... forget it. Seems that it's legal for one plant to be partly covered by one shrinkle and wholy covered by the other. Then there's no such problem..
On Sep 27, 8:38 pm, thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > From the analysis: > ---------------------------------- > To solve this, we can make the assumption that any sprinkler used in > the solution either: > > -- covers exactly one plant, or > -- the boundary of the sprinkler touches the boundary of at least two > of the plants it covers. > > This assumption is safe because if a sprinkler covers more than one > plant but does not have two plants on its boundary, the sprinkler can > be shifted and rotated, while still covering the same plants, until it > does. > ---------------------------------- > One thing puzzles me is whether there's possibility that the sprinkler > cannot be shifted because its circle may tough other plants not > covered before? > > Is it because there are only two sprinklers? What if there are more > than two? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
