diff --git a/c/p001.c b/c/p001.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a718ddd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/c/p001.c
@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+#include <stdio.h>
+#include <stdint.h>
+#include <stddef.h>
+#include <string.h>
+#include <stdlib.h>
+
+// Trivial solution
+size_t getSum(size_t max)
+{
+    size_t retVal = 0;
+    for (size_t i = 1; i < max; ++i)
+        if (i % 3 == 0 || i % 5 == 0) 
+            retVal += i;
+    return retVal;
+}
+
+// Trick:
+// First Get the number of elements divisible by 3, 5, and 15
+// 15 because for example 30 is both divible by 3 and 5
+// and we are not allowed to count 30 twice.
+// Now use the sum rule: sum of integers going from 0 to n is equal to 1/2 * (n * (n+1))
+// The total number of multiples of 3 in max is (max - 1) / 3.
+// Minus 1, because max itself is not included 
+// The sum of all numbers divisible by 3 is then sum of all mutiples of 3 under max.
+// Repeat it for 5 and substract the sum of all multiples of 15 to get the result
+size_t getSum2(size_t max) 
+{
+    size_t limit = max - 1;
+    size_t numb5 = limit / 5;
+    size_t numb3 = limit / 3;
+    size_t numb15 = limit / 15;
+    return (5 * (numb5 * (numb5 + 1)) + (3 * (numb3 * (numb3 + 1))) - (15 * (numb15 * (numb15 + 1)))) / 2;
+}
+
+/*
+ * Reading the assembly ouput of getSum() and getSum2(), one might be tricked into thinking that getSum() is faster because it generated 6 assemnly 
+ * lines less. It is however very slow because of the branches (from the for loop and the checks if the number is a mutliple of 3 or 5) which would 
+ * definitely lead to false branch predictions.
+ * When benchmarking, getSum() takes longer and longer, as the while loop increases while getSum2() finishes at a constant time of a couple of milliseconds.
+ */
+int main(int argc, char** argv)
+{
+    size_t max = 1000;
+    printf("Result: %lu\n", getSum(max));
+    printf("Smarter Result: %lu\n", getSum2(max));
+
+    return 0;
+}
+