Programming Interviews

So in my job search I've learned something important - I'm really really really bad at programming tests and interviews. Actually, I'm pretty decent at standard algorithms/data structures-related questions that come up on phone screens, but I'm awful when it comes down to ironing out the details and dealing with edge cases. Just now I horribly failed a take-home test and I feel like total shit right now.

I realize I need more practice, and I've heard from a lot of people that TopCoder's practice rooms are a great way to do it.

Here's the problem:

I find the problems, even the lower-point ones, to be WAY too fucking hard. Is there a similar place with problems that are easier, or at least less math-heavy?

>>19
Axiomatic systems can either be consistent or not. You can prove one system's inconsistency if you can prove a statement in that system is both true and false (starting from an axiom), that is, there is a contradiction. Of course, if you're using an unusual logic (such as one that doesn't follow the law of excluded middle), then the notion of inconsistency might not even make sense (an axiomatic system is defined in some logic, which itself follows some very simple axioms). A system which is stronger than peano arithmetic (and contains a part of it) cannot prove its own consistency, although its consistency may be provable in a stronger system (for example PA is consistent within some set theories, which themselves may or may not be consistent (for example proof by transfinite induction), however even if those systems were shown to be inconsistent (no such proof is known for modern set theories), it would still not show PA inconsistent). Either way, the concept of induction (and PA) seems sound and you could verify it as far as physical law allows if you wanted (that is up to any finite number), however I don't see any problem with claiming it is true for any finite number, and not just those which we can construct physically.