UVa OJ Board

Hi Mahmud,

Your output does not seem to be right.

Example:
()*()
this should give a negative result----- but your one doesn't;
the corresponding closing of the first should be the last.
Hope it helps.

Hi Sohel,
I think the above sample inputs and outputs are not wrong as I got accepted with this inputs and outputs. You said,

()*()
this should give a negative result----- but your one doesn't;
the corresponding closing of the first should be the last.

But, I think, here () is followed by a separate character * and this sequence is followed by another ().As () is a correct sequence so, I think, ()*() should give positive answer. After all I got accepted in this way.

Mahmud

Hi,

I'm getting WA for this problem.

Can someone explain me why these 2 inputs give different outputs.
((**)()a+b)[(a){a+n}](*
((**)()a+b)[(a){a+n}](

And I'm not sure what this statement means?
"If the expression is not properly nested your program should determine the position of the offending bracket, that is the length of the shortest prefix of the expression that can not be extended to a properly nested expression."

Thanx,
angga888

Hi again,

((**)()a+b)[(a){a+n}](*
((**)()a+b)[(a){a+n}](

How do you know these two inputs give two different outputs---
my AC program gives the same output..... very strange.

And I'm not sure what this statement means?
"If the expression is not properly nested your program should determine the position of the offending bracket, that is the length of the shortest prefix of the expression that can not be extended to a properly nested expression."

this is actually the first bracket (from left) that is out of position.

eg. ())[]9()909

it will be impossible for a valid combination to emerge after the third bracket ..).. therefore this particular one is the offending one.

Hope it helps.

Hi:
Sohel is correct.

Here, '(*' has to be considered as different characters
as '(*' is not completed and they are the last two characters in
that sequence.
((**)()a+b)[(a){a+n}](*

Hi,

How do you know these two inputs give two different outputs---
my AC program gives the same output..... very strange.

I look at the first post in this topic and I've got AC now.
Thanks for your reply.

Regards,
angga888

When I get a WA in the problem, then I check out some help for me and I test the sample input given by Mahmud776. I was mad with his sample input because I fail to match with his output. But those are output from his AC code. So I was not confident to say his output was wrong.

But finally understanding the problem properly I get AC and find that his output was wrong. I think Judge Data is not strong enough to test the solution of problem. Though I think the problem was little confusing because it ask for the minimum prefix which can't extended as correct one.

For example:

()()(a+b)(

Output for it: NO 11

But that expration can be extended as correct one like; ()()(a+b)()
So output should be 'YES' rather 'NO 11'

Hi:
Can anyone help me?
I only need the outputs for this inputs, or others inputs/outputs with some special cases.
Thanks!

Input:

(*adf(y)(*
(*adf(y)(
(a*)
)()
*)()
ads()asdf
(***)
(**
({{]}]
(**){*{]}]
<><
<sgf(sfg[sfg{sfg(*sfgsdfg*)dhj}]dfh)>
<sgf(sfg[sfg{sfg(*sfgsdfg*)dhj}]dfh)><
<sgf(sfg[sfg{sfg(*sfgsdfg*)dhj}]dfh)>(*
[**
((((())
(*(*(*(**)*)
(**********(
(*a++(*)
(*a{+}*)
(*)
(**)
((**))
((()))
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
{{{}[()((**))][][]}}
(())))
(***)
{*(())(()*)*}
{adfadf[adfadf(adfa(*adfadf*)adfaf)(*afdsf*)]adfadf}
(AADFASDFADSF)

No 9
No 9
No 3
No 1
No 1
Yes
Yes
No 3
No 4
No 6
No 4
Yes
No 37
No 37
No 4
No 8
No 7
No 12
No 6
Yes
No 2
Yes
Yes
Yes
No 18
Yes
No 5
Yes
No 10
Yes
Yes

Thanks very much jagadish!
I got AC to the first!
I only had a small mistake!
Thanks!

Dear Mahmud776,
one of the sample cases you have posted here is wrong. for the input you said the output is which is wrong. my AC code gives output I guess this is a silly typo. Again, for the case I considered the last '(*' as one symbol and that is what one is supposed to for all the cases in this problem.

Apparently the output logic of this problem is quite arguable.

I tend to agree with Rajib's theory that for
cases like the output should be because strings of this kind can be extended so that they
represents a valid bracketing ( a valid expression ).
I mean they have no prefix for which no extension is possible.
Anyway. Apparently there's some mess about this problem.

But I doubt the Judge's tests follow this
logic ( Rajib's theory ).

I found another thread where there's sufficient I/O.

http://online-judge.uva.es/board/viewtopic.php?t=6724

jagadish has posted some output there which
is quite close to mine although it differs in some cases.

We differ in the following test cases:
input my output his output It would be nice if someone having ACC program could
verify and say which one of these outputs is correct. I hope
he/she won't come up with a new theory about
how a correct answer should look like

Can someone explain these outputs

Output for the following

Input
My WA program currently prints

Output for that sample input.

Could someone explain if/why my output is wrong
and if/why the first output ( from jagadish ) is OK ?

These are the only test cases in which my Output differs
from jagadish's Output for his sample Input ( see above ).

I have made also a post in
http://online-judge.uva.es/board/viewtopic.php?t=4897
but that thread is even more confusing. The theory of Rajib
seems reasonable to me but when I follow it the Judge still
gives me WA. Although I would say this interpretation is the
most correct one ( logically ).
Thanks in advance.

Any help is welcome.

My output is same as Jagadish.