing style, if only to encourage you to talk.

That said:

  • Did you think out loud and talk through the various approaches you used?
  • Did you ask probing questions about the problem domain?

Incidentally, I mis-remembered 'a' as 96 rather than 97, so I would have missed the problem. But I would have been talking the entire time.

You have to convey your thought processes and not just come up with an answer. I've twice had interviewers give me problems that they didn't expect me to solve, both with the intent of seeing my approach to solving them.

(Incidentally, I got offers from both interviews, because I talked my way through the problems - even though I couldn't finish solving them.)

NVRAM
  • 6,947
  • 10
  • 41
  • 44
  • 3
    Yes I did try to think out loud, but I didn't see a definite pattern, so I wasn't too eager to talk out loud.. – Shervin Asgari Sep 06 '10 at 18:36
  • Always talk, and ask questions if you need to -- it's how you'll end up doing your job, right? – NVRAM Sep 06 '10 at 18:40
  • 3
    That's normal, we anwerers are at home or at our office, without stress. You were interviewed by a moron for a position called Senior Java Developer / Architect. –  Sep 06 '10 at 18:49
  • Good advice. I sort of kicked myself for not immediately realising it was ASCII given the fact I'd picked up on the repeated 32s. But then I also mis-remembered 'a' as 96! If it had been in uppercase I'd have been ok. – El Ronnoco Sep 07 '10 at 08:27
  • In one of my interviews the question was not this nebulous but I had a hard time finding an elegant solution and kept talking (sometimes stupidly) but finally got the solution. And guess what he rejected me anyway, so should I talk out aloud only non-trivial solutions? – satyajit Sep 07 '10 at 23:29
28

Anyone who writes down ascii values in decimal is insane. The sequence would look a lot more familiar if it were in hex.

Ether
  • 53,118
  • 13
  • 86
  • 159
  • That's the first thought I had. If this were hex, it would have been a clever question to weed out beginners. As decimal, it makes no sense. – dbkk Sep 06 '10 at 19:55
  • 7
    I disagree. I think the problem would've been just as hard either way. Besides, ASCII values are traditionally presented in octal, not hex. – Omnifarious Sep 06 '10 at 20:18
  • 15
    @Omnifarious: What planet are you on? I've never seen anyone write an ASCII char in octal in my life. I've seen tons and tons of people write them in decimal and hex though. – L̲̳o̲̳̳n̲̳̳g̲̳̳p̲̳o̲̳̳k̲̳̳e̲̳̳ Sep 06 '10 at 21:46
  • 2
    @Longpoke - The Unix planet. I've never seen anybody __write__ an ASCII char in octal, but they are frequently displayed that way. The program for looking at pure data is `od` which originally stood for 'octal dump' though it does a lot more than that now. – Omnifarious Sep 06 '10 at 22:14
  • 1
    Omnifarious is obviously Brian or Dennis! – Martin Beckett Sep 06 '10 at 23:25
  • In C/C++, most non-printable ASCII characters are usually represented by their octal value, both as individual characters and in character strings, e.g. '\33'. Believe it or not, the NUL character '\0' is technically octal! The hexadecimal character escape sequence wasn't supported until the late 90's (not sure of the version). – franji1 Sep 06 '10 at 23:25
  • 1
    Octal notation is a vestige of the good old days of 18-bit and 36-bit machines where groupings of three bits were natural and obvious. (What was the first UNIX written on? An 18-bit PDP-7. Ritchie and company were steeped in the 18/36-bit culture and thus octal was as natural to them as breathing.) – JUST MY correct OPINION Sep 07 '10 at 03:28
  • Hex escapes were added in C99, I believe, but for viewing hexdumps, xxd beats hd and od. – tc. Sep 07 '10 at 19:30
22

Your question reminded me of an ad campaign of EA some years ago:

alt text

Dirk Vollmar
  • 172,527
  • 53
  • 255
  • 316
19

I have autism. Oddly, after a first glance told me it wasn't a numerical pattern, the next thing I noticed was the 32s - which I happen to know are spaces. From there I got the this/is pretty quickly (less than a minute). It's quite quick to check because the I-H and S-T codes are consecutive, I didn't know the ascii code for any of those but as soon as I'd confirmed the I-S gap fitted I knew I was on the right track.

