5
0 0
4 0
4 2
2 4
0 2

answer:
3.640719

Be careful, the input numbers are float, though sample and all tests here have only integer numbers. It appears first at <= 6th test.

please give me some tests.

Getting WA #9. My solution is bruteforce after dividing the lines

I have got AC on this problem.

In the description, it says "accuracy to 0.0001".

In the code which I submitted, I use
    printf("%.4lf\n", min_breakage);
to match the point.

When I use the sample input, my output is 3.0000.
But the sample output is 3.

So I think the sample output may be wrong.
Or both the two outputs are correct?

I solved the problem geometrically in Microsoft VS C ++. At first, my solution was WA 8, but after I added 100 to the input coordinates, I started getting WA 38. But as I did not try to work with accuracy, I still got WA 38. I tried everything. Please tell me, is 38 test really drawn up correctly? Or at least tell me what my mistake is. I would like to see a test similar to 38. I am sure that I solved the problem correctly

I would like some tests, in particular test #3.
Thank you.

4
0 0
1 0
0 1
-1 1

0.7071


3
0 0
1 0
0 1

0.6436


3
-1 0
1 0
0 1

0.9102

Please publish here some tests
All test cases invented by me passed but I have got here WA on test 3

All tests have published here passes.
Test 3 gives WA persistently. What is it like?

I fixed 4 digits after decimal point of a result (that is, for example: 3.0000)
Does it matter?

Edited by author 02.07.2016 02:19

Edited by author 02.07.2016 02:19

  Not very hard to prove, then the breakage-line must create EQUAL ANGLES with sides, connected by it. This idea immediately gives the O(N^3) algorithm. But it could be improved even to O(N). :)

I try to solve different polygons that i feign myself. And everything is OK include some special cases like two equal points or all points in the same line. But when i try to submit solution test number 2 break all my hopes. What is the input data for test 2 and expected answer?

thanks a lot

Please, write there translated (RUSSIAN) version of this problem!!!! or you can send there for my adress   daminus_corp@mail.ru    > Thanks!!!!

My solution is geometrical, it passes all of my tests, except of one, where one side has a length of 0.
But I got WA on test #2, so:
 1) Can a polygon have a side with length of 0?
 2) Can somebody give me any tests for this problem?

I'm tired of getting WA;
can someone give answer to the test
4
0 0
-10 50
0 100
10 50

Thank you.

Whether the barycenter of the polygon is must on the break-line ?
thanks ~

87 authors lost AC after rejudge. Good luck!

Old TL was set according to slow testing computer. Now more than half of AC solutions work in 0.1 sec and faster.
So we decided to decrease TL to 1 sec. 10 authors lost AC.

My decision:

1.) We consider polygon such what it is, we spend 2 straight linees in parallel OX, one passes through the lowermost point, another through the uppermost. We spend a third - a line of a break on middle between a theme to two. We look at fragments. If the area of the top fragment is more, then we lift a line of a break on 1/4 all intervals, else is lowered. Then shift on 1/8 etc. To put it briefly, binary search we find height of a horizontal that it divided into equal fragments.

2.) We turn a figure, concerning any fixed point on a small corner (about 0.01 radian)

3.) We carry out action number 1.


And so we shall consider all possible variants. Certainly sooner or later it is necessary to stop to rotate a figure. It at turn on 180 degrees from an initial arrangement of a figure.

My decision works for 0.078 seconds and 253 Kb.

What your thunk about it?


GOOD LUCK!

I am sorry for bad English