Re: [gcj] The Qual Round is over!

['Pablo Heiber' via Google Code Jam]

Hi,

I'm glad we agree on the benefits of black box testing. As I said before,
we completely agree with the sentiment that there's lots of important
reasons to make practice available. It's high on our list of priorities and
we are working to make that happen ASAP.

Best,
Pablo

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 11:56 AM taranpreetsinghchhabra <
taranpreetsinghchha...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello Pablo
>
> >>The reason to hide the test cases is because testing is an important
> part of programming. Providing people with real test data, even without the
> expected answer, would be doing a lot of the work for them.
>
> I completely agree. We shouldn't get test cases, even for small during
> contest as, It may prompt users to make brute force solutions for small,
> unlock test cases and then build the actual solution, which may not be
> desirable.
>
> Few things I wanna say, are:
>
> After the contest is over, Either make the test files available or provide
> users with any means for solving past problems. (May even consider keeping
> past contest problems in the old platform.) No doubt we ought to learn to
> develop our programs without test cases, but after the contest, there ought
> to be a means after the contest to check our solutions, the solutions
> people write after seeing analysis. They want to know whether they now have
> got it right or they still miss an edge case.
>
> So, we need a way to test our solutions after the round is over. I
> personally do not care whether we are provided with test files or not. But
> i need a judge which can tell me that my solution is right or not.
>
> >>In real life, you don't get to see how the users will use your code in
> advance, so most of the time the programmer needs to come up with the
> comprehensive set of scenarios. This policy mimics that, in a way.
>
> Yes, we won't get to see how users use our code. But we can surely see the
> results of the idea we implemented which we believed to be correct,
> allowing us to further improve, which i believe is ideal motto, whether of
> programming or of real life.
>
> So, A request: Just provide us a means to check if our solution is correct
> or not.
>
> Regards
>
> --
> 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 google-code+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to google-code@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-code/e700f5b6-f0fa-4c4f-b336-ea0194dfe906%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 google-code+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to google-code@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-code/CANa5jcDW-BGek%2BfG9Y0b_mvKBSe-FAPu4c8gOSja46vhPrA-9g%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [gcj] The Qual Round is over!

[taranpreetsinghchhabra]

Hello Pablo

>>The reason to hide the test cases is because testing is an important part of 
>>programming. Providing people with real test data, even without the expected 
>>answer, would be doing a lot of the work for them.

I completely agree. We shouldn't get test cases, even for small during contest 
as, It may prompt users to make brute force solutions for small, unlock test 
cases and then build the actual solution, which may not be desirable.

Few things I wanna say, are:

After the contest is over, Either make the test files available or provide 
users with any means for solving past problems. (May even consider keeping past 
contest problems in the old platform.) No doubt we ought to learn to develop 
our programs without test cases, but after the contest, there ought to be a 
means after the contest to check our solutions, the solutions people write 
after seeing analysis. They want to know whether they now have got it right or 
they still miss an edge case.

So, we need a way to test our solutions after the round is over. I personally 
do not care whether we are provided with test files or not. But i need a judge 
which can tell me that my solution is right or not.

>>In real life, you don't get to see how the users will use your code in 
>>advance, so most of the time the programmer needs to come up with the 
>>comprehensive set of scenarios. This policy mimics that, in a way.

Yes, we won't get to see how users use our code. But we can surely see the 
results of the idea we implemented which we believed to be correct, allowing us 
to further improve, which i believe is ideal motto, whether of programming or 
of real life.

So, A request: Just provide us a means to check if our solution is correct or 
not.

Regards

-- 
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 google-code+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to google-code@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-code/e700f5b6-f0fa-4c4f-b336-ea0194dfe906%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [gcj] The Qual Round is over!

[Дмитрий Кузьминов]

I'm talking about opening the visible dataset for those who have passed the 
tests already. Not a big deal if the participant could compare his solution for 
the hidden dataset with the results on tests for the visible dataset.
As an alternative there could be an option to allow to submit the solution for 
the hidden dataset to test it on the visible dataset without a penalty.

On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 8:12:06 PM UTC-4, Pablo Heiber wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> The reason to hide the test cases is because testing is an important part of 
> programming. Providing people with real test data, even without the expected 
> answer, would be doing a lot of the work for them. In the previous system 
> with I/O downloads, there was no alternative, but this is much more 
> significant test. In many problems, testing that your answer is correct is 
> significantly easier than solving it (at least if P != NP), so giving test 
> data is a huge help in debugging. Even when checking the answer is hard, 
> having the tests there helps debug runtime errors, time limits, and possibly 
> even hint at the reason for wrong answers if you inspect the data carefully. 
> 
> 
> In real life, you don't get to see how the users will use your code in 
> advance, so most of the time the programmer needs to come up with the 
> comprehensive set of scenarios. This policy mimics that, in a way.
> 
> 
> Best,
> Pablo
> 
> 
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:16 PM Дмитрий Кузьминов  
> wrote:
> 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  
> > 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 google-code...@googlegroups.com.
> 
> > 
> 
> > To post to this group, send email to googl...@googlegroups.com.
> 
> > 
> 

Re: [gcj] The Qual Round is over!

