The system supports Python 3.5. You use f-strings that require Python 3.6
or later.
On Thursday, April 2, 2020 at 12:00:01 AM UTC-4, joe733 wrote:
>
> *Here's my code:*
> import re
> import random
>
> def missing_number(k, N):
> if not (1 < int(N) < 10**100) or '4' not in N:
>
Exactly the same problem. That is because the system supports Python 3.5,
but f-strings require Python 3.6 or higher.
On Monday, April 6, 2020 at 8:51:49 PM UTC-4, Tornax wrote:
>
> Hello! At this moment I'm trying to solve the "Vetigium"-Problem in the
> qualification round 2020.
> I'm
The initial order of the tasks is incorrect.
Once I got this problem while the Kick Start, but I wasn't sure if that was a
bug or just my mistake. Now I've got the same issue while Round A.
So, Round A started, I refreshed the page and saw 3 tasks. I planned to start
with the easiest task, so I
What does "Sample Failed: WA" verdict mean?
--
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,
Hi Pablo,
There are many other things aside of an incorrect algorithm that can be the
reason of the "Wrong answer" verdict: precision, output format, case
sensitivity, trailing spaces... Due to the fact that the system is completely
new for us, we need to debug our code templates to get sure
I still fail to implement a solution even for the visible dataset. My attempts
produce correct results for the samples, but the system verdict is "Wrong
answer". I even tried to implement the straightforward solution that was
recommended in the analysis of visible dataset, but I still cannot
t;
>
> 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 1
ing the Invisible set later if you get a chance?
>
>
> Cheers,
> Bartholomew
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 1:21 PM Дмитрий Кузьминов <dmitry@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> Bartholomew: there is another concern. Let's imagine that I've solved the
> Visible dataset
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
