Nov. 23, 2017, 1:43 p.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
nickie: This is a great solution because the story says: "alloy names are presented as strings, which are co...
|
Nov. 23, 2017, 1:43 p.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
nickie: Nice. However, you're making no effort to find the solution with a small number of guesses; in fact ...
|
Nov. 23, 2017, 1:41 p.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
Tiktin: By the way this author also as a couple of other free books in the area of complexity and statistics...
|
Nov. 23, 2017, 1:41 p.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
junxxx: awesome
|
Nov. 23, 2017, 1:41 p.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
BpLife: assert checkio("10:37:49") == ".- .... : .-- .--- : -.. -..-", "First Test" Perfect
|
Nov. 23, 2017, 1:41 p.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
GHfan: format is amazing
|
Nov. 23, 2017, 1:40 p.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
veky: Bravo, bravo, bravo! Again, tests don't test, and bunny scores! :-D
|
Nov. 23, 2017, 1:40 p.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
shantanoo: if __name__ == '__main__': Invalid time also works. e.g. assert checkio("30:37:49") == "-- .... : .-...
|
Nov. 23, 2017, 1:39 p.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
alexche_8: clear
|
Nov. 23, 2017, 1:39 p.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
Listjj: nice
|
Nov. 23, 2017, 1:39 p.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
bryukh: No, this is not our bug. It was error in referee function. He forgot remover cover\_codes.unwrap\_ar...
|
Nov. 23, 2017, 1:37 p.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
nickie: An explanation of this solution is in the attached PDF file. The motivation for writing this came wh...
|
Nov. 23, 2017, 1:37 p.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
nickie: Once more, well done! It was obvious that an O(N) dynamic programming solution was possible, but it ...
|
Nov. 23, 2017, 1:33 p.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
DiEvAl_0d0e0434e59e45f68684d0e: k = int((6 * number) ** (1.0 / 3)) if k * (k + 1) * (k + 2) > 6 * number: k -= 1 This was pretty sma...
|
March 4, 2015, 4:07 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
glebmikh: That is great! Thank you!!!
|
Feb. 8, 2015, 2:13 p.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
pohmelie: Oh, thanks. I thought that missed something small, as always >_<
|
Jan. 20, 2015, 5:34 p.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
sguberman: Thank you, that seems to be the most straightforward way without having an analytic solution.
|
Jan. 20, 2015, 4:14 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
sguberman: I, too, am stuck on this specific case. If you could give a subtle hint as to why picking number 1 a...
|
Dec. 23, 2014, 9:47 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
ignalion: It's nice but there's a bit overhead for me.
|
Dec. 11, 2014, 2:39 p.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
pohmelie: Heh, my solution have same idea, but with some extra additions: * When you write "a in self.connecti...
|
Nov. 23, 2014, 3:51 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
SleepyHarry: There's a slight bug with this I believe, which occurs when the point we're testing is outside the p...
|
Nov. 22, 2014, 2:06 p.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
veky: Instead of (polygon[0],), bunny should have written polygon[:1]. Easier, less ugly (1-tuples really ...
|
Nov. 21, 2014, 3:10 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
veky: I don't like this. It is a random game, and optimal play is not so hard to write. So the leaderboard...
|
Nov. 6, 2014, 4:26 p.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
DiZ: Very stable solution, although your approach is a bit complicated ;-)
|
Oct. 29, 2014, 1:59 p.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
veky: Line 2: you can use map. Line 3: you don't need () around h % 12.
|
Oct. 24, 2014, 4:36 p.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
bryukh: I can add "moves limit". But 100 bits is Htamas's original text.
|
Oct. 23, 2014, 9:09 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
vinc: Your solution is very stable! It's amazing. I agree that the stable algorithm for this problem does ...
|
Oct. 23, 2014, 8:14 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
vinc: Congratulations! Good job. I should explore this at leisure;)
|
Oct. 23, 2014, 7:56 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
vinc: Oh, if you've got a randomly choice solution - there's a lot of failed tests;) assert checker(find_p...
|
Oct. 22, 2014, 5:13 p.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
vinc: Random solutions are not working at all. They have passed tests by luck;)
|
Oct. 21, 2014, 10:38 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
bryukh: I'm not sure that we will see @htamas soon :-) And I have not been solving this ;-)
|
Oct. 16, 2014, 9:04 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
veky: Very mathematical solution. :-D
|
Oct. 16, 2014, 9:04 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
veky: Lines 22~31 are a crime against humanity. Or at least they should be. ;-P size = sum(1 + c.isupper()...