['Pablo Heiber' via Google Code Jam]

Hi,

The reason to hide the test cases is because testing is an important part
of programming. Providing people with real test data, even without the
expected answer, would be doing a lot of the work for them. In the previous
system with I/O downloads, there was no alternative, but this is much more
significant test. In many problems, testing that your answer is correct is
significantly easier than solving it (at least if P != NP), so giving test
data is a huge help in debugging. Even when checking the answer is hard,
having the tests there helps debug runtime errors, time limits, and
possibly even hint at the reason for wrong answers if you inspect the data
carefully.

In real life, you don't get to see how the users will use your code in
advance, so most of the time the programmer needs to come up with the
comprehensive set of scenarios. This policy mimics that, in a way.

Best,
Pablo

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:16 PM Дмитрий Кузьминов <
dmitry.kuzmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 
> 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 google-code...@googlegroups.com.
> >
> > To post to this group, send email to googl...@googlegroups.com.
> >
> > 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 google-code+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to google-code@googlegroups.com.
> 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 

Re: [gcj] The Qual Round is over!

[Дмитрий Кузьминов]

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  
> 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 google-code...@googlegroups.com.
> 
> To post to this group, send email to googl...@googlegroups.com.
> 
> 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 google-code+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to google-code@googlegroups.com.
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.

Re: [gcj] The Qual Round is over!

[Yu Wang]

Yeah for these large datasets I find it best to write your own test cases
and see how your algorithm run against them. Even
np.random.randint(0,1e9,1e5) or something of the sort works well to see how
fast (or slow) your algorithm runs.

On Sun, Apr 8, 2018, 16:41 Felix Voituret  wrote:

> Time Limit Exceed i think ?
>
> Envoyé de mon iPhone
>
> Le 8 avr. 2018 à 22:38, Leandro Coutinho  a
> écrit :
>
> Thank you Bartholomew !
>
> What is TLE?
> *Temporal lobe epilepsy? :D*
>
> Em Dom, 8 de abr de 2018 17:27, Bartholomew Furrow 
> escreveu:
>
>> I have a few thoughts, and I want to emphasize once again that although I
>> used to be on the Code Jam team, I no longer am.
>>
>> First: I don't think Hidden sets are really run after the contest. At the
>> end of the Qualification Round, all scores were visible immediately. We
>> used to judge Large inputs as they were submitted and just not show the
>> results until the end, and I'm assuming that's true with the new platform.
>>
>> Second: "Hidden/large should be about performance" is a reasonable
>> philosophy, but it isn't a philosophy that Code Jam has held to
>> historically. You can find lots of problems where there's a simple
>> algorithm that would be correct on the Small, and incorrect (not just slow)
>> on the Large. With that said, all data sets are designed to test the
>> program as much as possible, so if your code was broken by the Invisible
>> input in a way that it *could* have been broken on the Visible input,
>> that's certainly something they'll be trying to avoid.
>>
>> Third, about whether we should know whether our submissions timed out or
>> not on Hidden sets: It's certainly true that that's a difference, though as
>> Felix points out it isn't like you could *do* anything about it before
>> unless you acted very fast. You just knew you didn't have the points, which
>> typically doesn't matter all *that* much.
>>
>> You might be interested to hear that when we first designed the
>> small/large input set system, we viewed the ability to see TLEs as a
>> down-side of the new system, when for Large inputs you weren't supposed to
>> know whether you got it. It's interesting to see it come around the other
>> way!
>>
>> I *would* like to see the running time for my Visible submissions, since
>> right now I don't have a sense for how quickly anything runs on the server,
>> other than that making a 15x15 square on the Interactive problem for 100
>> inputs takes more than 10 seconds.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Bartholomew
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 2:08 PM Leandro Coutinho 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hmm good point.
>>>
>>> So CodeJam is worst now.
>>>
>>> Worst is not the best word. The previous system was really good.
>>>
>>> Em Dom, 8 de abr de 2018 17:04, Xiongqi ZHANG 
>>> escreveu:
>>>
 The hidden test is run after the contents ends. How is it possible to
 tell you that your program will finish or not if it was not actually run?
 On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 12:56 PM Leandro Coutinho <
 lescoutinh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Good point.
>
> They should let us know if the program finished on time. They can do
> this without saying that it is correct or not.
>
> The other problem is about correctness. Hidden/large should be about
> performance ...
>
> Em Dom, 8 de abr de 2018 16:43, Felix Voituret <
> felix.voitu...@gmail.com> escreveu:
>
>> Well the real difference here is that you do not know if the time
>> limit was respected for the hidden dataset (previously large). So you
>> really has to ensure required points from visible one that you can 
>> control
>> unless you estimate correctly time complexity regarding dataset limits.
>>
>> Envoyé de mon iPhone
>>
>> > Le 8 avr. 2018 à 20:29, newbie007  a
>> écrit :
>> >
>> > Usually in the qualification round the first two problems are
>> simple and with no tricks.
>> >
>> > I got A and B correct for the small data sets, so I assumed it was
>> fine.
>> >
>> > But then wrong for A large and time exceed for B large. Oo
>> >
>> > Probably I was too careless, but I think CodeJam missed the
>> qualification round purpose this year.
>> >
>> > --
>> > 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 google-code+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> > To post to this group, send email to google-code@googlegroups.com.
>> > To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-code/1c05cf0e-d772-4b96-879c-b61535bd9145%40googlegroups.com
>> .
>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>> --
>> You 

Re: [gcj] The Qual Round is over!

