Ok, i thought the checker would validate only results with that precision. My fault!
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 12:54 PM, TripleM <[email protected]> wrote: > > Anything to 7 decimal places is still within a precision of 10^-6, so > the analysis is correct, and it won't be a typo. It is common to allow > for much higher precision than asked for just in case you had an off- > by-one error somewhere. > > On Sep 15, 9:01 pm, Matteo Landi <[email protected]> wrote: >> Round 1B, problem A: it seems the precision required would be 10^-6 >> but the solution >> shows 'print "%.7f" % Evaluate(tree, features)'. I suppose it to be a >> typo error. >> >> Anyway, very nice analysis. >> >> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 10:12 AM, ulzha <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > A minor glitch in 1C-C: // Start the computation. int r = 0; >> >> -- >> m...@http://matteolandi.altervista.org/ > > > -- M@ http://matteolandi.altervista.org/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "google-codejam" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-code?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
