The objective is to find the answer to thisquestion: "What is the earliest time at which all of the robots can finish interacting with their cashiers?"
It depends on what "all of the robots" refers to. In the analysis and in my own solution, the interpretation is that the phrase refers to all robots that has a cachier to interact with. However, now that you raised this question, maybe "all of the robots" can also be interpreted as just everyone of them. In this case, the phrase "their cachiers" would create an assumption that every robot has a cachier to interact with. I don't think the line "each robot with at least one bit..." is ambiguous. It just means the portion of the robots that has one bit. But this does not mean that the potential that there might be a robot with no bits is ruled out. GCJ team, please consider squeezing out ambiguities and simplifying the situations. Put the fun bits in gray color so they don't distract the non-native English users. On Tue, May 1, 2018, 09:36 Öskan Şavlı <[email protected]> wrote: > Let's say we have 5 cashiers and 6 robots, can I just use 5 of them and > ignore the 6th robot? > > My interpretation is "yes", but I'm not sure. > > Here is the explanation in the problem: > > "Before the robots interact with any cashiers, you will distribute the > bits among the robots however you want. (Bits must remain intact; you > cannot break them up into fractional pieces!) Any robot that gets no bits > will not get to interact with a cashier, and will go away disappointed. > > Then, for each robot with at least one bit, you will choose a different > single cashier. " > > I think this is unclear. First it says you can distribute bits among > robots however you want, but then it says robots with no bits will go away > disappointed. What does this mean? Should I care a robot being disappointed? > > Then it continues with "each robot with at least one bit...", but this can > mean both "all robots have at least a bit" or "all robots I'm using have at > least a bit". > > If the answer is yes, then why the "robot being disappointed" part even > mentioned in the problem? It's unnecessary and confusing. > > If the answer is no, then why you don't express it as simple as "Each > robot should have at least one bit" and use a long and complicated > paragraph instead? > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Google Code Jam" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-code/83b8f256-5140-43ad-ab61-b05231b592aa%40googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Code Jam" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-code/CANrP2_ModfZJa5Novtnc8dm2PPm0d_s_5GfTgo2WBbCe8916Ug%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
