Unfortunately, it looks like that perl's int is 32 bit and that made my
program fail on large dataset.
Anyways...I wouldn't have made it to round 2 as I had no clue about
remaining 2 problems

~KeJo

On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Huy Phan <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> The algorithm is right anyway.
> Have you tried to run the test case with length of 61 and maximum number
> of unique characters ?
> @Luke: I see that you're using `whitespace` language for problem A. It's
> amazing that you still use 6 different languages to solve all the
> problems. :)
>
> Ketan Joshi wrote:
> > I used Perl. How do I find out how an integer is represented? (32bit
> > vs 64bit)?
> >
> > Is the logic ok?
> >
> > ~KeJo
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Luke Pebody <[email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >     Maybe you were using a 32-bit integer?
> >
> >     On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Ketan Joshi
> >     <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> >     > FYI, I have handled the special case where there is only one
> >     unique char in
> >     > the number. In that case I assign '1' to that char and return
> >     base as 2 as
> >     > there can not be unary numbers
> >     > ~KeJo
> >     >
> >     > On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Ketan Joshi
> >     <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> >     > wrote:
> >     >>
> >     >> Hi,
> >     >> I used the below logic to solve this:
> >     >> 1) find number of unique chars in the input number. This
> >     becomes the base
> >     >> in which it will have lowest value.
> >     >> 2) assign '1' to first char
> >     >> 3) assign '0' to second unique char that appears in the input num
> >     >> 4) assign 2..base-1 to each unique char that appears in the
> >     input in the
> >     >> increasing order
> >     >> -- So cats becomes 1023 and zig becomes 102
> >     >> 5) result = 0;
> >     >> for (i=0;i++;i<length of num){
> >     >>   result = result * base + number representing char[i]
> >     >> }
> >     >> output result.
> >     >> This logic worked fine for small input. But I got "incorrect"
> >     response for
> >     >> large input.
> >     >> Can someone tell me if this logic is flawed in any sense?
> >     >> Regards,
> >     >> KeJo
> >     >> --
> >     >> Blog: http://beingkejo.wordpress.com
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > --
> >     > Blog: http://beingkejo.wordpress.com
> >     >
> >     > >
> >     >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Blog: http://beingkejo.wordpress.com
> >
> > >
>
>
> >
>


-- 
Blog: http://beingkejo.wordpress.com

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to