Michael's blog

Editorial provided by judges for ACM ICPC World Finals 2016
By Michael, history, 9 years ago, In English

http://www.csc.kth.se//icpc/finals2016solutions.pdf

  • Vote: I like it
  • +103
  • Vote: I do not like it

»
9 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Hey, I read the editorial for forever young, problem E. Code But I am getting WA on test 10 with it, If anyone could help me out, that would be great.

Thanks

→ Reply
»
9 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +3 Vote: I do not like it

If someone could let me know why does this post get dislikes, I would really appreciate it. Maybe this link was posted before, or maybe you would like this analysis to be hidden from you so that you can solve problems yourself? I have no other ideas...

→ Reply
  • »
    »
    9 years ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it -23 Vote: I do not like it

    See here. It doesn't matter much (as long as you're above -15 so it stays visible), it's just Buttblasted Brigade or something.

    → Reply
  • »
    »
    9 years ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +6 Vote: I do not like it

    Maybe that is contestants way of expressing whether they liked problemset :P

    → Reply
»
9 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

There is a little mistake in A's description.

"One simplification that we can apply to this is to notice that the first queue is not required — even if we assume all the sweets are available immediately, the solution will never pick a sweet that is not avaiable." is not true.

Consider an example:
4 0
3 1 1 1
Described algorithm will set set "deadlines" for sweets of type 2, 3, 4 to t=6 and to first type to t=2, so we will pick first type and then will set deadline to second sweet of first type to t=4, so we will take another one sweet of first type, which is already not a balanced sequence. What unexpectedly turns out to be true is that even though we construct not balanced sequence its length will be the same and that claim is what was supposed to be written there (that should be corrected soon).

→ Reply
»
9 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +47 Vote: I do not like it

It's nice that this editorial is official (though Per Austrin has been writing these for a long time now). The ICPC WF is startling to resemble a contest from the 90's less and less :)

→ Reply