Hellom n00m!
I beg your pardon for not having replied for such long time---I was
really busy.
Yes, the posted code doesn't solve the supernumbers problem, but solves
the problem you posted first as I understood it :) --- for each number
find a position of this number in the longest sequence it be
Anton,
it simply does not work! Try supernumbers([2,1,4,5,3]).
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
I hope nobody have posted similar solution (it's tested, but I didn't
submit it to contest):
from bisect import bisect_right as find
def supernumbers(ls):
indices = [0]*len(ls)
for i, e in enumerate(ls):
indices[e - 1] = i
result = [None]*len(ls)
borders = []
for i in indices:
Thank you both for your replies.
And my personal "Thank you!" to Mr. Hettinger for
all his tremendous work!
> Perhaps because you are not using a real Usenet client?
Yes! And I don't even know what is the beast - Usenet client.
I just keep in Favorites of my browser (IE 6.0) this link:
http://grou
n00m wrote:
> Got it! He is a kind of pythonic monsters.
>
> Btw, why it's impossible to reply to old threads?
> Namely, there're no more "Reply" link in them.
> Only "Reply to author" etc.
Perhaps because you are not using a real Usenet client?
Reinhold
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listin
"n00m" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Who is Raymond Hettinger?
The Python developer who, in the last few years, has perhaps been the most
active in coding or recoding library modules, such as itertools and sets,
in C. He also partipates in development discussio
Got it! He is a kind of pythonic monsters.
Btw, why it's impossible to reply to old threads?
Namely, there're no more "Reply" link in them.
Only "Reply to author" etc.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
n00m wrote:
> Tim Peters wrote:
>> The chance that Raymond Hettinger is going to recode _your_
>> functions in C is approximately 0 ;-)
> Who is Raymond Hettinger?
See python-dev and, wrt this thread,
http://docs.python.org/whatsnew/node12.html.
Reinhold
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listin
Tim Peters wrote:
> The chance that Raymond Hettinger is going to recode _your_
> functions in C is approximately 0 ;-)
Who is Raymond Hettinger?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
[Tim Peters, on the problem at
http://spoj.sphere.pl/problems/SUPPER/
]
>> Oh, it's not that bad . I took a stab at a Python program for
>> this, and it passed (3.44 seconds).
>> ...
>> I didn't make any effort to speed this, beyond picking a reasonable
>> algorithm, so maybe someone else can
Tim Peters wrote:
> [Bryan Olson, on the problem at
> http://spoj.sphere.pl/problems/SUPPER/
> ]
>
>>I never intended to submit this program for competition. The
>>contest ranks in speed order, and there is no way Python can
>>compete with truly-compiled languages on such low-level code.
[Tim Peters, on the problem at
http://spoj.sphere.pl/problems/SUPPER/
]
>> ...
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> INCREDIBLE~
> 241433 2005-09-11 04:23:40 Tim Peters accepted 3.44 7096 PYTH
> BRAVO!
It's different now ;-) I added the two lines
import psyco
psyco.full()
and time dropped to 2.29, while
Tim Peters;
INCREDIBLE~
> 241433 2005-09-11 04:23:40 Tim Peters accepted 3.44 7096 PYTH
BRAVO!
I just wonder have I grey cells enough for to understand how your
algo works... and hopefully it's not your last solved problem on
the contester.
> I'm pretty sure they're using
> slower HW than mine
[Bryan Olson, on the problem at
http://spoj.sphere.pl/problems/SUPPER/
]
> I never intended to submit this program for competition. The
> contest ranks in speed order, and there is no way Python can
> compete with truly-compiled languages on such low-level code.
> I'd bet money that the algorit
Bryan;
My own version also timed out.
And now I can tell: it's incredibly SLOW.
Nevertheless it would be interesting to compare
speed of my code against yours. I can't do it myself
because my Python is of 2.3.4 version.
Just uncomment "your" part.
import bisect
def oops(w,a,b):
for m in w:
Bryan Olson wrote:
> Could be. Yet you did write:
>> It's incredibly fast!
I just was obliged to exclaim "It's incredibly fast!"
because I THOUGHT your first version handled ALL TEN
testcases from the input. But the code read from the
*20-lines* input *ONLY 2* its first lines.
Usually they pl
n00m wrote:
> It also timed out:(
Could be. Yet you did write:
> It's incredibly fast!
I never intended to submit this program for competition. The
contest ranks in speed order, and there is no way Python can
compete with truly-compiled languages on such low-level code.
I'd bet money that t
PS:
ALL problems in problems.PDF file (weekly updated):
http://spoj.sphere.pl/problems.pdf
The friendliest online contester I've ever seen! JUST A NON-SUCH.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
It also timed out:(
241056 2005-09-09 20:11:19 ZZZ time limit exceeded - 7064 PYTH
Btw, have a look at this nicest problem:
http://spoj.sphere.pl/problems/COINS/
My py solution takes #64 place among its best solutions:
http://spoj.sphere.pl/ranks/COINS/start=60
--
http://mail.python.org/m
n00m wrote:
> Oh!
> Seems you misunderstand me!
