It's closer to being correct. There are a few things.
Don't use double since it's unnecessary. Think Gauss-sums..
Search found 9 matches
- Sat Aug 11, 2007 6:53 am
- Forum: Volume 112 (11200-11299)
- Topic: 11254 - Consecutive Integers
- Replies: 24
- Views: 14562
- Wed Aug 01, 2007 12:03 am
- Forum: Volume 112 (11200-11299)
- Topic: 11241 - Humidex
- Replies: 17
- Views: 10076
- Mon Jul 23, 2007 4:57 am
- Forum: Volume 1 (100-199)
- Topic: 116 - Unidirectional TSP
- Replies: 226
- Views: 65197
- Tue Jul 17, 2007 5:22 am
- Forum: Volume 112 (11200-11299)
- Topic: 11239 - Open Source
- Replies: 21
- Views: 11610
- Tue Jul 17, 2007 5:11 am
- Forum: Volume 112 (11200-11299)
- Topic: 11243 - Texas Trip
- Replies: 18
- Views: 11380
- Sat Jul 07, 2007 9:56 pm
- Forum: Volume 112 (11200-11299)
- Topic: 11232 - Cylinder
- Replies: 34
- Views: 18866
- Sat Jul 07, 2007 9:34 pm
- Forum: Volume 112 (11200-11299)
- Topic: 11232 - Cylinder
- Replies: 34
- Views: 18866
I still get WA on this one....
I lean towards a precision error, but there might be a hidden bug somewhere.
Here is my code..
I lean towards a precision error, but there might be a hidden bug somewhere.
Here is my code..
Code: Select all
Acc
- Sat Jul 07, 2007 6:06 pm
- Forum: Volume 112 (11200-11299)
- Topic: 11232 - Cylinder
- Replies: 34
- Views: 18866
- Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:54 pm
- Forum: Volume 112 (11200-11299)
- Topic: 11232 - Cylinder
- Replies: 34
- Views: 18866
11232 - Cylinder
Is it just me or is the answer for the second test input not optimal....
My binary search gives a radius of 6.036325 - not 5 as the statement says - and that gives a volume of 1144.709. I have checked whether this cylinder is legal and it seems so...
Is it a quirk in the problem statement i got ...
My binary search gives a radius of 6.036325 - not 5 as the statement says - and that gives a volume of 1144.709. I have checked whether this cylinder is legal and it seems so...
Is it a quirk in the problem statement i got ...