[Bartholomew Furrow]

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 
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 google-code+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to google-code@googlegroups.com.
> 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 google-code+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to google-code@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-code/CAHaiWHN2Sss%3DHpq-OgOhox3vFpZBb3zq29Xdgz%3DewSA8LCHGTA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [gcj] The Qual Round is over!

[Дмитрий Кузьминов]

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 google-code+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to google-code@googlegroups.com.
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.

Re: [gcj] The Qual Round is over!

[Bartholomew Furrow]

For me the issue is whether we're looking at something closer to 1e7 or 1e9
operations per second, which has a pretty significant impact on what
algorithms can work to solve a problem.

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 1:13 PM  wrote:

> Actually you can figure out for yourself without running the code if a
> idea will got TLE or not. It is normally if you know the complexity of your
> solution and compare it to problem restriction. For example, it is
> obviously that O(T * n^2) will got TLE in Trouble sort problem, because the
> size of array might be up to 1e5. And this means that your solution needs
> to do 1e12 operations in order to solve the entire set, in worst case. A
> normal computer can hold ~1e7 operations per second. And 1e12/1e7=1e5
> seconds...but the limit was 20.
>
> --
> 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 google-code+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to google-code@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-code/8bee126a-8c6d-4e3a-9e6e-d24906f54f3c%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 google-code+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to google-code@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-code/CAHaiWHOyLBAk8cv6gtqiibT%2BTfXgXZFzgAZyLes8yGeh9NGa2g%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [gcj] The Qual Round is over!

[ninicu . cristian97]

Actually you can figure out for yourself without running the code if a idea 
will got TLE or not. It is normally if you know the complexity of your solution 
and compare it to problem restriction. For example, it is obviously that O(T * 
n^2) will got TLE in Trouble sort problem, because the size of array might be 
up to 1e5. And this means that your solution needs to do 1e12 operations in 
order to solve the entire set, in worst case. A normal computer can hold ~1e7 
operations per second. And 1e12/1e7=1e5 seconds...but the limit was 20.

-- 
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 google-code+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to google-code@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-code/8bee126a-8c6d-4e3a-9e6e-d24906f54f3c%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [gcj] The Qual Round is over!

[Samuel Jawahar]

You can know by the icon they disply,if it ? And displying NOT this
message"testing skiped"

On Mon, Apr 9, 2018, 01:13 Felix Voituret  wrote:

> Well the real difference here is that you do not know if the time limit
> was respected for the hidden dataset (previously large). So you really has
> to ensure required points from visible one that you can control unless you
> estimate correctly time complexity regarding dataset limits.
>
> Envoyé de mon iPhone
>
> > Le 8 avr. 2018 à 20:29, newbie007  a écrit :
> >
> > Usually in the qualification round the first two problems are simple and
> with no tricks.
> >
> > I got A and B correct for the small data sets, so I assumed it was fine.
> >
> > But then wrong for A large and time exceed for B large. Oo
> >
> > Probably I was too careless, but I think CodeJam missed the
> qualification round purpose this year.
> >
> > --
> > 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 google-code+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > To post to this group, send email to google-code@googlegroups.com.
> > To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-code/1c05cf0e-d772-4b96-879c-b61535bd9145%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 google-code+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to google-code@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-code/04C481DF-7DFB-4A75-9A85-C2DFF300CE09%40gmail.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 google-code+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to google-code@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-code/CAH5vfnPLzWV2LFKqXgNeSDz8WjKM2vT62e2yfbpNsFm7dgiB9A%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [gcj] The Qual Round is over!

[Bartholomew Furrow]

Yes! Time Limit Exceeded. It's an acronym from the UVA online judge, and/or
TopCoder. I admit that I was curious to see if it would be recognized. :-)

Felix: That's a really good point. I had half of that realization during
the round about D, and I'm glad that you expressed it so clearly.

I guess that if you pass the Visible set, then you're always "trying" the
Hidden set, which means that in some sense it's reasonable that you'll get
penalty time for it. I suppose they could add an "Advanced Options" button
to let you submit only on a subset of input sets, but I think it isn't
worth it. The only difference from before, then, is the 4 minutes. Not too
bad an extra cost to pay on a move that was always a strategic choice that
needed to be made carefully.

This is reminding me of 2016's Round 2
, where I
realized with two minutes left in the contest that my solution for the
Small might work for the Large, and ended up winning a t-shirt when it did.
Imagine if you solved a Hidden input unexpectedly! I'm sure it will happen
to someone this year.

On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 2:41 PM Felix Voituret 
wrote:

