I tested this and various other "obvious" traits of Raul's code last night, including where the results were easy to verify (0 or 'Fatima won'), and it all checked out. When I tried to submit a result which didn't start with 'Case #1:', Google rejected the upload, with a specific message to that effect. When I had the formatting right, Google accepted the upload, but marked my submission as incorrect (with no further detail), as Raul reported.
Various spot checks on individual (non-trivial) outputs of Raul's code also checked out logically (to me, anyway). So I started thinking through the puzzle, looking for edge cases or ambiguities which may impact the implementation, but came up dry. That said, I noticed a good percentage of submissions were marked as incorrect, so there's something tripping people up here. My gut says the trouble is in the move-optimizer. What if, for example, the majority of sequences had 2 'a's in part 1, but some had 1 'a' and some had 3 or 4? Would the <./ of the -/ table guarantee that the optimizer selected the 2 'a' case as canonical, because in aggregate it would take the fewest moves to convert the 1-, 3-, and 4-'a' case to the dominant (and not-distant) 2-'a' case? I suspect yes, but I haven't been able to convince myself of it yet. Hence my gut says to spend time in this area. -Dan PS: BTW, Raul's use of 13 : n within 'result' is the first legitimate application I've seen to persist that construct in a script (as opposed to using for on-the-fly tacit translation in throwaway contexts, ie the REPL). Here, it allows Raul to maintain the clarity of explicit code for expressing a noun phrase as a sequence of verb applications (ie a pipeline without the intrusive verb compositions), while avoiding the typical performance penalty of applying an explicit verb at low rank (which would make J constantly reinterpret the verb body, which is stored as a string). Very clever and gratifying. Sent from my iPhone > On May 4, 2014, at 6:23 PM, Brian Schott <[email protected]> wrote: > > Raul, > > Did you prefix your "result" with "Case #i: ", where i is the corresponding > case number?, If not, that may be the problem. > > > > -- > (B=) > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
