| Show all threads Hide all threads Show all messages Hide all messages |
| overrated | ~'Yamca`~ | 1424. Minibus | 20 May 2026 22:25 | 1 |
|
| To Admins | 👨🏻💻 Spatarel Dan Constantin | 2216. Big Elevator | 19 May 2026 19:21 | 4 |
To Admins 👨🏻💻 Spatarel Dan Constantin 18 Mar 2026 10:40 Hi! I believe test #3 is invalid - there is no way to get from floor 1 to floor N. Can you please check? Thank you! Test is valid, but a bit unusual :) Try the boundary cases |
| Hint | Dmi3Molodov | 1450. Russian Pipelines | 19 May 2026 16:59 | 1 |
Hint Dmi3Molodov 19 May 2026 16:59 In Soviet times, several gas pipelines were sometimes built from A to B. Edited by author 19.05.2026 21:32 |
| WA #3 | 👨🏻💻 Spatarel Dan Constantin | 1477. Airplanes | 19 May 2026 13:53 | 1 |
WA #3 👨🏻💻 Spatarel Dan Constantin 19 May 2026 13:53 Input: 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 Output: 2 |
| Is something wrong with my algorithm? | upb_guys | 1477. Airplanes | 19 May 2026 13:51 | 5 |
My algorithm is as follows: I consider planes that cut the sphere in half - they are determined by two points in the input and the center of the sphere. I split the input points in three sets according to this plane - points "above" the plane (say N1 points), points "under" the plane (say N2 points) and points in the plane (all of them being on one circle). Obviously at this moment these points on this circle are not visible since they aren't on the open emisphere, so I try to move this emisphere just a little to make the maximum number of points visible. To handle this, I find the maximum number of points P on some semi-circle. So I conclude that the maximum number of visible points using this plane is the maximum between N1+P and N2+P. Can you give me a case for which this algorithm is not correct? I get WA on test-case 7. Thanks. Your algorithm is correct. Try these tests: Input #1: 1 0 0 1 Output #1: 1 Input #2: 3 0 0 1 0 0 100 0 0 600 Output #2: 3 Test #2 is incorrect, isn't it? "There is not more than one plane at each point of the Earth's surface." I was getting WA #7 due to acos(1.000001) or acos(-1.000001) |
| hard version | kostan3 | 1399. Economical Director | 19 May 2026 11:05 | 1 |
This problem has a more difficult version. on the acmp.ru website problem 2142 (values increased) problem 2249 (tests increased and more difficult tests) |
| Some hints. | Bliss | 1839. The Mentaculus | 18 May 2026 14:55 | 2 |
You can solve the problem without using floating point calculations. in32 is enough for everything. You also needn't to implement BSTrees or Segment trees here. Using ordered sets is enough. #include <ext/pb_ds/assoc_container.hpp> #include <ext/pb_ds/tree_policy.hpp> typedef __gnu_pbds::tree< Point, __gnu_pbds::null_type, std::less_equal<>, __gnu_pbds::rb_tree_tag, __gnu_pbds::tree_order_statistics_node_update> ordered_set_less; typedef __gnu_pbds::tree< Point, __gnu_pbds::null_type, std::greater_equal<>, __gnu_pbds::rb_tree_tag, __gnu_pbds::tree_order_statistics_node_update> ordered_set_greater; I was able to solve this problem using Fenwick Trees. They are very easy to code and very fast, thus they are preferred. |
| WA #5 | 👨🏻💻 Spatarel Dan Constantin | 1839. The Mentaculus | 18 May 2026 14:53 | 1 |
WA #5 👨🏻💻 Spatarel Dan Constantin 18 May 2026 14:53 Input: 1 2 -2 2 0 0 2 2 -1 10 1 10 Output: 0 |
| Let's talk | Igor E. Tuphanov | 1429. Biscuits | 17 May 2026 22:32 | 7 |
Why there is so large discussion about easy problems and so few about interesting ones? FE, let's talk about floating point arifmetics. Did you maid eps (very small 'soft' constant) to 'soft' your calcualtions? What value of your constant? I made it 1e-12 - it vas too small, even 1e-8 was too hard. But with 1e-6 everything was O'Key. So far I have WA13 and tried 1e-6, 1e-8 and 1e-10. All give WA13. There is a test nearby in this forum: 2 0 0 10000 9999 0 1 Edited by author 29.08.2008 16:22 Re: Let's talk Vedernikoff Sergey (HSE: EconomicsForever!) 29 Aug 2008 13:36 All the calculations can be done with exact arithmetics - you have integer numbers in the input! I doubt integer solution is possible under given TL/ML. And 1e-8 is enough to solve the problem using double. Edited by author 29.08.2008 18:14 I have a question - is WA13 about precision or not? Finally got it!!! :) WA13 is about coinciding circles, they requied different handling... Input: 2 0 0 10000 9999 0 1 Output: 3 |
| what is test22 | Erjin Zhou | 1429. Biscuits | 17 May 2026 22:28 | 2 |