> Time Limit Exceed i think ?
>
> Envoyé de mon iPhone
>
> Le 8 avr. 2018 à 22:38, Leandro Coutinho  a
> écrit :
>
> Thank you Bartholomew !
>
> What is TLE?
> *Temporal lobe epilepsy? :D*
>
> Em Dom, 8 de abr de 2018 17:27, Bartholomew Furrow 
> escreveu:
>
>> I have a few thoughts, and I want to emphasize once again that although I
>> used to be on the Code Jam team, I no longer am.
>>
>> First: I don't think Hidden sets are really run after the contest. At the
>> end of the Qualification Round, all scores were visible immediately. We
>> used to judge Large inputs as they were submitted and just not show the
>> results until the end, and I'm assuming that's true with the new platform.
>>
>> Second: "Hidden/large should be about performance" is a reasonable
>> philosophy, but it isn't a philosophy that Code Jam has held to
>> historically. You can find lots of problems where there's a simple
>> algorithm that would be correct on the Small, and incorrect (not just slow)
>> on the Large. With that said, all data sets are designed to test the
>> program as much as possible, so if your code was broken by the Invisible
>> input in a way that it *could* have been broken on the Visible input,
>> that's certainly something they'll be trying to avoid.
>>
>> Third, about whether we should know whether our submissions timed out or
>> not on Hidden sets: It's certainly true that that's a difference, though as
>> Felix points out it isn't like you could *do* anything about it before
>> unless you acted very fast. You just knew you didn't have the points, which
>> typically doesn't matter all *that* much.
>>
>> You might be interested to hear that when we first designed the
>> small/large input set system, we viewed the ability to see TLEs as a
>> down-side of the new system, when for Large inputs you weren't supposed to
>> know whether you got it. It's interesting to see it come around the other
>> way!
>>
>> I *would* like to see the running time for my Visible submissions, since
>> right now I don't have a sense for how quickly anything runs on the server,
>> other than that making a 15x15 square on the Interactive problem for 100
>> inputs takes more than 10 seconds.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Bartholomew
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 2:08 PM Leandro Coutinho 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hmm good point.
>>>
>>> So CodeJam is worst now.
>>>
>>> Worst is not the best word. The previous system was really good.
>>>
>>> Em Dom, 8 de abr de 2018 17:04, Xiongqi ZHANG 
>>> escreveu:
>>>
 The hidden test is run after the contents ends. How is it possible to
 tell you that your program will finish or not if it was not actually run?
 On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 12:56 PM Leandro Coutinho <
 lescoutinh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Good point.
>
> They should let us know if the program finished on time. They can do
> this without saying that it is correct or not.
>
> The other problem is about correctness. Hidden/large should be about
> performance ...
>
> Em Dom, 8 de abr de 2018 16:43, Felix Voituret <
> felix.voitu...@gmail.com> escreveu:
>
>> Well the real difference here is that you do not know if the time
>> limit was respected for the hidden dataset (previously large). So you
>> really has to ensure required points from visible one that you can 
>> control
>> unless you estimate correctly time complexity regarding dataset limits.
>>
>> Envoyé de mon iPhone
>>
>> > Le 8 avr. 2018 à 20:29, newbie007  a
>> écrit :
>> >
>> > Usually in the qualification round the first two problems are
>> simple and with no tricks.
>> >
>> > I got A and 

Re: [gcj] The Qual Round is over!

[Felix Voituret]

Time Limit Exceed i think ? 

Envoyé de mon iPhone

> Le 8 avr. 2018 à 22:38, Leandro Coutinho  a écrit :
> 
> Thank you Bartholomew !
> 
> What is TLE?
> Temporal lobe epilepsy? :D
> 
> Em Dom, 8 de abr de 2018 17:27, Bartholomew Furrow  
> escreveu:
>> I have a few thoughts, and I want to emphasize once again that although I 
>> used to be on the Code Jam team, I no longer am.
>> 
>> First: I don't think Hidden sets are really run after the contest. At the 
>> end of the Qualification Round, all scores were visible immediately. We used 
>> to judge Large inputs as they were submitted and just not show the results 
>> until the end, and I'm assuming that's true with the new platform.
>> 
>> Second: "Hidden/large should be about performance" is a reasonable 
>> philosophy, but it isn't a philosophy that Code Jam has held to 
>> historically. You can find lots of problems where there's a simple algorithm 
>> that would be correct on the Small, and incorrect (not just slow) on the 
>> Large. With that said, all data sets are designed to test the program as 
>> much as possible, so if your code was broken by the Invisible input in a way 
>> that it could have been broken on the Visible input, that's certainly 
>> something they'll be trying to avoid.
>> 
>> Third, about whether we should know whether our submissions timed out or not 
>> on Hidden sets: It's certainly true that that's a difference, though as 
>> Felix points out it isn't like you could do anything about it before unless 
>> you acted very fast. You just knew you didn't have the points, which 
>> typically doesn't matter all that much.
>> 
>> You might be interested to hear that when we first designed the small/large 
>> input set system, we viewed the ability to see TLEs as a down-side of the 
>> new system, when for Large inputs you weren't supposed to know whether you 
>> got it. It's interesting to see it come around the other way!
>> 
>> I would like to see the running time for my Visible submissions, since right 
>> now I don't have a sense for how quickly anything runs on the server, other 
>> than that making a 15x15 square on the Interactive problem for 100 inputs 
>> takes more than 10 seconds.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Bartholomew
>> 
>>> On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 2:08 PM Leandro Coutinho  
>>> wrote:
>>> Hmm good point.
>>> 
>>> So CodeJam is worst now.
>>> 
>>> Worst is not the best word. The previous system was really good.
>>> 
>>> Em Dom, 8 de abr de 2018 17:04, Xiongqi ZHANG  
>>> escreveu:
 The hidden test is run after the contents ends. How is it possible to tell 
 you that your program will finish or not if it was not actually run?
 On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 12:56 PM Leandro Coutinho  
 wrote:
> Good point.
> 
> They should let us know if the program finished on time. They can do this 
> without saying that it is correct or not.
> 
> The other problem is about correctness. Hidden/large should be about 
> performance ...
> 
> Em Dom, 8 de abr de 2018 16:43, Felix Voituret  
> escreveu:
>> Well the real difference here is that you do not know if the time limit 
>> was respected for the hidden dataset (previously large). So you really 
>> has to ensure required points from visible one that you can control 
>> unless you estimate correctly time complexity regarding dataset limits.
>> 
>> Envoyé de mon iPhone
>> 
>> > Le 8 avr. 2018 à 20:29, newbie007  a écrit :
>> >
>> > Usually in the qualification round the first two problems are simple 
>> > and with no tricks.
>> >
>> > I got A and B correct for the small data sets, so I assumed it was 
>> > fine.
>> >
>> > But then wrong for A large and time exceed for B large. Oo
>> >
>> > Probably I was too careless, but I think CodeJam missed the 
>> > qualification round purpose this year.
>> >
>> > --
>> > 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 google-code+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> > To post to this group, send email to google-code@googlegroups.com.
>> > To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-code/1c05cf0e-d772-4b96-879c-b61535bd9145%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 google-code+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to 