> See how the last block in your code should look:
>
> for tc in range(10):
> _ = stdin.readline()
> sequence = [int(ch) for ch in stdin.readline().split()]
> supers = supernumbers(sequence)
> print len(supers)
> for i in
Oh!
Seems you misunderstand me!
See how the last block in your code should look:
for tc in range(10):
_ = stdin.readline()
sequence = [int(ch) for ch in stdin.readline().split()]
supers = supernumbers(sequence)
print len(supers)
for i in supers:
print i,
When I submi
n00m wrote:
> Oops Bryan... I've removed my reply that you refer to...
> See my previous - CORRECT - reply. The code just times
> out... In some sense it doesn't matter right or wrong is
> its output.
If my code times out, then they are using an archaic platform.
With respect to my code, you n
> nor even what submission is yours and your latest.
Oops.. my UserName there is ZZZ.
Submissions in the html table are ordered by date DESC.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Oops Bryan... I've removed my reply that you refer to...
See my previous - CORRECT - reply. The code just times
out... In some sense it doesn't matter right or wrong is
its output.
Btw, what is the complexity of your algorithm?
Currently I'm at work and it's not easy for me to concentrate
on our su
n00m wrote:
> Bravo, Bryan!
> It's incredibly fast!
Not compared to a good implementation for a compiled, low-level
language.
> But your code got WA (wrong answer).
> See my latest submission: http://spoj.sphere.pl/status/SUPPER/
> Maybe you slipped a kind of typo in it? Silly boundary cases
Bravo, Bryan!
Looks very neat! (pity I can't give it a try in my Py 2.3.4
because of reversed() and sorted() functions)
And I've submitted it but got ... TLEs:
http://spoj.sphere.pl/status/SUPPER/
Funnily, the exec.time of the best C solution is only 0.06s!
PS
In my 1st submission I overlooked tha
Bravo, Bryan!
It's incredibly fast! But your code got WA (wrong answer).
See my latest submission: http://spoj.sphere.pl/status/SUPPER/
Maybe you slipped a kind of typo in it? Silly boundary cases?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
n00m wrote:
> Firstly I find ordering numbers when moving from left to the right;
> then I find ord. numbers for backward direction AND for DECREASING
> subsequences:
Sounds good.
> Btw, I did it in Pascal. Honestly, I don't believe it can
> be done in Python (of course I mean only the impo
> 4 5 1 2 3 6 7 8 << the list itself
> 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 << ordering numbers for forward direction
> 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 << ordering numbers for backward direction
> ===
> 3 3 7 7 7 7 7 7 << sums of the pairs of ord. numbers
Oops! Sorry for miscounting in backward direction.
Should be (anyway the
PS: I've still not read 2 new posts.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> So, this has no real world use, aside from posting it on a website.
I don't think you're quite right.
We never know where we gain and where we lose.
> So clearly it served a very useful purpose! ;)
Thanks, Manuel!
> your question is different than the question on this
> That's easy to follow, although their use of a Van Emde-Boas set as a
> given hides the most challenging part (the "efficient data structure"
> part).
The "efficient data structure" is the easy part.
Obviously, it is a dict of lists.
...or is it a list of dicts?...
...or is it a tuple of gene
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> So, this has no real world use, aside from posting it on a website.
> Thanks for wasting our time. You are making up an arbitrary problem and
> asking for a solution, simply because you want to look at the
> solutions, not because your problem needs to be solved. Clearly, this
>
Working on this allowed me to avoid some _real_ (boring) work at my
job.
So clearly it served a very useful purpose! ;)
Manuel
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
So, this has no real world use, aside from posting it on a website.
Thanks for wasting our time. You are making up an arbitrary problem and
asking for a solution, simply because you want to look at the
solutions, not because your problem needs to be solved. Clearly, this
is a waste of time.
--
ht
> ... and let me reveal the secret:
> http://spoj.sphere.pl/problems /SUPPER/
your question is different than the question on this website.
also, what do you consider to be the correct output for this
permutation? (according to your original question)
[4, 5, 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8]
Manuel
--
http:/
Thanks guys!
> Are you sure that this is not a homework problem?
... and let me reveal the secret:
http://spoj.sphere.pl/problems/SUPPER/
Hardly it can be easily reduced to "standard" LIS problem
(i.e. to find just a (any) Longest Increasing Sequence).
> I coded a solution that can compute the or
I coded a solution that can compute the ordering numbers for
random.shuffle(range(1, 101)) in 2.5 seconds (typical, Win 2K Pro,
Pentium 4 2.40GHz 785Meg RAM)
Are you sure that this is not a homework problem?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 7 Sep 2005 09:48:52 -0700,
"n00m" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Given a list of N arbitrarily permutated integers from set {1..N}.
> Need to find the ordering numbers of each integer in the LONGEST
> increasing sequence to which this number belongs. Sample:
> List:
> [4, 5, 6, 1, 2, 7, 3]
> Co
Given a list of N arbitrarily permutated integers from set {1..N}.
Need to find the ordering numbers of each integer in the LONGEST
increasing sequence to which this number belongs. Sample:
List:
[4, 5, 6, 1, 2, 7, 3]
Corresponding ordering numbers:
[1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 4, 3]
Details:
e.g. number 7 b
40 matches
Mail list logo
