| № | Пользователь | Рейтинг |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | tourist | 4009 |
| 2 | jiangly | 3823 |
| 3 | Benq | 3738 |
| 4 | Radewoosh | 3633 |
| 5 | jqdai0815 | 3620 |
| 6 | orzdevinwang | 3529 |
| 7 | ecnerwala | 3446 |
| 8 | Um_nik | 3396 |
| 9 | ksun48 | 3390 |
| 10 | gamegame | 3386 |
| Страны | Города | Организации | Всё → |
| № | Пользователь | Вклад |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | cry | 167 |
| 2 | maomao90 | 163 |
| 2 | Um_nik | 163 |
| 4 | atcoder_official | 161 |
| 5 | adamant | 159 |
| 6 | -is-this-fft- | 158 |
| 7 | awoo | 157 |
| 8 | TheScrasse | 154 |
| 9 | nor | 153 |
| 9 | Dominater069 | 153 |
http://codeforces.net/contest/514/submission/26169645 http://codeforces.net/contest/514/submission/26169620
How is that even possible?? The only difference between the sources is the declaration of the Set container (double). Is there anybody who can explain THAAT?????
Just never use set to count doubles. Use epsilon when you work with doubles, or try to avoid doubles in program.
That's not the answer to the question "how is that even possible", though.
thanks
A similar question was asked a few weeks ago. Take a look at my comment for more information.
However, I don't see why the declaration of set in the global area adds at the 8th test ~11 extra elements, returning 47 instead of 36.