| ENG RUS | Timus Online Judge |
Discussion of Problem 1681. Brother Bear's GardenIgorKoval(from Pskov) That is algo? // Problem 1681. Brother Bear's Garden 31 May 2012 22:34 That is algo? HKMT WA test case 20 // Problem 1681. Brother Bear's Garden 24 Jan 2011 10:45 Does any one know that case? Edited by author 24.01.2011 10:45 Korduban [Kiev] test 32 [2] // Problem 1681. Brother Bear's Garden 2 Apr 2009 21:02 Could someone give me a hint, please? I have WA #32 using doubles only for output, so it doesn't seem to be an accuracy problem. Korduban [Kiev] Re: test 32 // Problem 1681. Brother Bear's Garden 3 Apr 2009 00:24 Have found counterexample. svr Re: test 32 // Problem 1681. Brother Bear's Garden 18 Aug 2009 13:04 use double more broadly and small precision 10^-4 guaranties comfort Crash_access_violation useful test for wa#12 [2] // Problem 1681. Brother Bear's Garden 6 Mar 2009 21:04 7 3 6 8 3 8 1 7 0 3 4 0 6 1 9 6 If you draw this polygon on paper, you understand yours mistake ;) Edited by author 06.03.2009 21:05 Al.Cash Re: useful test for wa#12 [1] // Problem 1681. Brother Bear's Garden 15 Mar 2009 15:46 By the way the correct answer is 0.38528021 Programmer Re: useful test for wa#12 // Problem 1681. Brother Bear's Garden 27 Mar 2009 16:41 I have WA 12 too. I understood why my solution is wrong. So, what the idea of right solution? vav[14] Weak tests(+) [3] // Problem 1681. Brother Bear's Garden 13 Mar 2009 18:50 I think that my AC solution returns wrong answer on this test: 10 4 5 0 10 1 19 7 22 13 21 19 14 21 4 17 1 14 0 10 2 3 I supposed that the convex cover of intersection points of segments-cords (don't including vertexes of polygon) is unreachable for rabbit, but this idea is wrong. Al.Cash Re: Weak tests(+) [2] // Problem 1681. Brother Bear's Garden 15 Mar 2009 15:49 My AC program answers 0.52855475 and I'm quite sure in it. Does your answer differ from this? vav[14] Re: Weak tests(+) [1] // Problem 1681. Brother Bear's Garden 16 Mar 2009 00:36 Yes, my answer is 0,5441032266 Sandro (USU) Re: Weak tests(+) // Problem 1681. Brother Bear's Garden 16 Mar 2009 20:35 Your test is added Fyodor Menshikov Test 12 [2] // Problem 1681. Brother Bear's Garden 5 Mar 2009 02:48 n=7 k=3 fence has more than 2n angles melkiy Re: Test 12 [1] // Problem 1681. Brother Bear's Garden 6 Mar 2009 01:43 You are devilishly right! I figured it out when i drew a polygon of shape far from regular. But it incredibly complicates the solution :(( Sfairat Re: Test 12 // Problem 1681. Brother Bear's Garden 6 Mar 2009 02:02 Not really.If I understand your algo correctly,than it only needs to be improved a little. Theoretically,my algo is O(n^3),but in tests my prog works less than 0,05 sec,because there're no such polygons,for which all the operations will be required. Edited by author 06.03.2009 02:14 melkiy Condition inaccuracy [2] // Problem 1681. Brother Bear's Garden 1 Mar 2009 01:58 In the condition it's said "accurate to 10−4", but in the examples the output contains much more digits. Victor Barinov (TNU) Re: Condition inaccuracy [1] // Problem 1681. Brother Bear's Garden 1 Mar 2009 23:47 It means that checker will take the difference of your answer and correct answer and if it less than 1e-4 than your answer is correct. So you can display any number of digits. In my solution I display 10 digits after point melkiy Re: Condition inaccuracy // Problem 1681. Brother Bear's Garden 2 Mar 2009 04:29 Ok, thanks for explanation. Nevertheless this is not the cause why i can't AC. Can anybody say what trick is in the test #12?
|