Then the RR is rapid - one character below the S.

So - yes, I got it pretty much immediately. But, as I said, I'm autistic. There's a bucket load of normal stuff I can't do, but pattern matching is something I do compulsively. I suspect that this actually would have been unhelpful in the interview.

I know it looks like a terrible question, because it's testing your code breaking / pattern matching skills, not your problem solving skills, but I suspect that's not the intent.

When I was hiring people, I used a similar exercise which used a pack of cards with coloured shapes on and required people to sort the cards into piles, and - based on my 'fits' 'doesn't fit' answers - work out the rules of the 'game'.

The purpose of the exercise was not to test their pattern finding skills, but to get a sense of their emotional response to the experience of trying to solve a difficult problem where they will mostly run up cul-de-sacs. In my cards exercise, the cards were always presented in an order that would lead the interviewee to think they had solved it, only to find that they hadn't, three times.

For a challenging R&D role, you want to hire the people for whom the more complex the problem space becomes the more interested and excited they feel. For a less challenging role you want someone who'd rather the problem space was stable - eg someone to write queries for a large database where we don't want to change the system at all.

It's actually a pretty useful sorting exercise for matching candidates to roles.

Stray
  • 1,689
  • 1
  • 11
  • 19
  • 4
    Don't take me wrong, but for being autistic you're quite talkative. – ASalazar Sep 06 '10 at 21:11
  • 13
    Uh.. that's a really weird thing to say. But I guess you don't know a lot about autism. Some people with autism are unable to shut up - and will talk endlessly about their own thoughts. Others are totally non-verbal. We're all different. I'm usually pretty verbose. – Stray Sep 06 '10 at 21:25
  • 6
    Oh - and no offence taken, it's fine that you don't know much about autism, just worth realising that there's a big range of people with autism, and we vary a lot. What we have in common is the nature of our difference from neuro-typicals. If you like, you can think of us as being related by a common difference that would only show up on 2nd or 3rd order differentiation. – Stray Sep 06 '10 at 21:29
  • Also, from the sequence of hints given by the interviewer, I don't think this was his aim. I think he would've given different hints, or worded them differently if it had been. I stand by my sadism interpretation. – Omnifarious Sep 07 '10 at 05:36
  • 1
    @Stray, +1 for the 2nd or 3rd order differentiation analogy. That's exactly what my understanding of autism is (and I don't personally know any autists). – Michael Sep 07 '10 at 06:13
  • @Michael - thanks! @Omnifarious you're dead right that in person is very different from via-keyboard. Props to the internet. – Stray Sep 07 '10 at 08:40
  • "The purpose of the exercise was not to test their pattern finding skills, but to get a sense of their emotional response to the experience of trying to solve a difficult problem where they will mostly run up cul-de-sacs." +1 – flies Sep 08 '10 at 18:09
17

So, it took me a bit, and I didn't need the hints, but 116 is the right answer. The giveaway for me wasn't so much the 32s, it was the way the numbers in the pattern repeated. There was no clear mathematical logic, but something else about the pattern clicked for me and I just got it.

Once, a long time ago, I managed to crack a game (Koronis Rift for those who care, and I never uploaded it to a BBS). I cracked it not because I wanted to copy it exactly. It was because it saved games on the same disk the game ran off of, and that really bothered me. Once I had cracked it, I was quite proud of myself because the copy protection had done something rather tricky. So I wanted to put my mark on the loading screen.

Now, I didn't know where the loading screen was. I used a disassembler to run the loading stuff, but never got as far as where the screen was loading from. But I had looked over the disk a lot, and there was a sequence of bytes that just looked like raw data for a picture. I knew how big the picture had to be if it was raw data, so I found the begin and end of the sequence, put it into a file and loaded the file up in an image editor. I was right.

Someone asked me "How did you know that was a picture?". And I was at a loss to explain. It just looked like one.

This is not a talent/skill I would expect in a good programmer. And I find interview questions that are almost expressly designed for the candidate not to get them to be really infuriating.

Yes, there is something about seeing how the candidate problem solves. But if I'm going to test that, I'm going to at least come up with a toy problem that's related to the job I want the candidate to do.

The only way I would ever ask that question is if I was looking for a reverse engineer or cryptographer. The ability to notice patterns like that and make good guesses as to what they mean would be a very valuable skill for those two roles. But not for a general programmer.

