10523 - Very Easy !!!

All about problems in Volume 105. If there is a thread about your problem, please use it. If not, create one with its number in the subject.

Moderator: Board moderators

Dominik Michniewski
Guru
Posts: 834
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 4:11 pm
Location: Wroclaw, Poland
Contact:

Post by Dominik Michniewski » Fri Aug 22, 2003 1:31 pm

But it's really frustrating ...
I will be happy if after rejudgement OJ shows us , that exist new test on which our programs fails, but I think that it isn't such case ...

Best reagrds
DM
If you really want to get Accepted, try to think about possible, and after that - about impossible ... and you'll get, what you want ....
Born from ashes - restarting counter of problems (800+ solved problems)

User avatar
little joey
Guru
Posts: 1080
Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2002 7:37 pm

Post by little joey » Fri Aug 22, 2003 1:45 pm

I have the same answer for 150 15, so I guess it must be right.
Something funny is happening: this morning, after the rejudgement, there were some 20 or so AC's in the ranking list, but they all dissapeared now (except for the one still in it now). So a second round of rejudging has probably happened...
My strong intuition is that the new judge data is not OK, and that they should look upon it.
367 is a different matter. Please see my posting in the board.

-little joey

dwyak
New poster
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2002 5:16 am
Location: P.R.China
Contact:

10523 - problem statement changes?

Post by dwyak » Fri Aug 22, 2003 1:49 pm

I found my code outputs answer like this:

1.020000E+02

and now it is

102

but I've got AC before.

User avatar
little joey
Guru
Posts: 1080
Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2002 7:37 pm

Post by little joey » Fri Aug 22, 2003 1:50 pm

Please read the previous postings about a problem, before opening a new thread...

Faizur
New poster
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2003 3:04 pm

Post by Faizur » Fri Aug 22, 2003 3:07 pm

I also get the answer specified above for 150 15 and got wa after rejudgement.whats the prob about it??

titid_gede
Experienced poster
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 2:03 pm
Location: Mount Papandayan, Garut

Post by titid_gede » Sat Aug 23, 2003 7:49 am

there's something strange for me. we know that the output format has just changed.. but there is a guy... who submit this problem on july (before output format changed).. and now still got AC!!!!!! sorry not meaning to offend the guy who got AC, but... it's really strange, and there must be a reasonable reason for that.

regards,
titid
Kalo mau kaya, buat apa sekolah?

anupam
A great helper
Posts: 405
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2002 6:45 pm
Contact:

Post by anupam » Sat Aug 23, 2003 7:35 pm

please wait the bug is fixed in a very short time.
--
Anupam
"Everything should be made simple, but not always simpler"

newtype feng
New poster
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 2:36 pm

10523 now you can get AC

Post by newtype feng » Tue Aug 26, 2003 11:38 am

the judgement is ok, i got AC today. :P
I like AC

anupam
A great helper
Posts: 405
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2002 6:45 pm
Contact:

Post by anupam » Tue Aug 26, 2003 12:47 pm


You can submit it now.
The judgement is ok.
and those who submitted it before plz wait for a rejudgement.
Thank you all.
"Everything should be made simple, but not always simpler"

User avatar
Pier
New poster
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2003 9:12 pm
Location: Aguascalientes, Mexico
Contact:

10523

Post by Pier » Tue Aug 26, 2003 4:56 pm

Why changing the problem specifications after so long?

I think that's a lack of respect toward all the people who solved (or tried to solve) that problem!
:evil:
There are 10 kind of people on this world: those who understand binary and those who don't!

User avatar
Moni
Experienced poster
Posts: 202
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Chittagong. CSE - CUET
Contact:

Re: Stupid problem 10523!

Post by Moni » Wed Aug 27, 2003 7:18 am

Pier wrote:Why changing the problem specifications after so long?

I think that's a lack of respect toward all the people who solved (or tried to solve) that problem!
:evil:


Sorry! Brother Pier! That you have taken "RESPECT" in account!
Actually! Programming is a pure fun!

It's true that when we get any problem AC at first time we become happy!
But you may agree that we learn more when it is WA or TLE..........!

