Algorithm Optimisation Championship. - page 57

New comment
 
Реter Konow:
Dimitri, the amount of fog that has been cast over the essence of the task has hidden it from the eyes of the participants. I am dispelling the fog in an attempt to bring clarity to the understanding of the task.
It would be good manners to speak only for yourself at all times. Your lack of understanding does not automatically mean that others do not get it either. The opposite is also true.
 
Dimitri, about the primitive trolling - the expression about the balls obviously doesn't apply to him?
 
Реter Konow:
Dimitri, about the primitive trolling - the expression about the balls obviously doesn't apply to him?
Yes. It may be difficult to understand, but still.
 
Yuri Evseenkov:

Until the interface is agreed upon, I will repeat the question about the unknown function -ff whose maximum is to be searched for.

We don't know what this function is. But it must not contain operations that may cause critical errors and code unloading. For example, the division operation. If the part of formula, which describes this function, has division by parameter, and user passes this parameter equal to zero (or negative in sub-expression), then critical error will happen and this FF reference will be leveled.

Don't worry about the correctness of the FF. If you feed the values within the given limits, which are stipulated in the rules, then nothing bad can happen. If you manage to suspend the terminal, or cause a division to zero or go outside the array, you will be disqualified. And the FF will not be disqualified under any circumstances.
 
I see your point. The expression in question is not primitive, but advanced scientific vocabulary.)
 
Реter Konow:
I see your point. The expression in question is not primitive, but advanced scientific vocabulary.))

The same question arises in relation to you, because the explanation of what it was has already been performed - here

It's funny that you were more interested in the term than in the bug in the code.

 
And there's no mention of the parameter ranges.
 
Dmitry Fedoseev:

The same question arises in relation to you, because the explanation of what it was has already been performed - here

It's funny that you were more interested in the term than in the bug in the code.

By the way yes, judging by the print - 1001 FF runs a reason for disqualification.
 
Dmitry Fedoseev:
There's also been no mention of parameter ranges.
Now you're pecking at balls?)
It was. And it will be said again.
 
Andrey Dik:
Now you're banging on balls?))
It was. And it will be said again.

Here are the code examples on page 50 and found nothing there. In general, from this long-awaited point onwards (providing code examples) it has only been said that it has been and will be. Where was it, when will it be, and who is pounding somewhere after that?

1...505152535455565758596061626364...133
New comment