I think there is a certain sadism in some interviewers. A certain joy at seeing a candidate squirm. They might talk about looking at a candidate's problem solving ability, but I think they're really just looking to enjoy the feeling (not necessarily the actuality) of being smarter than the candidate.

Omnifarious
  • 54,333
  • 19
  • 131
  • 194
  • 1
    +1 for mentioning the question would be suitable for interviewing a would be cryptographer. That's exactly what I thought as well. – Marjan Venema Sep 06 '10 at 19:03
  • I wouldn't look for a "cryptographer" (there is far more to crypto than looking at a hexdump). OTOH, hexdumps might be a useful interview question category for a sufficiently technical position, as "something the candidate may have seen" (if the candidate hasn't seen a hexdump before, then move on to a different question). – tc. Sep 07 '10 at 19:29
  • @tc - There is far more to computer science than writing code to add to a linked list. I would expect cryptographers to notice patterns in data and to be able to figure them out, especially a pattern so ridiculously simple as that. – Omnifarious Sep 08 '10 at 00:56
11

Well, I think I've got the answer, and I got it fairly quickly - although with the help of a piece of reference material.

It does sound like a bit of a waste of time in an interview though. Certainly not something I'd ask. I agree it's something that probably only a programmer would "get" - but it doesn't indicate anything significant about the skills of that programmer.

Jon Skeet
  • 1,421,763
  • 867
  • 9,128
  • 9,194
7

Is the next number 116?

Still, "Shir ir correct" doesn't make any sense either.

Edit:

Oops!

G S
  • 35,511
  • 22
  • 84
  • 118
4

I saw the 32s and that immediately clicked for me.

It could be argued that the point of the question is to see how you grope your way around a seemingly insurmountable obstacle. Did you start taking finite differences, looking for an arithmetic or polynomial sequence? Or did you just squint for a while and then shrug and give up?

Still a terrible question, in my opinion.

user168715
  • 5,469
  • 1
  • 31
  • 42
3

ASCII -> int ? The interviewer is crazy...

Should be 116.

Translation: this is correc

t is missing. t is 116 in the ascii table.

http://www.cs.utk.edu/~pham/ascii.html

3

Python:

>>> ''.join(map(lambda x:chr(int(x)),'116 104 105 115 32 105 115 32 99 111 114 114 101 99'.split()))
'this is correc'

The numbers appear to be ASCII codes. It's definitely not something I'd ask in an interview, though, since I don't expect anyone to know ASCII codes in decimal in an interview. Hex is a bit different (you might expect people to know that %20 is a space), but still.

tc.
  • 33,468
  • 5
  • 78
  • 96
  • 1
    List and generator comprehensions are preferred to `map`. ;-) But I did the same thing. – Omnifarious Sep 06 '10 at 18:30
  • I originally did `map(chr,...` but that didn't work, so I used the quickest fix from there. I also like functional paradigms in languages that support it, but maybe that's just me. – tc. Sep 06 '10 at 18:44
  • 5
    @tc - Functional paradigm isn't about words, it's about the way the program is structured. So I consider it to be functional whether I'm using a list comprehension or `map`. – Omnifarious Sep 06 '10 at 20:13
  • 2
    It's easier to just use a generator comprehension: `"".join(chr(int(x)) for x in s.split())`. Interesting that so many of us immediately jumped to Python for this sort of thing. – Daniel Pryden Sep 06 '10 at 21:05
  • 1
    @Daniel: That's literally _exactly_ how I'd do it, s="" and then that :O, yes, Python is the new bash :) – L̲̳o̲̳̳n̲̳̳g̲̳̳p̲̳o̲̳̳k̲̳̳e̲̳̳ Sep 06 '10 at 22:00
  • I used Erlang in a similar fashion once I spotted the 32s. – JUST MY correct OPINION Sep 07 '10 at 03:37
  • I'd argue that there are more and less functional ways of doing things, and that a "more functional" map is `lambda f:lambda x:__builtin__.map(f,x)`. I also prefer map because it's less typing (`f(x) for x in ...` vs `map(f, ...)`) until you get to function composition. – tc. Sep 07 '10 at 19:18
  • Typing six characters is enough to make you prefer the less-generally-useful version by default? Why isn't the same six character difference enough to use a genexpr here? –  Sep 08 '10 at 13:45
  • Because I was modifying the version which used map(). Besides, list comprehensions modify local variables and generator expressions don't print as something useful in interactive mode. – tc. Sep 12 '10 at 02:55
2

Its ascii codes. The next letter is t. He might need you to have knowledge of the ascii codes for the job, as well as inherent ability of detecting patters.

