Ok, that is a very good & valid point. :) I am actually glad Mr. Roy asked this question because tbh I never really cared, what i've really cared about is getting the answer right. Obviously that is my stupidity. Now after I have solved a problem I will give my solutions a lot more thought (analsys) before attempting to download
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 18:01, Chris Carton <[email protected]> wrote: > 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". >> > > I don't agree. Finding all logical flaws without testing is very, very > hard so they don't expect us to do that (though the large set may still > contain boundary cases that the small didn't), but properly estimating the > efficiency of your algorithm is something you should definitely be able to > do before you run a single test. Is your algorithm O(logn) or O(n^2)? You > should know that before downloading the large dataset. In fact you should > know that before you even write a single line of code. That's what they're > judging you on by only allowing you to try the large set once. > > > > -- > 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%[email protected]> > . > 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]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-code?hl=en.