|
Oct. 13, 2014, 7:47 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
blabaster: I think, correct fix is: replacing 'XS' to 'X' in lines 53, 59 and fix fin: # chase the reflection t...
|
Oct. 13, 2014, 4:47 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
blabaster: To chase the reflection - perfect. Final checks sometimes fails: while True: assert checker(hunt, ('...
|
Oct. 9, 2014, 9:16 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
michael.kej: Wow, easy. I always miss something so simple :)
|
Oct. 2, 2014, 3:46 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
veky: You don't need those \\ continuations (you're inside parentheses). Also, line 10 is just "if r > res...
|
Sept. 27, 2014, 5:43 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
reviewboy: Similar to what I did, so I'm biased. Thumbs up. :)
|
Sept. 20, 2014, 3:46 p.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
veky: This is a really nice twist. Not unmanageable, but be prepared for many petitions for somehow distin...
|
Sept. 19, 2014, 1:55 p.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
veky: That's not really true. Append at right end is amortized O(1) (https://wiki.python.org/moin/TimeComp...
|
Sept. 18, 2014, 12:20 p.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
veky: Line 2: divmod(i, 4). Line 6: drop the []. sorted((j, 3-i) for ...) "conv" is not really a very desc...
|
Sept. 16, 2014, 4:01 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
ArchTauruS: same looking with mine :)
|
Sept. 9, 2014, 3:22 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
mr.floppy: What i wanted my solution to look like! I'll have to look into Counter()
|
Aug. 30, 2014, 1:36 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
vinc: I'm tring;)). But sometimes, for example, for point coordinates, it is pleasant to me when variables...
|
Aug. 29, 2014, 6:13 p.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
vinc: Too many nested loops. Poor reading. Lines 32-33: for dx, dy in ((0, -1), (0, 1), (-1, 0), (1, 0)): ...
|
Aug. 29, 2014, 5:53 p.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
bryukh: Autopep8? I'm lazy and using auto-format in pycharm for that.
|
Aug. 28, 2014, 3:04 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
bryukh: Oh, they are collinear. Sorry, but I removed these tests specially, because it was very disputable t...
|
Aug. 27, 2014, 8:09 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
bryukh: Sorry, I forgot preconditions. Honestly, I didn't want to use zeroes. Let me think a little time ple...
|
Aug. 27, 2014, 6:20 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
bukebuer: I remember such case was included in the old version of the task and solved it. However, when solvin...
|
Aug. 20, 2014, 3:29 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
p4r4d0x42: Yeah, I figured that out a few solutions later. :) I'll leave it like so for now.
|
Aug. 19, 2014, 3:08 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
Ardrake: Good Job
|
Aug. 19, 2014, 3:08 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
p4r4d0x42: This is pretty slick.
|
Aug. 14, 2014, 1:37 p.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
vinc: def minimum(data): ms = list(set([x[0] for x in data])) check = [] for m in ms: if all(d.find(m) <= ...
|
Aug. 14, 2014, 5:43 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
bukebuer: You are right. That's my mistake. Now fixed. Thank you very much!
|
Aug. 14, 2014, 4:59 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
bryukh: Thanks. I've added this test and sent the mission to recheck.
|
Aug. 11, 2014, 4:34 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
rbrian: I'm very new to checkio, and I am very hopeful for it as a learning tool. My initial suggestions are...
|
Aug. 7, 2014, 1:46 p.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
bukebuer: Wow! Congratulations! I'm very happy that my code can help you. And you've already gone further than...
|
July 23, 2014, 10:12 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
bryukh: My first thought was - "Hm, it's my solution. Maybe I clicked a wrong link." :)
|
June 9, 2014, 11:18 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
pcresolver: I can't believe how short this is. Didn't know about split() or ceil(). Thanks very much,
|
April 2, 2014, 11:21 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
tkmtdg: bunnychai, Aaranos, thanks for your helpful advices so much. I'll try again to make my code work.
|
March 12, 2014, 7:06 p.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
veky: re is obviously an overkill here. With the necessary escaping it is even longer than ordinary index ...
|
March 10, 2014, 6:22 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
wiking: Wow, awesome!
|
March 7, 2014, 5:48 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
veky: No. That is a frequent misunderstanding of "and" and "or", that they return bool values only. They d...
|
March 6, 2014, 3:01 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
guido: Well, then this is the best we can do. Fine!
|
March 3, 2014, 3:39 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
guido: I love that you're defining a class here that can be reused for other similar problems. Why the rena...
|
March 3, 2014, 3:32 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
guido: I don't think this solution is particularly clear -- I like your projective math version better, and...
