OJ Board

In all problems where i try to use this i get Memory Limit Exceeded. I clear vector for every next case, but no effect. I'm used to get 49632 kilobytes (as tried deque instead were ~33MB) in every problem when i'm using this combo, even if problem description guarantees only up 6MB (100 strings * 60 ...

How, he sends everytime it receives my code and one more time for giving results for my code.

I'm winning right now till next reply

My AC code gives this:

4 37
LOOPS FOREVER
3280 242461

loops forever - should be wrong input.

why does judge for string::clear() gives CE(forced to use string::erase() which is more expensive(?))? Should i include more than <string>? Is size_t same as string::size_type used for string::npos?

using pointers and arrays(which are pointers too) causes this(if u try to access memory u shouldn't to).

This problem is easy. You just have to run one loop and check inside if loop counter only divides 2, 3, 5 if so add one to UGLYNR counter(using while and % is easiest).
When u get 1500th just output it according to problem sample output, insert that number and just print out that one statement.

This one is really in judge input:

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

or

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
4566515645624562456254625462542642434323432343341

For this problem i generate table, is my output right(not formatted here)?(but i get WA, does only formatting cause WA)
0.05 1
0.45 9
3.95 2492
16.00 938319
125.00 228222517456
299.95 171788022101831
300.00 174088264125464


Also i have did another problem(160), but i get WA too.
http://acm.uva ...

if u get RE u probably get outside of array bounds

825 could be specified as (0 1 2 0 1) meaning no twos, 1 three, 2 fives, no sevens and 1 eleven.


This problem is so easy to solve, but I don't know why WA, even if I think it works just fine. Anyone can help me?


#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <iterator>
#include <cmath>
#include ...

ah, the triple cant have the same dividers... It's hard to get right meaning.

This code is so big and it uses pointers to pointers, there is no wonder why RE. Try to code even without pointers if possible.
My solution for this to examine all blocks in a row and test if next is over current, if not test it comes from current's side, if not, does begin new block.

Hi,
i found 13 of them as N = 100, too.
10) 56 33 65
12) 16 63 65
15) 36 77 85
These don't belong, do they?
33 = 11 * 3; 65 = 5 * 13;
63 = 7 * 9;
77 = 11 * 7; 85 = 5 * 17;
what's wrong here?

Thx, Jan for sample input. It revealed that i have used > instead of < in one place of code.