Now they are upgrading the server and as some additional task they are doing some rejudges................

May be now it's tougher one..........as from solution %..........

So........it's better :)

ImageWe are all in a circular way, no advances, only moving and moving!

anupam
A great helper
Posts: 405
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2002 6:45 pm
Contact:

Post by anupam » Wed Aug 27, 2003 7:49 am

hello pier,
Sorry for changing but better to change your subject of the thread.
This is because, when the problem was first given, it happened that you solved it as many other did. but As a author of the problem i have to think about all who tried it. For the variation of compiler and programming language the output may vary and though the program is correct one can get wa. and many did get it. and many of them(at least five big bosses) told me to change the floating point format toint format as there is no need of using floating point in this problem.

This is why, I have shown respect who knew the correct way to solve the problem but got wafor compiler and etc.

--
So please don't comment such a thread.
And A great programmer usually don't do that.

It may be more better than you solved.
So what is the stupidity here???
----
And acc. to moni bhai, many contestent solved more than 500 problems don't think programming as a duty(they just take it as a challenge and fun, pleasure).

---
Anupam :oops: :oops: :evil:
"Everything should be made simple, but not always simpler"

Per
A great helper
Posts: 429
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2002 11:27 pm
Location: Sweden

Post by Per » Wed Aug 27, 2003 11:21 am

I'm guessing the problem was that Pascal and Java has a different output format, right? I agree that the problem is better now, but since it has been in the problemset for so long I don't really think there was enough motivation for the change (though I can at least accept it). Wouldn't it have been better to make a special judge program which accepted all three output formats? But anyway, as I said, I can understand and accept this change.

While we are on the subject though, why did you change 10524, the matrix inversion problem? (The change being that pivoting is now disallowed.) Because in that case, I think the problem has definitely gone from better to worse, because
1) Correct matrix inversion programs now get WA and incorrect get AC.
2) The problem becomes much simpler.
And again, add the fact that the problem has been in the problemset for quite a while!

Btw, moni: Of course solution % is lower now, since the first ~700-800 submissions (~80% of total) (try to) solve another problem!

xbeanx
Experienced poster
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 10:30 pm
Location: Newfoundland, Canada (St. John's)

Post by xbeanx » Wed Aug 27, 2003 4:29 pm

What's the big deal about changing a problem??

So what if you need to change your program a little. I mean, if you were astute enough to solve it in the first place, then a little modification shouldn't be so bad... Am I right?

User avatar
Moni
Experienced poster
Posts: 202
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Chittagong. CSE - CUET
Contact:

Post by Moni » Wed Aug 27, 2003 7:16 pm

Per wrote:I'm guessing the problem was that Pascal and Java has a different output format, right? I agree that the problem is better now, but since it has been in the problemset for so long I don't really think there was enough motivation for the change (though I can at least accept it). Wouldn't it have been better to make a special judge program which accepted all three output formats? But anyway, as I said, I can understand and accept this change.

While we are on the subject though, why did you change 10524, the matrix inversion problem? (The change being that pivoting is now disallowed.) Because in that case, I think the problem has definitely gone from better to worse, because
1) Correct matrix inversion programs now get WA and incorrect get AC.
2) The problem becomes much simpler.
And again, add the fact that the problem has been in the problemset for quite a while!

Btw, moni: Of course solution % is lower now, since the first ~700-800 submissions (~80% of total) (try to) solve another problem!
Hmm...I know your rank! ;) And from that point of view you are quite correct :)

For the matrix problem pivoting is that factor which made it really challenging............!

And about your special judge program! If the solution code is correct then there will be no problem!

But I have seen before one year, Dmitry solved 718... problems and after one year it was seen 684...(or someting.......) all this happen only for rejudges.......and if this still goes nothing to complain I think!

And from that time..........we all know fpnc and his team are extremely busy now with their 2 servers and their critical config. And they didn't get that time which was required to check rejudges!

That's why this late occured..........and we don't need to care about this so strongly as there are many problems yet to solve - pointed by per at last :-?

ImageWe are all in a circular way, no advances, only moving and moving!

Post Reply

Return to “Volume 105 (10500-10599)”