Re: [gcj] The Qual Round is over!

[Leandro Coutinho]

Thank you Bartholomew !

What is TLE?
*Temporal lobe epilepsy? :D*

Em Dom, 8 de abr de 2018 17:27, Bartholomew Furrow 
escreveu:

> I have a few thoughts, and I want to emphasize once again that although I
> used to be on the Code Jam team, I no longer am.
>
> First: I don't think Hidden sets are really run after the contest. At the
> end of the Qualification Round, all scores were visible immediately. We
> used to judge Large inputs as they were submitted and just not show the
> results until the end, and I'm assuming that's true with the new platform.
>
> Second: "Hidden/large should be about performance" is a reasonable
> philosophy, but it isn't a philosophy that Code Jam has held to
> historically. You can find lots of problems where there's a simple
> algorithm that would be correct on the Small, and incorrect (not just slow)
> on the Large. With that said, all data sets are designed to test the
> program as much as possible, so if your code was broken by the Invisible
> input in a way that it *could* have been broken on the Visible input,
> that's certainly something they'll be trying to avoid.
>
> Third, about whether we should know whether our submissions timed out or
> not on Hidden sets: It's certainly true that that's a difference, though as
> Felix points out it isn't like you could *do* anything about it before
> unless you acted very fast. You just knew you didn't have the points, which
> typically doesn't matter all *that* much.
>
> You might be interested to hear that when we first designed the
> small/large input set system, we viewed the ability to see TLEs as a
> down-side of the new system, when for Large inputs you weren't supposed to
> know whether you got it. It's interesting to see it come around the other
> way!
>
> I *would* like to see the running time for my Visible submissions, since
> right now I don't have a sense for how quickly anything runs on the server,
> other than that making a 15x15 square on the Interactive problem for 100
> inputs takes more than 10 seconds.
>
> Cheers,
> Bartholomew
>
> On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 2:08 PM Leandro Coutinho 
> wrote:
>
>> Hmm good point.
>>
>> So CodeJam is worst now.
>>
>> Worst is not the best word. The previous system was really good.
>>
>> Em Dom, 8 de abr de 2018 17:04, Xiongqi ZHANG 
>> escreveu:
>>
>>> The hidden test is run after the contents ends. How is it possible to
>>> tell you that your program will finish or not if it was not actually run?
>>> On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 12:56 PM Leandro Coutinho <
>>> lescoutinh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 Good point.

 They should let us know if the program finished on time. They can do
 this without saying that it is correct or not.

 The other problem is about correctness. Hidden/large should be about
 performance ...

 Em Dom, 8 de abr de 2018 16:43, Felix Voituret <
 felix.voitu...@gmail.com> escreveu:

> Well the real difference here is that you do not know if the time
> limit was respected for the hidden dataset (previously large). So you
> really has to ensure required points from visible one that you can control
> unless you estimate correctly time complexity regarding dataset limits.
>
> Envoyé de mon iPhone
>
> > Le 8 avr. 2018 à 20:29, newbie007  a écrit
> :
> >
> > Usually in the qualification round the first two problems are simple
> and with no tricks.
> >
> > I got A and B correct for the small data sets, so I assumed it was
> fine.
> >
> > But then wrong for A large and time exceed for B large. Oo
> >
> > Probably I was too careless, but I think CodeJam missed the
> qualification round purpose this year.
> >
> > --
> > 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 google-code+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > To post to this group, send email to google-code@googlegroups.com.
> > To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-code/1c05cf0e-d772-4b96-879c-b61535bd9145%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 google-code+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to google-code@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-code/04C481DF-7DFB-4A75-9A85-C2DFF300CE09%40gmail.com
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
 --
 You received this message 

Re: [gcj] The Qual Round is over!

[Felix Voituret]

« You can find lots of problems where there's a simple algorithm that would be 
correct on the Small, and incorrect (not just slow) on the Large. » 

The first problem of this round is typical as input structures are differents 
for visible / hidden datasets.

Well the only thing that doesn’t appear intuitive when you are used to the old 
system is when you are writing fast and dirty solution for small and then think 
about the large to be more efficient. You can totally do that here since you 
can submit as much as you want but then will it count as penalty if you fail 
hidden at first ? Then succeed at the second attempt ? 

Envoyé de mon iPhone

> Le 8 avr. 2018 à 22:26, Bartholomew Furrow  a écrit :
> 
> You can find lots of problems where there's a simple algorithm that would be 
> correct on the Small, and incorrect (not just slow) on the Large.

-- 
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 google-code+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to google-code@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-code/844CFB2B-B067-4118-A259-AC1B3A6F04E6%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [gcj] The Qual Round is over!