|
March 2, 2014, 4:40 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
endomorphism1: trans function is just impressive!
|
Feb. 26, 2014, 8:47 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
veky: Nice and transparent, if a bit boring, especially those at the beginning. A few details: * if z in S...
|
Feb. 21, 2014, 3:50 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
veky: It's really fascinating to learn that not even you: * use map in line 5: width = max(map(len, lines)...
|
Feb. 17, 2014, 7:15 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
nickie: This problem is much harder than it first looks. Not because it's hard to find a winning strategy fo...
|
Feb. 15, 2014, 4:36 p.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
Sai_Amano: Great!
|
Feb. 12, 2014, 10:29 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
veky: because result of bin starts with "0" that has nothing to do with zero bit. (I know _you_ know, but ...
|
Feb. 12, 2014, 3:45 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
veky: LOL about that "-1" in line 8... isn't it more clear to use slicing? f0, f1 = map(bin(first)[2:].cou...
|
Feb. 11, 2014, 11:15 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
bryukh: ok. I will add the new test for it and will kill your solution!!! ha ha HA HA HA... Sorry, i wanted ...
|
Feb. 8, 2014, 3:15 p.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
nickie: The simplified version is [here](http://www.checkio.org/mission/cakes-rows/publications/nickie/pytho...
|
Feb. 8, 2014, 3:15 p.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
nickie: I think this solution could pass as "clear". The loop in line 38 counts each row that it finds and a...
|
Feb. 7, 2014, 4:44 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
nickie: Very well done! I'm giving an explanation for this formula in [Veky's solution](http://www.checkio.o...
|
Feb. 6, 2014, 3:19 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
veky: Argh, float("%.2f" % x)... you really should use the function "round". ;-)
|
Feb. 6, 2014, 3:19 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
veky: Me too. In fact I saw in solutions list the title of Juge_Ti's solution, so I knew he had a proof. :...
|
Feb. 1, 2014, 5:24 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
Alf_: Ok
|
Jan. 31, 2014, 5:41 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
UndeadMonkey: Not very readable, but looks succinct. Perhaps better naming of the variables would have helped.
|
Jan. 25, 2014, 2:48 p.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
grutte_pier: I don't agree at all with people saying the solution is not 'readable': learn your maths!
|
Jan. 24, 2014, 7:02 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
datruth29: This is cool, didn't think about using recursion!
|
Jan. 23, 2014, 5:27 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
MasterSergius: Fast solution, but it is opposite to Zen of Python. You have to comment at least, explain method and...
|
Jan. 20, 2014, 9:21 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
bryukh: Thanks. You are right. Fixed.
|
Jan. 20, 2014, 4:10 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
Uladzimir: From one side it's cool, because your algorithm is O(1), but it's completely unreadable, so such sol...
|
Jan. 18, 2014, 3:42 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
seandor: It seems very great:D
|
Jan. 17, 2014, 3:34 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
HighOrbit: This is impressive. I can't read it at all though... Time to go learn me some maths...
|
Jan. 10, 2014, 5:02 p.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
RyanDagg: Love the trans function. Well done.
|
Jan. 10, 2014, 3:02 p.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
Dragonfly555: Didn't like the use of letters as variables. it's unreadable. a plus for you is that you didn't use ...
|
Jan. 9, 2014, 7:16 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
pkstarstorm05: I right with you atrioom. I would have never come to this solution. I'm not a mathematician by train...
|
Jan. 8, 2014, 7:02 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
DiZ: Simple approach (not as ugly as you said!) Just to give you a more pythonic implementation: def chec...
|
Jan. 8, 2014, 7 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
atrioom: I'd never have come to this. Partly because I didn't know **, but mostly because it is beyond my int...
|
Jan. 7, 2014, 4:21 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
DiZ: Nice solution (quite the same on my own, except I reasoned on k-1). Just a bit surprised by last lin...
|
Jan. 3, 2014, 1:40 p.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
veky: Great! BTW you don't need [] in argument for join.
|
Jan. 3, 2014, 8 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
shreekar: Liked the way you normalized the percent-octets. Cool...
|
Dec. 31, 2013, 2:11 p.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
nickie: It seems that you had a clearer mind than me for simplifications... :-) Good job.
|
Dec. 31, 2013, 4:42 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
bryukh: Ok. I forgot about __builtins__ :) Thanks.
|
Dec. 31, 2013, 4:42 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
veky: Many other cheats are possible. See my solution for possibilities. :-)
|
Dec. 30, 2013, 2:24 a.m. |
+ 1 |
for Comment
RyanDagg: Yay math.
|