There could be a reasonable solution of the problem with testing Hidden after you have solved the Visible. What if the platform would allow the participant to download the whole visible dataset as soon as he has solved it? He has earned the points for his submission of Visible, why not to open the tests? The separate submission of Visible/Hidden would also be a benefit, especially with this improvement.
On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 3:45:55 PM UTC-4, Bartholomew Furrow wrote: > That's a good point about not being able to test your new solution on the > same input that you know you got right, Dmitriy. A few other thoughts: > > > - I don't know whether the UI makes this clear -- note to team, hopefully > there's a really clear indication that you still have points from previous > submissions -- but you can't lose points you have earned on a visible > dataset, no matter what you submit later. > > > - I agree that it isn't without penalty, but I don't think 4 penalty minutes > is a very significant cost. I also don't think there's anything wrong with > that cost being present. > > > - When writing an analysis, it's often helpful to first consider a simpler > version of a problem before you consider a more complex version. I believe > that's what they're doing here. > > > - Although there are a couple of things that make it less appealing -- lack > of ability to test on a Google-generated dataset, and the extra 4 penalty > minutes -- it's still totally reasonable to code up a solution that solves > the Visible and not the Invisible set. For example, what if you don't know > how to solve the invisible one? Or, as we've discussed here, what if you're > planning on submitting the Invisible set later if you get a chance? > > > Cheers, > Bartholomew > > > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 1:21 PM Дмитрий Кузьминов <[email protected]> > wrote: > Bartholomew: there is another concern. Let's imagine that I've solved the > Visible dataset, and I know for sure that this doesn't solve the Hidden one. > I submit the solution, I get the positive verdict, and I start the better > implementation. In the old platform I can always compare the results that the > old (less effective) solution produces with the results that the better > solution gives me, and that comes for free: I don't need to spend an attempt > with a penalty. Now it is not free. Moreover, I even don't know which attempt > will be taken to score my visible dataset (shall I submit my correct solution > for the second time?). > > > > Today we've got a Qual Round analysis, and the analyst still assumes that old > rules are valid. Let's regard the "Saving The Universe Again": as usual we > have a clue that if we know that "Since there is at most one C instruction in > this test set, we can solve the two cases independently"! Who cares now of > the solutions that doesn't solve both datasets? > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Google Code Jam" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-code/3684c25d-ffce-4f4e-ae74-b82113e69d54%40googlegroups.com. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Code Jam" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-code/77865ab0-33a6-460a-a369-76079a3c2bbd%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
