Search found 9 matches

by David Kjaer
Sat Aug 11, 2007 6:53 am
Forum: Volume 112 (11200-11299)
Topic: 11254 - Consecutive Integers
Replies: 24
Views: 11701

It's closer to being correct. There are a few things.
Don't use double since it's unnecessary. Think Gauss-sums..
by David Kjaer
Wed Aug 01, 2007 12:03 am
Forum: Volume 112 (11200-11299)
Topic: 11241 - Humidex
Replies: 17
Views: 8259

I think your problem might be precision... Consider the following lines from your program..

a=e/6.11;
a=log(a)/log(2.718281828);

First, since log is the natural logarithm, log(exp(x))=x.. Second there actually is a way to totally avoid log...
by David Kjaer
Mon Jul 23, 2007 4:57 am
Forum: Volume 1 (100-199)
Topic: 116 - Unidirectional TSP
Replies: 226
Views: 36132

It's kind of hard to answer when I can't see your code.....
by David Kjaer
Tue Jul 17, 2007 5:22 am
Forum: Volume 112 (11200-11299)
Topic: 11239 - Open Source
Replies: 21
Views: 7904

Read the roject statement carefully...

It says, approximately "if a student signs up for two different courses, he participates in neither", but a student might be listed twice on a project but then he only counts once...

And a little hint: Use sets...
by David Kjaer
Tue Jul 17, 2007 5:11 am
Forum: Volume 112 (11200-11299)
Topic: 11243 - Texas Trip
Replies: 18
Views: 8209

Why do you use 0<=t<=180.. Every polygon you get by rotating beyond 90 degrees is just a reflection of one you've already seen....

To klopyrev.. My approach is almost exactly the same as yours, and I got AC in 0.078, so you're record might stand for a while... :)
by David Kjaer
Sat Jul 07, 2007 9:56 pm
Forum: Volume 112 (11200-11299)
Topic: 11232 - Cylinder
Replies: 34
Views: 15399

Thanks mate...

It seems to be a precision issue, caused by the binary search...
by David Kjaer
Sat Jul 07, 2007 9:34 pm
Forum: Volume 112 (11200-11299)
Topic: 11232 - Cylinder
Replies: 34
Views: 15399

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..

Code: Select all

Acc
by David Kjaer
Sat Jul 07, 2007 6:06 pm
Forum: Volume 112 (11200-11299)
Topic: 11232 - Cylinder
Replies: 34
Views: 15399

What a mindnumbingly stupid mistake...

I agree... Thanks
by David Kjaer
Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:54 pm
Forum: Volume 112 (11200-11299)
Topic: 11232 - Cylinder
Replies: 34
Views: 15399

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 wrong?

Go to advanced search