No, you're wrong - the large set to some problems last year contained boundary cases that were not tested by the small input for one problem. It's not a matter of whether the small input should be enough, last year it explicitly was not.
And yes, you could cut the resubmission of small inputs and make the competition a lot harder. If you did, you would cut off a lot of amateur problem solvers from having fun in the CodeJam. You will never win the CodeJam without solving a large input case, but there's a lot of fun to be had solving the small input cases. My real life scenario is not about interviews, they're as far from real life as you can get! In real life a customer pays you to do a job, at some point the job is finished or the money runs out. If the money runs out without you finishing the job that is very bad indeed. If you finish the job but you don't know whether your code is fast enough to handle the environment it will be used in, that can you really say you finished the job? In the real world you would never give code to a customer and say "Here you go, I hope it is good enough". You would say "Here you go, I know it is good enough because I tested it under these conditions which match the given requirements". Paul Smith [email protected] On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 10:07 AM, r_debashis <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi TripleM, > > I differ from your view of large dataset. Large * is necessarily * > about efficiency, otherwise small should be good enough for all > boundary cases. > > Hi Paul, > I am not sure which real life you are referring to. In my real life, > if I implement one algorithm today during the course of my work and > think of a more efficient way of doing it while going to bed tonight > or a week or a month later, I can go back and implement that with no > hassle at all. Looks like by real life you are mentioning a typical > interview scenario, where somebody has to derive some algorithm in a > period of half n hour to one hour. There also, if somebody comes up > with a solution to begin with and a better solution 15 mins later, as > an interviewer I will be happy to accept that. I don't think any > interviewer will be stubborn enough to say "hey you said that first, > and hence I am going to stick to what you said first and not listen to > what you have to say now". > > My point is not about giving or not giving multiple attempts for large > set. It is about "if we give multiple chances to correct logical flaws > we should also give multiple attempts to correct efficiency flaws". > Testing it with my own dataset is not to the point here, since we can > test the small data set for accuracy using our own test cases as well, > and hence we should not need multiple attempts for small data set as > well. > Like we have penalties for multiple submissions in small data set we > can have penalties for timeouts for large data set as well. Which will > make things fair by giving more credit to the person who came up with > a better algorithm in the first shot as compared to the one who took > multiple tries, exactly the same way as we credit the person who comes > up with the accurate solution in the first shot. > > Hi Lego, > > I was not referring to getting the result before the end and reducing > the suspense, I was mentioning about multiple submissions in case of > timeouts. The result continues to remain unknown (for the sake of > suspense or whatever :)). > > Thanks, > Debashis > > On May 21, 1:26 pm, Lego Haryanto <[email protected]> wrote: >> I totally agree with Paul ... we should test this on our own, not relying on >> the result of our attempt. >> >> Furthermore, it is more tense this way, ... not knowing the result until end >> of contest. >> >> Best, >> -Lego >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 1:19 AM, Vinay Julme <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Well I guess we can resubmit in those 8 mins. So if you want to improve >> > your algorithm you can use the remaining mins when you feel that your code >> > won't run in given 8 mins. >> >> > Its very tough but still its possible. >> >> > Vinay Julme >> > ************** >> >> > On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Paul Smith <[email protected]>wrote: >> >> >> In real life, when someone asks you for an algorithm to solve a given >> >> problem, do you think they have a judge program to check your results? >> >> >> No! In the real world your answers will be used as if they are >> >> correct, you will do testing to satisfy yourself that your answer is >> >> correct. And if your algorithm goes wrong you will get at best bug >> >> reports that hurt your reputation, at worst you will crash the space >> >> shuttle :-) >> >> >> If you think your algorithm might be wrong or too slow, test it. >> >> Randomly create your own worst case large input, either from scratch >> >> or by pertirbing the small input, does it run in 6 minutes or not? >> >> Identify corner cases that might trip your algorithm up, and run them >> >> in tests. >> >> >> You talk like your destiny is not in your own hands! >> >> >> On Friday, May 21, 2010, Dhruva Sagar <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > I happen to agree with Deebashis Roy here.I would like to be able to >> >> attempt for the large input several times as well.I am fine with having a >> >> maximum limit on that though, like if you can allow only 5 attempts or >> >> something of that sort, that would be fine too. >> >> >> > But overall considering the fact that I am not one of the top coders out >> >> there :), I would really like to get more chances to try the large input >> >> once I know that my algorithm isn't great and there is scope of >> >> improvement, >> >> or if I know that I have to convert my algorithm to a faster language like >> >> C/C++. >> >> >> > On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 12:27, TripleM <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> > I wouldn't interpret it that way at all. It makes perfect sense to me >> >> > - it is extremely easy to have a tiny bug in your algorithm that >> >> > invalidates your entire effort. These tiny mistakes are picked up in >> >> > the small submissions; once you have got that correct you are expected >> >> > to be able to solve the large input without any further help. >> >> >> > On May 21, 5:25 pm, Debashis Roy <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> The format of the contest doesn't look very fair, given the fact that a >> >> person can submit the small data set multiple times in case of incorrect >> >> result but cannot re-submit the large data set in case of time outs. >> >> >> >> To me, the small data set is more to check the accuracy of the >> >> algorithm whereas the large data set is to check the efficiency of the >> >> algorithm. >> >> >> >> If that is true then what gcj is saying translates to "we will allow >> >> you to correct your algorithm if you have an incorrect algorithm, but we >> >> will not allow you to improve upon your algorithm if you have an >> >> inefficient >> >> algorithm!!!" >> >> >> >> Any particular reason for this? :-) >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> Debashis >> >> >> >> _________________________________________________________________ >> >> >> Climate, controversies and the changing signatures of naturehttp:// >> >> green.in.msn.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]<google-code%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> >> >> . >> >> >> For more options, visit this group athttp:// >> >> groups.google.com/group/google-code?hl=en. >> >> >> > -- >> >> > 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]<google-code%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> >> >> . >> >> > For more options, visit this group at >> >>http://groups.google.com/group/google-code?hl=en. >> >> >> > -- >> >> >> > Thanks & Regards, >> >> > Dhruva Sagar. >> >> >> > -- >> >> > 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]<google-code%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> >> >> . >> >> > For more options, visit this group at >> >>http://groups.google.com/group/google-code?hl=en. >> >> >> -- >> >> Paul Smith >> >> >> [email protected] >> >> >> -- >> >> 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]<google-code%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> >> >> . >> >> For more options, visit this group at >> >>http://groups.google.com/group/google-code?hl=en. >> >> > -- >> > 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]<google-code%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> >> > . >> > For more options, visit this group at >> >http://groups.google.com/group/google-code?hl=en. >> >> -- >> Fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge (Proverbs 1:7) >> >> -- >> 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 >> athttp://groups.google.com/group/google-code?hl=en.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > -- > 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. > > -- 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.
