I'm not depriving the second set, just saying that this is a competition. In order to differentiate the competitors sufficiently, the competition must be 'hard' at some point.
Allowing multiple attempts at the small input allows a fun format, but competing in smalls only you will never win. Taking on the large input shows you mean business, and you shouldn't be surprised that it's harder. Allowing only 1 submission is only part of what makes the large input hard. Paul Smith [email protected] On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 1:45 PM, r_debashis <[email protected]> wrote: > That's the whole point I am trying to make. Which one is easier? > Checking some boundary condition like I forgot to check for a zero > length input or some extreme value in the input or actually improving > the algorithm, let's say, from n2 to nlgn? > My guess is the second one? So why have one hour for the first and 8 > mins for the second? > As far as the GCJ being perfect, I don't think so. Everybody (that > includes GCJ) has the scope to improve. Over the last couple of years > we have seen a number of changes to the format of GCJ (including > opening up all of first rounds for everybody). These are all changes > for the better. And I think that it will be foolish to assume that GCJ > is perfect today. > Somebody in this thread mentioned that "there is lot of fun for > amateurs in solving the small data set", I am saying there is lots of > fun for everybody in solving small data set as well as writing > efficient algorithm to solve the larger data set. Why deprive the > second set while catering to the first one? > > Manish, > Regarding not having power for the whole day !!! Come to think of it, > there can be many mishaps to an aspiring participant, for example he > can break an arm and a leg in a football match the day before. I am > sure GCJ can't do anything about it. What it CAN do though, is have > the format in such a way that minimizes the loss to a participant due > to some minor glitches like a small power outage, or the blue screen > of death, etc. > > > On May 21, 5:11 pm, yiuyuho <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> To me, the small data set is more a sampling of the problem, whereas >> the large data set is the actual solving of the problem. In other >> words, the large data set tests for correctness (only allow 1 >> submission for judgement) and efficiency (large input range), whereas >> the small data doesn't do neither - well, it does, be in a smaller >> scale. >> >> So, you may think of the large data set as the harder version of the >> small, both in terms of correctness (1 go vs. fixable) and efficiency >> (large vs small input ranges). And, by the way, you can *still* >> improve your algorithm if it is found inefficient, but you only have 8 >> minutes to do that. >> >> regards, >> yiuyuho >> >> On May 21, 1:25 am, 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]. >> > 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]. >> 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.
