Show all threads Hide all threads Show all messages Hide all messages 
The sample output may not be correct.  Rotter Tarmination  1058. Chocolate  3 Oct 2020 16:23  1 
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? 
To admins  dukhno  1058. Chocolate  8 Dec 2019 10:27  1 
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 
Why WA #38?  dukhno  1058. Chocolate  13 Sep 2019 07:55  1 

Some tests need  organmusic  1058. Chocolate  6 Jan 2017 03:14  1 
I would like some tests, in particular test #3. Thank you. 
A few tests that helped me to find an error.  Victor Barinov (TNU)  1058. Chocolate  12 Nov 2016 02:53  3 
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 Thank you. But... C:\Casual\Task1058>task1058.exe <test12.txt 0.7071 C:\Casual\Task1058>task1058.exe <test13.txt 0.6436 C:\Casual\Task1058>task1058.exe <test14.txt 0.9102 I can hardly ever understand anything. My program cannot pass test #3. 
Please publish here some tests  organmusic  1058. Chocolate  15 Jul 2016 02:10  1 
Please publish here some tests All test cases invented by me passed but I have got here WA on test 3 
What is test 3?  organmusic  1058. Chocolate  2 Jul 2016 02:15  1 
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 
Idea for linear solution :)  Punkrocker  1058. Chocolate  2 Jul 2016 01:53  4 
Not very hard to prove, then the breakageline 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). :) Edited by author 20.08.2008 20:22 It could be corners instead of sides for the following input. 6 0 0 2 1 4 0 4 4 2 3 0 4 to Erick Wilts CONVEX poligon 
what is the test number 2?  Eugene Ovechkin  1058. Chocolate  30 Jan 2016 06:42  3 
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 I have same situation as author. Tried few different approaches  WA #2. Can we please have the data?) Thanks in advance Geometric solution I wrote has the same problem. With pass all of my own tests it got WA on test2. If it could be, please, give me test2 and output for it. 
NEED translate into RUSSIAN (to admins)  daminus  1058. Chocolate  23 Jan 2014 20:12  2 
Please, write there translated (RUSSIAN) version of this problem!!!! or you can send there for my adress daminus_corp@mail.ru > Thanks!!!! Вам даны координаты вершин полигона, надо найти такую линию, концы которой лежат на сторонах или вершинах многоугольника, что она разделит данный многоугольник на два равных по площади многоугольника. 
A question.  Gukoff  1058. Chocolate  2 Oct 2013 14:47  4 
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? 1) I'm pretty sure it can't, since otherwise my AC solution has a big chance to divide by zero. 2) 3 0 0 3 0 0 3 answer: 1.9308 Yeah, this is a pretty simple test but it actually helped me to overcome that WA #2. @Chitanda Eru, but 1.9308 aint correct. UPD: it is. Edited by author 30.09.2013 02:21 but N — the number of polygon vertices (4 ≤ N ≤ 50) 
Test cases wanted (with answers possibly)  Ivan Georgiev  1058. Chocolate  24 Apr 2011 23:49  7 
I'm tired of getting WA; can someone give answer to the test 4 0 0 10 50 0 100 10 50 Thank you. incorrect test: the vertices must be in the counterclockwise order so this is correct: 4 0 0 10 50 0 100 10 50 
help help  SCUQIFUGUANG  1058. Chocolate  29 Mar 2011 10:37  1 
Whether the barycenter of the polygon is must on the breakline ? thanks ~ 
Problem 1058 "Chocolate". New tests were added. (+)  Sandro (USU)  1058. Chocolate  7 Nov 2010 21:59  2 
87 authors lost AC after rejudge. Good luck! More tests were added. Read site news. 
Problem 1058 "Chocolate". TL now is equal to 1 sec (+)  Sandro (USU)  1058. Chocolate  25 Sep 2009 18:25  1 
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. 
At last I have solved it!!! There is my solution  Виктор (marilyn_manson@bk.ru)  1058. Chocolate  9 Jan 2009 00:41  5 
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 Hmmm (+) Dmitry 'Diman_YES' Kovalioff 21 Jun 2004 22:21 My solution differs from yours one, but I think your idea is interesting. I've solved it in a classical way using 2 binary searches  the first one inside the second, and then just a constants optimization... Thank for good words :) Can you explain your method for me? You know my email. Edited by author 21.06.2004 23:05 Edited by author 20.08.2008 20:22 Hmhmhm Dmitry "Logam" Kobelev [TSOGU] 9 Jan 2009 00:41 I used similar idea and checked 10000 angles, but had wa10. Then I replaced it into 1000 and got AC. Now i'm wonder why, it seems to me accuracy lowered then. 
I don't know the accuracy to this problem  Sqr (5)  1058. Chocolate  20 Aug 2008 20:08  4 
in the description, it says the length must be write with accuracy to 0,0001. does it mean 1 or 0.0001 ?? but why the sample output is 3?(3.0000) Because 33.0000 < 0.0001 
Achtung!  Igor Y. Ludov  1058. Chocolate  24 Jul 2008 18:29  2 
Achtung! Igor Y. Ludov 17 Sep 2005 07:51 This problem contains one unobvious and unpleasant trick. In statement it is said that result must be output with "accuracy to 0.0001". But in fact you must output result rounded up to fourth digit after decimal point. So, if you output answer with some additional precision, you'll get WA. For example, I got "Accepted" when corrected line writeln (finres:0:5); to writeln (finres:0:4); in my program. It means that your solution is not very accurate. My solution outputs a value "as is" without any truncation (just System.out.println(min);) and gets AC. 
Could someone help me on this? WA @ Test#32!!!!!!  TestKiller  1058. Chocolate  19 Jul 2008 09:03  1 
Problem 1058 WA @ Test #32! I supposed it to be the problem of precision. But, I don't know why...... Could somebody help me, for example, give me a test? Thx a lot. 
what is test #9  titan  1058. Chocolate  6 Apr 2008 19:37  1 
i got wrong ans in #9 . what is it? Edited by author 08.04.2008 22:41 