Show all threads Hide all threads Show all messages Hide all messages |

Help, please! Damn fifth test! | Blum | 1539. Intelligence Data | 25 Jul 2012 21:08 | 3 |

I have WA 5 again and again. I tried all the test from this forum. I use neither double nor float, but still WA. I don't know how to deal with it. Can you give me some tests with answers? Oh, finally! AC! To all, who have WA5: try this test 2 1 0.13 Correct answer is 8.
Thank You very much!!! It's really very useful test! :) |

Can somebody give me some tests? | yuyan | 1539. Intelligence Data | 25 Apr 2009 18:26 | 2 |

I got WA#10. And I don't know why~~~ Thank you very much!!! A test for you 5 3 322.58065 103.03226 74.29032 The answer is 31. Good luck! |

What are the answers for this tests? | KIRILL(ArcSTU) | 1539. Intelligence Data | 19 Aug 2008 06:53 | 15 |

5 5 0.00000 0.03138 0.86105 0.20258 0.27292 5 50 0.67165 0.31869 0.16180 0.37224 0.42567 0.08201 0.47479 0.07057 0.84085 0.05972 0.29330 0.91728 0.36791 0.77466 0.32793 0.69767 0.84417 0.71798 0.30664 0.16263 0.32950 0.46602 0.24665 0.82568 0.27903 0.48177 0.14918 0.87434 0.28729 0.77275 0.97646 0.49253 0.88794 0.82728 0.02030 0.14106 0.14350 0.50081 0.02168 0.59293 0.00965 0.77448 0.65066 0.77049 0.70811 0.55751 0.20603 0.68109 0.59285 0.95546 5 5 0.00000 0.03138 0.86105 0.20258 0.27292 The answer is 12652. 5 50 0.67165 0.31869 0.16180 0.37224 0.42567 0.08201 0.47479 0.07057 0.84085 0.05972 0.29330 0.91728 0.36791 0.77466 0.32793 0.69767 0.84417 0.71798 0.30664 0.16263 0.32950 0.46602 0.24665 0.82568 0.27903 0.48177 0.14918 0.87434 0.28729 0.77275 0.97646 0.49253 0.88794 0.82728 0.02030 0.14106 0.14350 0.50081 0.02168 0.59293 0.00965 0.77448 0.65066 0.77049 0.70811 0.55751 0.20603 0.68109 0.59285 0.95546 The answer is 84779. Thank you! I was trying write my solution with long arithmetics But I see the answers is small:) I have WA5 I don't understand why my prog returns 1 1 0.0 ----- 0 1 1 1000.1 ----- 7 5 1 1.54321 ---- 81 5 1 1000.00001 ----- 66667 2 5 1000.11111 1000.99999 ----- 66673 5 10 1000.00000 1000.11111 1000.22222 1000.33333 1000.44444 1000.55555 1000.66666 1000.77777 1000.88888 1000.99999 ----- 66673 5 2 1000.11111 1000.99999 ----- 66673 I think it should be 66670 Do you think so??? Yes you are right My prog returns 66670 But I think I have problems with accuracy I don't know how to avoid it I use this way (from sample) if round(round(52.29*7)/7*100) = round(52.29*100) then .. How I should calc Please help me To solve should use math, _int64 and don't use double and rounding. Let K=10^(d+1);S[i]- double ratios;i=1..N __int64 N[i]=S(i)*K; j-is good groop number if and only if ceil((N[i]-5)*j)/K)<=floor(([N[i]+5)*j)/K)) if [(N[i]+5)*j]%K>0 and ceil((N[i]-5)*j)/K)<=floor(([N[i]+5)*j)/K))-1 othewise
*Edited by author 05.03.2007 17:17* to svr : Thank you very much!:) I was trying write my solution with long arithmetics But I see the answers is small:) Obviously, answer is not bigger than 100000, because we can always get necessary precision by picking 100000*avg things... Use following "k:=trunc(a[j]*i+0.5); if trunc(k/i*t+0.5)<>trunc(a[j]*t+0.05) then" don't use round
*Edited by author 11.03.2007 06:47* But I used round and got AC(0.984)! This is my method: // find number c x:=1; for i:=1 to c do x:=x*10; c:=x; procedure test; var i:integer; e,q,f:real; begin for i:=1 to 100000 do begin q:=e*i; // e is a[n] f:=round(q); if round(f/i*c+0.00000001)=z then... So, it's work! :) Yeah I just meant using round is easy to get WA. But It seems that you are careful enough to use round :) WA 5 **Sergey A. Weiss** 12 Jun 2007 00:27 My program has passed all the tests offered here, but it's WA#5 still. I don't understand why. Can anyone offer harder tests? Re: WA 5 **Denis Koshman** 19 Aug 2008 06:04 It is possible to solve using 'int' data type and track quotients/remainders with each increment. Just +- and comparisons inside main loop. Also, no 64 bit stuff is necessary. Re: WA 5 **Denis Koshman** 19 Aug 2008 06:53 5 5 0.00000 0.03138 0.86105 0.20258 0.27292 This test is invalid because all input numbers are positive (I also checked Russian version, it's more clear from that one) But if this test would be valid, correct answer is 200001 because 1/12652 becomes 0.00001 after rounding :)
*Edited by author 19.08.2008 07:09* |

If you have WA13 or WA21 | Denis Koshman | 1539. Intelligence Data | 19 Aug 2008 06:12 | 1 |

Abandon double (and optionally __int64) at all! scanf("%*d.%d", &r); is enough to get everything precisely.
*Edited by author 19.08.2008 07:11*
*Edited by author 19.08.2008 07:11* |

WA5 can sb give me some hints? | format_jam | 1539. Intelligence Data | 19 Aug 2008 05:48 | 6 |

WA5 can sb give me some hints? wa5 again and again The same problem I can't find mistake:( try this test 1 4 1.0 2.1 3.2 4.5 the right answer is 10 thank you so much !!!!!!!!!! I finally find the problem. I use function round first.But it has bug! e.g. round(3.5)=3(<>4) round(3.6)=4 p.s. I use pascal. thx again Test 5 **Брэнд** 20 Mar 2008 23:27 First. Is requied number more than 0? Second. Please, give me several tests for correction my program (I don't use round-up and my code pass all tests of this forum). Obviously it's positive, otherwise division is not well defined. Also, my algo would always output 0 if I allow it to test this value :) |

What answer? | DixonD (Lviv NU) | 1539. Intelligence Data | 26 Jul 2007 22:15 | 5 |

Is this correct? 1 1 0.0 Answer:1 Do you know what is test #16? I have WA on it... Quote: All the averages are POSITIVE and do not exceed one thousand; each of them is a fraction rounded exactly to d decimal digits. averages s[i] should be positive, but round(s[i]) may be equal to 0.0 |

The Task... | AlMag | 1539. Intelligence Data | 19 Mar 2007 14:59 | 1 |

Can you explain the task? I don't understand, why cann't we answer 6. |

C# Crash | Mykola [Lviv NU] | 1539. Intelligence Data | 4 Mar 2007 20:18 | 2 |

C# Crash **Mykola [Lviv NU]** 3 Mar 2007 14:13 How could i read double without crash? I use double.Parse(Console.ReadLine()); |