• This comment is hidden because it contains spoiler information about the solution

  • Not at all, feel free to rewrite.

  • For which language? I just clicked on "Show Test Cases" and the code that people complained about is commented out:

    # Possible nasty rounding issues around 4:24:59 vs 4:25:00
    # Test.expect(clock_hands(17.5) == ["12:03:10", "01:08:38", 
    #   "02:14:05", "03:19:32", "04:25:00", "05:30:27", "06:35:54", 
    #   "07:41:21", "08:46:49", "09:52:16", "10:57:43"])
    

    What rounding problem do you see?

  • This comment is hidden because it contains spoiler information about the solution

  • Actually by adding a test case that N=0 golfers should be handled, it broke every single one of the nine solutions people submitted, so I think I should go back to not handling that at all.

  • Wow, thank you so much for your feedback. I have corrected the test case typos, and clarified the behavior for emptiness and even added a visibile test case for it.

    As for observation (3) are you suggestion the problem description calls out a requirement that the sizes of the groups must be the same every day?

  • Hello, still new on authoring. Looking for rank assessments and additional tags on this one, too. I hope it's found to be fun. This is just the validation part of an algorithm which Wolfram MathWorld said is an unsolved problem. I gave an initial assessment at 6th kyu. Python has some fancy functions that help here; without them I think it would be much higher. Looking for opinions, though. :)

  • I agree that the test cases are wrong. There are four that fail, expecting nil, that should have a clear winner.

  • The interpretation is actually

    • 1st place has score 1
    • 2nd place - there is no 2nd place, it's a tie for first, with score 1
    • 3rd place has score 2
    • 4th place - there is no 4th place, it's a tie for third, with score 2
    • 5th place - there is no 5th place, it's a tie for third, with score 2
    • 6th place has score 6
  • This comment is hidden because it contains spoiler information about the solution

  • This is proving to be difficult. The response "DO NOT TRY TO USE RETURN" was a little misleading. Maybe it is supposed to be?

  • Yes, rounding is very problematic, which makes me think tests should be more tolerant, perhaps. One example is that for an angle of 17.5, if you compute (seconds*43200.0)/11.0 you will eventually end up at 04:24:59.999999 which rounds down to 04:24:59, while if you do seconds*(43200.0/11.0) you will get 04:25:00. So integers-only is correct for the test. Staying with integers and doing the divs and mods by 60 is, I think, better. The 43200.0/11.0 is fun because it is a one-liner. Yes I did approved the translations so have fun with those.

  • This comment is hidden because it contains spoiler information about the solution

  • This comment is hidden because it contains spoiler information about the solution

  • This comment is hidden because it contains spoiler information about the solution

  • Loading more items...