Sometimes solutions run near the limit, and it can help to have fast hardware; I'd like to think this is the exception rather than the rule. With that said, it's a shame when it does happen. I'm hoping you can think of an optimization or two that would have brought the runtime down by some constant factor, so that you could have done it even with 2x slower hardware. Incidentally, an alternative was to do precomputation. I didn't work on that problem myself, but I think it was a way around doing a lot of computation during the 8 minutes.
Also it was apparently solvable within 20 seconds in C++, though as I mentioned I don't know how. :-) Terence, would you mind linking your solution? Bartholomew On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 11:00 PM, cyberfish <[email protected]> wrote: > > Just thought I should point out that, for the large input of question > A (round 1A), my program solved it in a little under 7 minutes on my > computer (a Core 2 Duo overclocked to 3.3ghz). A slower computer may > not have made it, so I think this gives an unfair advantage to people > with fast computers (like myself) :). > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "google-codejam" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-code?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