Richard J. Ross III
  • 55,009
  • 24
  • 135
  • 201
  • Luckily I could use the computer as help to google up the ascii table – Shervin Asgari Sep 06 '10 at 18:39
  • 1
    @Shervin: You had access to a computer? Open a windows command prompt. Hold down the `ALT` key and hit `116` on the numeric keypad. You'll get a `t`, release the `ALT` key and do it agin with `104`, then `105` . . . *boy do I feel old right now*. – Binary Worrier Sep 07 '10 at 17:53
2

I guess it's to see how you problem solve.

If you had worked it out quickly (I suspect the 32 would be a give away to those who have absorbed some ASCII codes) you probably would have a got another one of a similar type - and so on - until you found yourself outside your 'comfort zone'.

As an interviewee, these questions can be a way of detecting that a job is not for you!

martin clayton
  • 76,436
  • 32
  • 213
  • 198
2

This is ASCII code, the solution is "t" (116). However, we should pay attention to his helps, because he probably planned them.

"This is not a mathematical question" Of course it is, we have to interpret the numbers as characters and find the number which can be used to fill the blank character, so, at the end of the task you could tell him that this is very much mathematical, because you had to complete a pattern using a function.

"The sequence is important" Yes, 32 helps you to realize that he's talking about characters.

"He believed only programmers would understand this" Some non programmers also understand this, but mostly programmers understand this. He tried to point out that you can meet these numbers when you work on program codes/debugging.

"Think of the numbers as replacement for some sort of Alphabet." I'm sure you knew now the answer.

He wanted to test your inventiveness and willpower. I've met this kind of questions at IQ tests (OK, in the IQ tests they didn't appeal on ASCII characters because most of the people haven't heard of ASCII).

EDIT:

Surely, this question was planned in advance, all the helps were further clues and they were interested how much time and how many clues will be needed to decipher the sequence. However, this is a mathematical question.

Lajos Arpad
  • 64,414
  • 37
  • 100
  • 175
1

The next number is 116.

This is a simple set of ASCII numbers, standing for the string "this is correc?". Took a bit of lookup, and the hint was in the range of numbers and the fact that 32 (space) appears.

Are you supposed to know the ASCII table by heart? This makes no sense to me as an interview question - perhaps he wanted you to identify this as an ASCII sequence.

Oded
  • 489,969
  • 99
  • 883
  • 1,009
1

Thanks for the hint with the alphabet -- it seems to be ASCII code:

numbers = [116,104,105,115,32,105,115,32,99,111,114,114,101,99]

for n in numbers:
  print "%c"%n,

gives:

t h i s   i s   c o r r e c

but without access to a computer I would not have figured out the text so fast. And I also would have spent a quite uncomfortable five minutes...

Andre Holzner
  • 18,333
  • 6
  • 54
  • 63
1

You know, this reminds me of a lot of math/logic exams I used to take in school, where I'd work and work at it, and finally come to what I believed was the answer they were looking for... only to feel a tremendous sense of dissatisfaction, because the question didn't really have a right answer at all. It just had an answer that was obviously supposed to be right.

I know this is kind of irrelevant to what you're asking -- yes, as others have said, the important thing was surely your thought process while attempting to solve the problem (and saying what you're thinking out loud would likely be the best strategy in this scenario) -- but frankly, if I were you, even if/when I did figure it out I wouldn't be able to resist the temptation to say:

"Look, I get that you probably want me to say 116, but why? Why does the string This is correc logically have to conclude in a t?"

I mean, think about it. The question is just, "What is the next number?" right? Not: "What is the next number, given that the sequence forms a complete statement," or: "What is the next number, assuming these are all English words," or even: "What is the next number, given that it is that last number"; it's just: "What's next?" That is so open-ended as to be unanswerable.

I wonder if the interviewer would've agreed with that logic or just gotten annoyed. Probably the latter.

