Hi, The problem says: When elements get combined they form non-base elements. Only base elements can be opposed. Only base elements can be combined.
So creating a non-base element will never cause either case. On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 11:26 PM, Sam Scott <[email protected]> wrote: > When solving Magicka, I worried about two issues: First, what if two > elements combine to form a third and then in the new list, the last > two elements can combine again? And second, what if two elements > combine to form a third and then in the new list, there is an > opposition? So I checked the wording carefully, and it seemed pretty > clear that in the first case there could be a cascade of combinations, > but in the second case, oppositions should only be checked once only, > after checking the combinations. So I coded it that way. Anyhow, it > worked and I moved on, but I just tested it again without cascades of > combinations, and with checking for oppositions after a combination. > And I still got both big and small correct in both cases. > > I don't really have much of a comment on this except that maybe the > designers missed, or deliberately avoided, a chance to penalize anyone > who didn't think about these issues carefully. It just seems kinda > cheap, that's all :-) > > Sam. > > -- > 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.
