Page 2 of 5
Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2003 1:31 pm
by Dominik Michniewski
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
Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2003 1:45 pm
by little joey
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
10523 - problem statement changes?
Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2003 1:49 pm
by dwyak
I found my code outputs answer like this:
1.020000E+02
and now it is
102
but I've got AC before.
Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2003 1:50 pm
by little joey
Please read the previous postings about a problem, before opening a new thread...
Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2003 3:07 pm
by Faizur
I also get the answer specified above for 150 15 and got wa after rejudgement.whats the prob about it??
Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2003 7:49 am
by titid_gede
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
Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2003 7:35 pm
by anupam
please wait the bug is fixed in a very short time.
--
Anupam
10523 now you can get AC
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2003 11:38 am
by newtype feng
the judgement is ok, i got AC today.
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2003 12:47 pm
by anupam
You can submit it now.
The judgement is ok.
and those who submitted it before plz wait for a rejudgement.
Thank you all.
10523
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2003 4:56 pm
by Pier
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!
Re: Stupid problem 10523!
Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2003 7:18 am
by Moni
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!
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 
Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2003 7:49 am
by anupam
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 
Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2003 11:21 am
by Per
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!
Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2003 4:29 pm
by xbeanx
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?
Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2003 7:16 pm
by Moni
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 