Dan Tao
  • 125,917
  • 54
  • 300
  • 447
  • 1
    All "what is the next number" questions have this problem. What's the next number in the following sequence: 1, 2, 3, 4? Maybe I'm counting, maybe I've picked a 4th-order polynomial and the next term could literally be anything. Rather like "what's the odd one out", you're looking for the *simplest explanation* which fits the facts and provides an answer. "Simple" is in principle subjective, but in practice it's usually quite easy to reach consensus. It's "simpler" for the string to be English (and hence the answer is 116) than it would be to explain why it appears to be English but is not. – Steve Jessop Sep 06 '10 at 23:05
  • @Steve: Of course, I know that. Really I'm just saying it kind of irks me when the wording of the question ("What is **the** next number in this sequence?") is so absolute. I realize all pattern recognition questions have this problem (notice my remark about logic exams back in school; they're all like this). I think I just posted this answer to suggest that even challenging the question *might* be OK (depends on the interviewer, though, obviously). Clearly I'm kind of weird for even caring about this; these questions just bother me! – Dan Tao Sep 07 '10 at 01:05
1

C#:

foreach(byte b = new byte[]{116,104,105,115,32,105,115,32,99,111,114,114,101,99})
    Console.Write((char)b);

Output:

this is correc

So the answer is 116, for 't'.

Origamiguy
  • 1,294
  • 2
  • 13
  • 19
1

As coders we come up against WTFs everyday: clueless clients, brain dead APIs, our own code from last week... It's just part of our industry. Knowing how well we respond to those situations is a very useful employment criterion I would think. The question itself is far less important than how you come up with an answer and justify it.

CurtainDog
  • 3,175
  • 21
  • 17
  • 1
    +1 for 'our own code from last week...' - absolutely! I like to write my code assuming that some poor sod with no idea how it was written will have to edit it in future. Most frequently that person is me. – Stray Sep 07 '10 at 08:45
1

The correct answer is obviously 8 8 8 8 8 8 83 80 65 85 84 65 33.

Řrřola
  • 6,007
  • 1
  • 17
  • 10
0

It's 116. I didn't need your clues. Subconsciously I think I noticed all the numbers were in the 97-122 range (programming the BBC Micro 20 years ago when I was a kid helped me memorise ASCII codes for some reason!). I didn't convert each letter in my head just now, though:

>>> "".join(map(chr, [116, 104, 105, 115, 32, 105, 115, 32, 99, 111, 114, 114, 101, 99]))
'this is correc'

I guess the interviewer probably wanted to see how you think through problems, and/or thought that as a programmer you might know ASCII codes. But if this was for a senior Java developer position I'd have thought there would have been more important things to ask you. Say, for example, about data structures, or algorithms.

If they really let this go on for 20 minutes, as you say they did, they wasted a lot of time that they could have used assessing your development skills.

Richard Fearn
  • 25,073
  • 7
  • 56
  • 55
  • 1
    All of the numbers were in the 97-122 range. Except for the ones that aren't. – JUST MY correct OPINION Sep 07 '10 at 03:40
  • Yes, OK :-) All except for the spaces. I'm sure they helped me to notice they were ASCII codes. I've always been able to remember the 65-90 and 97-122 ranges, plus 32 for a space. If there had been any symbols in there (e.g. `$"%&`) I'm not sure I would have spotted it quite as quickly. – Richard Fearn Sep 07 '10 at 16:23
0

If the sequence had been in hex, I would have been able to read out the characters at a glance, at a rate of about 1-2 seconds each. I know most of the uppercase alphabet at a glance in decimal as well as all of the control characters (in terms of control-A through control-Z) and would recognize 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 26, and 27 by function. I expect part of the goal is to see whether an applicant instinctively recognizes character sequences as such. The 32 is highly suggestive of ASCII.

supercat
  • 77,689
  • 9
  • 166
  • 211
0

I went with more of a code breaking thought first, looking for pairs of numbers. That led me to believe it was simply substitution of numbers for characters in an alphabet. I read some books on encryption in WW2 a while ago, and some of the theories for code breaking stuck in my head.

0

The char sequence comes out to be : this is correc So 1 left is t...i.e its ascii value is 116

So answer is 116

kinshuk4
  • 3,241
  • 3
  • 33
  • 41