837 - Light and Transparencies

[gyojuoppa]

I have tested my programs with other inputs such as the following:

3

3
2.0 2.0 9.0 2.0 0.9
13.5 2.0 4.0 8.5 0.7
17.0 10.0 7.0 8.5 0.8

8
6.0 2.0 24.0 2.0 0.9
5.5 2.0 22.0 8.5 0.7
9.0 10.0 18.0 8.5 0.8
16.0 2.0 16.0 2.0 0.9
8.5 2.0 15.0 8.5 0.7
4.0 10.0 11.0 8.5 0.8
2.2 2.0 5.0 2.0 0.9
90.5 2.0 1.0 8.5 0.7

2
1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.9
4.5 2.0 6.0 8.5 0.7

and it gives 'logically' correct answers (which is the following:)

7
-inf 2.000 1.000
2.000 4.000 0.900
4.000 7.000 0.630
7.000 9.000 0.504
9.000 13.500 0.560
13.500 17.000 0.800
17.000 +inf 1.000

17
-inf 1.000 1.000
1.000 2.200 0.700
2.200 4.000 0.630
4.000 5.000 0.504
5.000 5.500 0.560
5.500 6.000 0.392
6.000 8.500 0.353
8.500 9.000 0.247
9.000 11.000 0.198
11.000 15.000 0.247
15.000 16.000 0.353
16.000 16.000 0.318
16.000 18.000 0.318
18.000 22.000 0.441
22.000 24.000 0.630
24.000 90.500 0.700
90.500 +inf 1.000

5
-inf 1.000 1.000
1.000 2.000 0.900
2.000 4.500 1.000
4.500 6.000 0.700
6.000 +inf 1.000

yet I keep on getting WA all the time...
could somebody check on this?

[UAMike]

I have the same problem than you. We should think of more test cases, I suppose. For instance, I think that the solution for the second case you propose is wrong. Mine is:

15
-inf 1.000 1.000
1.000 2.200 0.700
2.200 4.000 0.630
4.000 5.000 0.504
5.000 5.500 0.560
5.500 6.000 0.392
6.000 8.500 0.353
8.500 9.000 0.247
9.000 11.000 0.198
11.000 15.000 0.247
15.000 18.000 0.353
18.000 22.000 0.441
22.000 24.000 0.630
24.000 90.500 0.700
90.500 +inf 1.000

This is because I think that segments with x1 = x2 should be ignored.

Regards,
UAMike

[jacky]

I tried following test cases, and failed with "Wrong Answer".

Input:
5

1
-0.3 3.0 1.5 3.0 1.0

1
-0.3 3.0 1.5 3.0 0.8

2
-0.3 3.0 1.5 3.0 1.0
2.0 3.0 -0.0 3.0 0.7

2
-0.3 3.0 1.5 3.0 1.0
2.0 3.0 -0.0 3.0 0.7

4
1 3.0 2 3.0 0.9
2 3.0 4 3.0 0.9
3 3.0 5 3.0 0.9
4 3.0 6 3.0 1.0


output:
1
-inf +inf 1.000

3
-inf -0.300 1.000
-0.300 1.500 0.800
1.500 +inf 1.000

3
-inf 0.000 1.000
0.000 2.000 0.700
2.000 +inf 1.000

3
-inf 0.000 1.000
0.000 2.000 0.700
2.000 +inf 1.000

5
-inf 1.000 1.000
1.000 3.000 0.900
3.000 4.000 0.810
4.000 5.000 0.900
5.000 +inf 1.000

Could somebody help me check it?

If interested, please paste your test cases on the board. Thanks very much.

[raugusto]

So, anyone can tell me this:

When the input is(for example):

1
2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 1.0

The output has to be:

1
-inf +inf 1.000

or can be:

3
-inf 2.000 1.000
2.000 4.000 1.000
4.000 +inf 1.000

[BJM]

I match your answers except for the final test case which my code won't handle as well as yours. However, the problem states that none of the X values are co-incident so it isn't strictly necessary to handle these cases.

[palo]

The transparency coefficients could be zero (I think). There are then some special cases. I think I handle zero coefficients but I've got wrong answer, too. And I have a question: Which is the correct answer for this input:

Input:
1

1
1 3 2 3 1

Ouput1:
1
-inf +inf 1.000

Output2:
3
-inf 1.000 1.000
1.000 2.000 1.000
2.000 +inf 1.000

[Grzesiek]

How about negative Y? Can be ignored a filter being below zero?
(ignored = treated nonexistent).
If not, I don't see any meanning for Y. I also get WA, with
considering -Y or without.

[Caesum]

There don't appear to be any negative y values there. I dont see the point in the Y values at all. Am I missing something in understanding this question ? I get the same values for the tests above as you others, but I am also WA.

[bobi1978]

I think that you should not join parts with equal transparency.
That means:

INPUT:
1

1
1.0 2.0 5.0 2.0 1.0

OUPTUT:
3
-inf 1.000 1.000
1.000 5.000 1.000
5.000 +inf 1.000

I got Accepted without joining these neighbouring parts with equel transparecys.

Another thing:
I DID NOT CONCIDER NEGATIVE Y.

[Caesum]

having finally solved this, the correct reply to the input above is:

3
-inf -0.300 1.000
-0.300 1.500 1.000
1.500 +inf 1.000

3
-inf -0.300 1.000
-0.300 1.500 0.800
1.500 +inf 1.000

5
-inf -0.300 1.000
-0.300 0.000 1.000
0.000 1.500 0.700
1.500 2.000 0.700
2.000 +inf 1.000

5
-inf -0.300 1.000
-0.300 0.000 1.000
0.000 1.500 0.700
1.500 2.000 0.700
2.000 +inf 1.000

7
-inf 1.000 1.000
1.000 2.000 0.900
2.000 3.000 0.900
3.000 4.000 0.810
4.000 5.000 0.900
5.000 6.000 1.000
6.000 +inf 1.000

[jaywinyeah]

A little more help please.
My program gets the same answers for that input, but still WA.
Are there any other tricks or special input? Thanks.

[chuzpa]

hi there could anyone tell me wich is the output for :

Code: Select all

5
1 1 3 1 0.2
2 2 4 2 0
3 3 6 3 0.7
5 4 6 4 0.6
7 5 8 5 0.1

is ...

Code: Select all

10
-inf 1.000 1.000
1.000 2.000 0.200
2.000 3.000 0.000
3.000 3.000 0.000
3.000 4.000 0.000
4.000 5.000 0.700
5.000 6.000 0.420
6.000 7.000 1.000
7.000 8.000 0.100
8.000 +inf 1.000

Or it should be the following ?

Code: Select all

8
-inf 1.000 1.000
1.000 2.000 0.200
2.000 4.000 0.000
4.000 5.000 0.700
5.000 6.000 0.420
6.000 7.000 1.000
7.000 8.000 0.100
8.000 +inf 1.000

[chuzpa]

I've found my mistake, and got Accepted ...

[sjn]

I have ACed this problem by using linked list which is very easy to understand but cost 100+ coding lines.

could anyone show me how to code just with array or something else?
thx in advance!

[blackgoldtimes]

The outputs of two consecutive cases will be separated by a blank line.
So, the final case does not have a blank line.