I got WA on test22 for a long time... what is test22? if anyone know,please email zhouerjin@gmail.com I was failing this test due to precision issues. Luckily, I was also failing the test provided by yuyan in another thread, so I was able to track down the issue very fast. |
| WA #5 | 👨🏻💻 Spatarel Dan Constantin | 1429. Biscuits | 17 May 2026 22:19 | 1 |
WA #5 👨🏻💻 Spatarel Dan Constantin 17 May 2026 22:19 It appears you are not handling multiple identical circles correctly. |
| To admins: New tests | Milanin | 1589. Sokoban | 17 May 2026 14:18 | 3 |
Hey admins, I've sent a couple of tests to timus_support@acm.timus.ru that my AC solution was struggling with. Please validate if they can be added to the system. Your tests have been added. Thanks! Milanin, thanks a lot for new tests! Now I've got AC only with neural networks solution. All solutions with just "optimizations"/"bad subfields & patterns", etc. didn't allow me to pass new tests. |
| To admins: Why 2 seconds limit? I think it's too much. (-) | Yuri K | 1066. Garland | 12 May 2026 10:26 | 1 |
|
| best tests | Dmi3Molodov | 1167. Bicolored Horses | 11 May 2026 18:33 | 1 |
131071 65536 0 1 0 1 0 1 ... 0 1 0 1 0 answer: 65535 (long time) 131071 65535 0 1 0 1 0 1 ... 0 1 0 1 0 answer: 65536 (long time) 432 234 0 1 0 1 0 1 ... 0 1 0 1 answer: 198 |
| F(21)=138879579704209680000 ? | Dmi3Molodov | 1402. Cocktails | 9 May 2026 04:01 | 1 |
|
| To Admins: Weak tests | Dmi3Molodov | 1123. Salary | 8 May 2026 14:24 | 1 |
I've got AC with program that returns 01 for input 01. |
| Problem 1394 "Ships. Version 2" rejudged, number of tests limited | Vladimir Yakovlev (USU) | 1394. Ships. Version 2 | 7 May 2026 19:15 | 6 |
The test data for this problem has been reworked. New tricky tests have been added. At the same time the majority of the old tests have been removed. From now on, the total number of tests in this problem is limited to 20 tests. It means if new good tests are discovered, they couldn’t be simply added but should replace some of the old ones. If you’re stuck, don’t spend time on figuring out the test data and hyperoptimizing, because the test could be replaced with a similar one any time. Instead, detect that your heuristics fail and launch another one in this case. There is no universal test in the test data that makes all the heuristics fail at the same time. All solutions have been rejudged. Only a few authors still have AC after the rejudge. Because of test removal some of the previously rejected solutions got accepted. Edited by author 03.05.2026 22:50 The test data for this problem has been reworked. New tricky tests have been added. Who created the new tests? Is there a publication? As far as I understand, the old ones were created as part of this work: https://is.ifmo.ru/disser/buzdalov-dissertation.pdf Edited by author 04.05.2026 18:18 Edited by moderator 14.05.2026 04:00Some of them are my tests. There is no publication. I didn’t have access to other people’s solutions, so the tests are fairly general. LLM wasn’t used when creating the tests. Edited by moderator 14.05.2026 04:00 Are there any new, previously unknown theoretical foundations behind the new tests (and your new quick solution), or is it simply a rethinking based on new experience or a fresh perspective? Edited by moderator 14.05.2026 04:01 To be honest, it’s hard to say; the idea for these tests came to me a few months ago when I decided to improve my old solution, so overall, it’s a fresh perspective. But they do have a theoretical basis, more so than not. Edited by moderator 14.05.2026 04:01 There are huge gaps in my search area—the solution contains a very large number of magic constants, which, however, were optimizations for the old tests; without them, it still passed in terms of time. I expected that if new tests were selected, a TLE would almost certainly occur. But since the tests were generated without access to the solutions, it’s clear why there’s no TLE with the new tests. Edited by author 07.05.2026 19:16 Edited by moderator 14.05.2026 04:01 |
| this test help me | ~'Yamca`~ | 2168. Runes in the Field | 6 May 2026 05:10 | 1 |
WA8: 6 aabcaa ans: 6 RE9: 7 aaaaaaa ans: 7 |
| To admins | andreyDagger`~ | 2222. Cavalry Battle Advanced | 5 May 2026 20:47 | 2 |
The letter С in the name of problem is russian, seems like this is not supposed to be russian) Re: To admins 🎧 Vadim Barinov \Frez_Fstilus/'``' :) 5 May 2026 20:47 Yeah, thanks) I fixed it. Chess Battle Advanced |
| Subfactorial is the word :) | Yuri K | 1366. Presents | 4 May 2026 12:36 | 1 |
|