What's wrong with this test?

i have the same question. what's the catch?

and what's with the "ambiguous" case? how can it be ambiguous?

When tank angled too much, one or more of sensors will show 0.
If 3 or 2 neighboring sensors shows 0, then you cant determine the angle, but at whole data is not erroneous, so you shall output "ambiguous"

for exampe
10 0 1 1 0  - ambiguous
10 0 1 0 1  - error
10 0 0 0 0  - 0.0
10 0 1 3 1  - 104.166667 (not error!)
10 0 1 3 2  - 150.0
10 0 1 5 3  - 202.083333
10 0 1 3 5  - error






Edited by author 01.05.2011 03:36

OMG, my program passed all these tests, but still WA#2. Do you have any other tricky tests?

I don't know ;)
naive o^2 * (h1 + h2 + h3 + h4) / 4 will pass test #2 (with checking erroneous data preliminarily of course) and will WA only at #3
try swap data, like this:
10 0 1 3 2
10 2 0 1 3
10 3 2 0 1
10 1 3 2 0
etc.

Edited by author 01.05.2011 02:41

Of course, I considered this case. Now I have WA#4. This test helped me a little:
1000000 1000000 1000000 1000000 1000000 -> 1000000000000000000.000
I guess, there are exists such tests, where, while calculating the volume, the itermediate calculations exceed 2^64. The reason of WA seems to be this.
P.S. Don't like Java :)

bsu.mmf.team, did you find the mistake? What is it?

Edited by author 05.05.2011 16:26

I've used extended (in Pascal) to perform all calculations. But I think precision of double also enough to perform it, because required "relative error of at most 10^6".

I hope you're not using integers of any size to perform real-number calculations? ;)

---

I've just sent my solution replacing extended to double - it still have AC.
But when I replaced it again to single (Pascal) - I got WA #4.

So, if you using float (in Java) you have to replace it with double

Edited by author 05.05.2011 18:40

Yes, I found my mistake. I got AC after I changed my function, which checks if 4 points lie on the same plane. I rewrote it using only integer calculations.

what the wrong with test case  2 ,passing all of the forum :(.help pls..!!

Friend! Your swapping-advice very right but very very dangerous!
My ideal AC program had 12 lost submissions due bad swapping.
Example: 0 1 3 2 -> 3 1 0 2- good.
1 0 3 2 -> 1 3 0 2 - bad! But double swapping swap(y2,y3),swap(y1,y4)
1 0 3 2 ->2 3 0 1 - right again!

P.S.
Why 1 0 3 2 -> 1 3 0 2 - bad? In 1,0,3,2 we have ciclic  3>2>1>0
but in 1,3,0,2 this invariant killed ,nature of data changed.

Edited by author 25.10.2011 11:07