ENG  RUSTimus Online Judge
Online Judge
Problems
Authors
Online contests
About Online Judge
Frequently asked questions
Site news
Webboard
Links
Problem set
Submit solution
Judge status
Guide
Register
Update your info
Authors ranklist
Current contest
Scheduled contests
Past contests
Rules
back to board

Discussion of Problem 1331. Vladislava

[censored] checkers! AC at last! -0 != 0
Posted by Alias (Alexander Prudaev) 6 Apr 2007 22:35
if program writes -0, your [censored] checker says WA#3
inspite of accuracy  in 2 digits. abs(-0-0) < 0.001 !

Edited by moderator 06.04.2007 22:54
Warning for you (+)
Posted by Dmitry 'Diman_YES' Kovalioff 6 Apr 2007 22:54
I am tired of you who offends Timus Online Judge again and again.

If you continue writing your posts to this board such a way, I will just remove them completely.

Edited by author 06.04.2007 22:55
Re: Warning for you (+)
Posted by Alias (Alexander Prudaev) 6 Apr 2007 23:28
After your edit, observers could have an impression that I have used an abusive word.
It's not true, it was word "stupid"
Checker is correct. In the 3rd test your output was -1.#J and 1.#R. (-)
Posted by Sandro (USU) 7 Apr 2007 01:18
Re: Checker is correct. In the 3rd test your output was -1.#J and 1.#R. (-)
Posted by Alias (Alexander Prudaev) 7 Apr 2007 22:05
you are wrong

there is fragment of my program :

double Norm(double x)
{
//    if (x>0.001)
        return x;
//    else
//        return 0;
}
...
printf("%.2lf\n",Norm(abs(...)));
...

with these commets program gets WA#3
without - AC
if you want, i can send you my program entirely

Edited by author 07.04.2007 22:15
Checker is really correct. (+)
Posted by Sandro (USU) 8 Apr 2007 00:56
Your WA and AC solution have are wrong both but tests are weak. You have WA after rejudge.