[Bartholomew Furrow]

I have a few thoughts, and I want to emphasize once again that although I
used to be on the Code Jam team, I no longer am.

First: I don't think Hidden sets are really run after the contest. At the
end of the Qualification Round, all scores were visible immediately. We
used to judge Large inputs as they were submitted and just not show the
results until the end, and I'm assuming that's true with the new platform.

Second: "Hidden/large should be about performance" is a reasonable
philosophy, but it isn't a philosophy that Code Jam has held to
historically. You can find lots of problems where there's a simple
algorithm that would be correct on the Small, and incorrect (not just slow)
on the Large. With that said, all data sets are designed to test the
program as much as possible, so if your code was broken by the Invisible
input in a way that it *could* have been broken on the Visible input,
that's certainly something they'll be trying to avoid.

Third, about whether we should know whether our submissions timed out or
not on Hidden sets: It's certainly true that that's a difference, though as
Felix points out it isn't like you could *do* anything about it before
unless you acted very fast. You just knew you didn't have the points, which
typically doesn't matter all *that* much.

You might be interested to hear that when we first designed the small/large
input set system, we viewed the ability to see TLEs as a down-side of the
new system, when for Large inputs you weren't supposed to know whether you
got it. It's interesting to see it come around the other way!

I *would* like to see the running time for my Visible submissions, since
right now I don't have a sense for how quickly anything runs on the server,
other than that making a 15x15 square on the Interactive problem for 100
inputs takes more than 10 seconds.

Cheers,
Bartholomew

On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 2:08 PM Leandro Coutinho 
wrote:

> Hmm good point.
>
> So CodeJam is worst now.
>
> Worst is not the best word. The previous system was really good.
>
> Em Dom, 8 de abr de 2018 17:04, Xiongqi ZHANG 
> escreveu:
>
>> The hidden test is run after the contents ends. How is it possible to
>> tell you that your program will finish or not if it was not actually run?
>> On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 12:56 PM Leandro Coutinho 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Good point.
>>>
>>> They should let us know if the program finished on time. They can do
>>> this without saying that it is correct or not.
>>>
>>> The other problem is about correctness. Hidden/large should be about
>>> performance ...
>>>
>>> Em Dom, 8 de abr de 2018 16:43, Felix Voituret 
>>> escreveu:
>>>
 Well the real difference here is that you do not know if the time limit
 was respected for the hidden dataset (previously large). So you really has
 to ensure required points from visible one that you can control unless you
 estimate correctly time complexity regarding dataset limits.

 Envoyé de mon iPhone

 > Le 8 avr. 2018 à 20:29, newbie007  a écrit :
 >
 > Usually in the qualification round the first two problems are simple
 and with no tricks.
 >
 > I got A and B correct for the small data sets, so I assumed it was
 fine.
 >
 > But then wrong for A large and time exceed for B large. Oo
 >
 > Probably I was too careless, but I think CodeJam missed the
 qualification round purpose this year.
 >
 > --
 > 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 google-code+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 > To post to this group, send email to google-code@googlegroups.com.
 > To view this discussion on the web visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-code/1c05cf0e-d772-4b96-879c-b61535bd9145%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 google-code+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to google-code@googlegroups.com.
 To view this discussion on the web visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-code/04C481DF-7DFB-4A75-9A85-C2DFF300CE09%40gmail.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 google-code+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to google-code@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this 

Re: [gcj] The Qual Round is over!

[Xiongqi ZHANG]

Previously you also had to estimate the runtime for your large submission.
If you started downloading the input file for large submission, and
couldn’t finish before running out of time, you still lose points.
The new system however, allows you to submit again if you later find a
better solution that no longer time out on large data set.
On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 1:08 PM Leandro Coutinho 
wrote:

> Hmm good point.
>
> So CodeJam is worst now.
>
> Worst is not the best word. The previous system was really good.
>
> Em Dom, 8 de abr de 2018 17:04, Xiongqi ZHANG 
> escreveu:
>
>> The hidden test is run after the contents ends. How is it possible to
>> tell you that your program will finish or not if it was not actually run?
>> On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 12:56 PM Leandro Coutinho 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Good point.
>>>
>>> They should let us know if the program finished on time. They can do
>>> this without saying that it is correct or not.
>>>
>>> The other problem is about correctness. Hidden/large should be about
>>> performance ...
>>>
>>> Em Dom, 8 de abr de 2018 16:43, Felix Voituret 
>>> escreveu:
>>>
 Well the real difference here is that you do not know if the time limit
 was respected for the hidden dataset (previously large). So you really has
 to ensure required points from visible one that you can control unless you
 estimate correctly time complexity regarding dataset limits.

