Comments for be e.nigma

Comment on GCJ 2008 – Round 1A: Minimum Scalar Product by Toé

Toé — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 16:52:07 +0000

Thank you. I convert to int before sorting and it works.

Comment on GCJ 2008 – Round 1A: Minimum Scalar Product by Andrea

Andrea — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 16:16:26 +0000

Try to convert to int before sorting, so far it seems correct to me. Are you sure you’re not messin up with the output? There are some strict rules about that.

Comment on GCJ 2008 – Round 1A: Minimum Scalar Product by Toé

Toé — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 01:50:42 +0000

Here is a part of my code:

v1.sort()
v2.sort(reverse=True)
scalar = 0
j = 0
while j < n:
     scalar += int(v1[j]) * int(v2[j])
      j += 1

I think it’s just but when I submit the output file, they say it’s incorrect

Comment on GCJ 2008: Fly Swatter by GCJ 2008: Fly Swatter

GCJ 2008: Fly Swatter — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 13:41:35 +0000

[...] racquets (or rackets if you prefer)… well… actually it’s about probability :^D… [full post] Andrea nigma codinggcj 2008gcjgoogle code jam 0 0 0 0 [...]

Comment on A geeky toy, for a geeky boy. by A geeky toy, for a geeky boy.

A geeky toy, for a geeky boy. — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 13:41:18 +0000

[...] don’t know it then you should at least google for it. Wikipedia will work as well. I… [full post] Andrea nigma codinguncategorizedfunui 0 0 0 0 0 [...]

Comment on About by Pascal

Pascal — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 01:28:02 +0000

GEEKCODE is deprecated!

tvb!

Comment on GCJ 2008: Fly Swatter by e.nigma

e.nigma — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 00:35:44 +0000

Maybe this:
http://e.nigma.be/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/hitting_ball.png

was not so clear. I putted black on all except for one ball, do you see the one on the bottom? If the gap was complete the ball could pass through it, but its center it’s out of the small area and so it’s hitting the border, that seems to be the event have to be verified at the same time, and (in math, not in the real world) one event can be verified without the other, am I wrong?

Comment on GCJ 2008: Fly Swatter by Clive

Clive — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 23:28:56 +0000

You appear to be trying to treat the two cases of the fly going through the “big” circular hole (inside of the inner rim of the racquet), and that of it going through a square hole between strings (where these strings and gaps between them are considered to be extending over the full area of the whole racquet) as two independent events. But that is totally wrong! If the fly hits the rim of the racquet it cannot ever go through the hole between strings that might be lying “behind” that point.

Imagine a simpler case where there are two “filters” that can catch the fly. Say each is set up in a way that the fly (hitting the filter randomly) has a 50% probability of being hit. You are (I think) saying you can always just multiply those probabilities to get the correct value for the combined set of filters. But those filters might (when overlapped) produce zero chance of the fly getting through.

For example, say you have two sets filters consisting of vertical strings (only vertical string all with infinitesimal thickness (r~=0), suspended in an outer square frame also with infinitesimal thickness (t~=0) to keep things simple) with a gap of 4f between them. Now each such set of strings alone gives a 50% chance for the flying getting through. Your approach would trying to multipl0 0.5 by 0.5 and get 0.25 for it getting through both. However if the two sets of strings are positioned exactly on top of each other the probability is still 50%, and if they are offset horizontally by 2f then the fly cannot ever get through!

To get the correct answer, you have to treat the different cases separately!

Comment on GCJ 2008: Fly Swatter by e.nigma

e.nigma — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 15:05:42 +0000

>Event gap occurrs many times inside the racket. In your formula
>you don’t take care about that
>

Uhm… Im sure that a ball falling in the small area will fall into a square, ok? that’s a sure event.

I called the probability to fall in a gap area of ONE square q2 = gap/small…

if there are 3.215 squares in the small area well… as there is one gap for each square there will be 3.215 gap in the small area…

if you do 3.215 * gap/ small you’re take care about it… but the result (as I’ve shown) is the same… am I right? am I missing your point?

Comment on GCJ 2008: Fly Swatter by Authentic

Authentic — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 13:31:48 +0000

>> Also, you don’t consider times of event “small” it ocurrs.

>I don’t understand what does it mean (maybe is my english fault), >can you try to explain me what do you mean with that?

Event gap occurrs many times inside the racket. In your formula you don’t take care about that.