 Envoyé de mon iPhone

 > Le 8 avr. 2018 à 20:29, newbie007  a écrit :
 >
 > Usually in the qualification round the first two problems are simple
 and with no tricks.
 >
 > I got A and B correct for the small data sets, so I assumed it was
 fine.
 >
 > But then wrong for A large and time exceed for B large. Oo
 >
 > Probably I was too careless, but I think CodeJam missed the
 qualification round purpose this year.
 >
 > --
 > 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 google-code+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 > To post to this group, send email to google-code@googlegroups.com.
 > To view this discussion on the web visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-code/1c05cf0e-d772-4b96-879c-b61535bd9145%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 google-code+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to google-code@googlegroups.com.
 To view this discussion on the web visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-code/04C481DF-7DFB-4A75-9A85-C2DFF300CE09%40gmail.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 google-code+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to google-code@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-code/CAN6UTazuPkM5riqnVc-39%3D6E0Z0YO0J%3DHdaGugYWQUJN%3Day7XA%40mail.gmail.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 google-code+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to google-code@googlegroups.com.
>>
> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-code/CAGDEU-%2BAV38V8MWAYvrvOJTvuH%2BROa_gAzEouYK2EUOS_kD1QA%40mail.gmail.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 google-code+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to google-code@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> 

Re: [gcj] The Qual Round is over!

[Felix Voituret]

It isn’t « worst » at all. It is different, bringing new feature at the same 
time. I got tricked by the large dataset in B too, and doesn’t have time this 
week end to check other problems, that alright, I will be aware of that next 
year so this is not a problem. We just have to change old habits :)

Envoyé de mon iPhone

> Le 8 avr. 2018 à 22:08, Leandro Coutinho  a écrit :
> 
> Hmm good point.
> 
> So CodeJam is worst now.
> 
> Worst is not the best word. The previous system was really good.
> 
> Em Dom, 8 de abr de 2018 17:04, Xiongqi ZHANG  
> escreveu:
>> The hidden test is run after the contents ends. How is it possible to tell 
>> you that your program will finish or not if it was not actually run?
>> On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 12:56 PM Leandro Coutinho  
>> wrote:
>>> Good point.
>>> 
>>> They should let us know if the program finished on time. They can do this 
>>> without saying that it is correct or not.
>>> 
>>> The other problem is about correctness. Hidden/large should be about 
>>> performance ...
>>> 
>>> Em Dom, 8 de abr de 2018 16:43, Felix Voituret  
>>> escreveu:
 Well the real difference here is that you do not know if the time limit 
 was respected for the hidden dataset (previously large). So you really has 
 to ensure required points from visible one that you can control unless you 
 estimate correctly time complexity regarding dataset limits.
 
 Envoyé de mon iPhone
 
 > Le 8 avr. 2018 à 20:29, newbie007  a écrit :
 >
 > Usually in the qualification round the first two problems are simple and 
 > with no tricks.
 >
 > I got A and B correct for the small data sets, so I assumed it was fine.
 >
 > But then wrong for A large and time exceed for B large. Oo
 >
 > Probably I was too careless, but I think CodeJam missed the 
 > qualification round purpose this year.
 >
 > --
 > 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 google-code+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 > To post to this group, send email to google-code@googlegroups.com.
 > To view this discussion on the web visit 
 > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-code/1c05cf0e-d772-4b96-879c-b61535bd9145%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 google-code+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to google-code@googlegroups.com.
 To view this discussion on the web visit 
 https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-code/04C481DF-7DFB-4A75-9A85-C2DFF300CE09%40gmail.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 google-code+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to google-code@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-code/CAN6UTazuPkM5riqnVc-39%3D6E0Z0YO0J%3DHdaGugYWQUJN%3Day7XA%40mail.gmail.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 google-code+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to google-code@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-code/CAGDEU-%2BAV38V8MWAYvrvOJTvuH%2BROa_gAzEouYK2EUOS_kD1QA%40mail.gmail.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 google-code+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to google-code@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-code/CAN6UTawbYGQ-%3DHpn_2KgJ%3D0OVFvw6Qjudov52wh4dnWUTVjFuA%40mail.gmail.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 

Re: [gcj] The Qual Round is over!

[Leandro Coutinho]

Hmm good point.

So CodeJam is worst now.

Worst is not the best word. The previous system was really good.

Em Dom, 8 de abr de 2018 17:04, Xiongqi ZHANG 
escreveu:

> The hidden test is run after the contents ends. How is it possible to tell
> you that your program will finish or not if it was not actually run?
> On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 12:56 PM Leandro Coutinho 
> wrote:
>
>> Good point.
>>
>> They should let us know if the program finished on time. They can do this
>> without saying that it is correct or not.
>>
>> The other problem is about correctness. Hidden/large should be about
>> performance ...
>>
>> Em Dom, 8 de abr de 2018 16:43, Felix Voituret 
>> escreveu:
>>
>>> Well the real difference here is that you do not know if the time limit
>>> was respected for the hidden dataset (previously large). So you really has
>>> to ensure required points from visible one that you can control unless you
>>> estimate correctly time complexity regarding dataset limits.
>>>
>>> Envoyé de mon iPhone
>>>
>>> > Le 8 avr. 2018 à 20:29, newbie007  a écrit :
>>> >
>>> > Usually in the qualification round the first two problems are simple
>>> and with no tricks.
>>> >
>>> > I got A and B correct for the small data sets, so I assumed it was
>>> fine.
>>> >
>>> > But then wrong for A large and time exceed for B large. Oo
>>> >
>>> > Probably I was too careless, but I think CodeJam missed the
>>> qualification round purpose this year.
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > 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 google-code+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> > To post to this group, send email to google-code@googlegroups.com.
>>> > To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-code/1c05cf0e-d772-4b96-879c-b61535bd9145%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 google-code+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to google-code@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-code/04C481DF-7DFB-4A75-9A85-C2DFF300CE09%40gmail.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 google-code+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to google-code@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-code/CAN6UTazuPkM5riqnVc-39%3D6E0Z0YO0J%3DHdaGugYWQUJN%3Day7XA%40mail.gmail.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 google-code+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to google-code@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-code/CAGDEU-%2BAV38V8MWAYvrvOJTvuH%2BROa_gAzEouYK2EUOS_kD1QA%40mail.gmail.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 google-code+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to google-code@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-code/CAN6UTawbYGQ-%3DHpn_2KgJ%3D0OVFvw6Qjudov52wh4dnWUTVjFuA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [gcj] The Qual Round is over!

[Xiongqi ZHANG]

The hidden test is run after the contents ends. How is it possible to tell
you that your program will finish or not if it was not actually run?
On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 12:56 PM Leandro Coutinho 
wrote:

> Good point.
>
> They should let us know if the program finished on time. They can do this
> without saying that it is correct or not.
>
> The other problem is about correctness. Hidden/large should be about
> performance ...
>
> Em Dom, 8 de abr de 2018 16:43, Felix Voituret 
> escreveu:
>
>> Well the real difference here is that you do not know if the time limit
>> was respected for the hidden dataset (previously large). So you really has
>> to ensure required points from visible one that you can control unless you
>> estimate correctly time complexity regarding dataset limits.
>>
>> Envoyé de mon iPhone
>>
>> > Le 8 avr. 2018 à 20:29, newbie007  a écrit :
>> >
>> > Usually in the qualification round the first two problems are simple
>> and with no tricks.
>> >
>> > I got A and B correct for the small data sets, so I assumed it was fine.
>> >
>> > But then wrong for A large and time exceed for B large. Oo
>> >
>> > Probably I was too careless, but I think CodeJam missed the
>> qualification round purpose this year.
>> >
>> > --
>> > 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 google-code+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> > To post to this group, send email to google-code@googlegroups.com.
>> > To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-code/1c05cf0e-d772-4b96-879c-b61535bd9145%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 google-code+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to google-code@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-code/04C481DF-7DFB-4A75-9A85-C2DFF300CE09%40gmail.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 google-code+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to google-code@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-code/CAN6UTazuPkM5riqnVc-39%3D6E0Z0YO0J%3DHdaGugYWQUJN%3Day7XA%40mail.gmail.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 google-code+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to google-code@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-code/CAGDEU-%2BAV38V8MWAYvrvOJTvuH%2BROa_gAzEouYK2EUOS_kD1QA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[gcj] The Qual Round is over!

[newbie007]

Usually in the qualification round the first two problems are simple and with 
no tricks.

I got A and B correct for the small data sets, so I assumed it was fine.

But then wrong for A large and time exceed for B large. Oo

Probably I was too careless, but I think CodeJam missed the qualification round 
purpose this year. 

-- 
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 google-code+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to google-code@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-code/1c05cf0e-d772-4b96-879c-b61535bd9145%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [gcj] The Qual Round is over!

[Sujit Sali]

Hello,

Is there possible to download solutions solved by contestants.

Regards,
Sujit

On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 7:49 AM, 'Ian Tullis' via Google Code Jam <
google-code@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Hi, everyone,
>
> The 2018 Code Jam Qualification Round has officially ended. Thank you to
> everyone who participated!
>
> We'll send out official advancement emails at least one day before Round
> 1A on Saturday, April 14, and you can view the Qual Round analysis now
> under Past Contests !
> Remember: There is no limit to the number of advancers to Online Round 1.
> If you have at least 25 points after the contest ends (once the final
> scores have been revealed), then you advance. Official advancement emails
> will go out early next week.
>
> During the period our system was experiencing some delays, participation,
> measured in the number of active users and number of submissions
> successfully judged by the system, did not go down. We apologize for the
> inconvenience, and we thank our community for being passionate and hanging
> in there with us!
>
> We hope you enjoyed the 2018 Qualification Round. Please share any
> feedback on the round with us via this form
> .
> We value your feedback and appreciate you taking the time to help us
> continuously improve the Code Jam experience.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ian, on behalf of the Code Jam team
>
> --
> 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 google-code+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to google-code@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> msgid/google-code/39240588-c88e-4666-8e03-439f98aad996%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 google-code+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to google-code@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-code/CAEm%2Bb683RKPwCTOyaHSVA24i7UtLJJJMtCX61MetgDT-%2BNE6uw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[gcj] The Qual Round is over!

['Ian Tullis' via Google Code Jam]

Hi, everyone,

The 2018 Code Jam Qualification Round has officially ended. Thank you to 
everyone who participated!

We'll send out official advancement emails at least one day before Round 1A 
on Saturday, April 14, and you can view the Qual Round analysis now under Past 
Contests ! Remember: There 
is no limit to the number of advancers to Online Round 1. If you have at 
least 25 points after the contest ends (once the final scores have been 
revealed), then you advance. Official advancement emails will go out early 
next week.

During the period our system was experiencing some delays, participation, 
measured in the number of active users and number of submissions 
successfully judged by the system, did not go down. We apologize for the 
inconvenience, and we thank our community for being passionate and hanging 
in there with us!

We hope you enjoyed the 2018 Qualification Round. Please share any feedback 
on the round with us via this form 
.
 
We value your feedback and appreciate you taking the time to help us 
continuously improve the Code Jam experience.

Thanks,

Ian, on behalf of the Code Jam team

-- 
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 google-code+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to google-code@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-code/39240588-c88e-4666-8e03-439f98aad996%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.