Newest at the top
| 2026-02-25 00:15:24 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2026-02-25 00:10:50 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <ijouw> When removing it so i can submit with fewer deps |
| 2026-02-25 00:10:36 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <ijouw> I was using a library which wraps reads with Maybe and forgot to adjust the type... |
| 2026-02-25 00:10:11 +0100 | emmanuelux | (~em@user/emmanuelux) emmanuelux |
| 2026-02-25 00:07:59 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <ijouw> My solution fails locally at readLn? I am confused. |
| 2026-02-25 00:07:49 +0100 | <lantti> | mine was https://privatebin.net/?97447d6805a0ea49#CfnZntNYLfYtSvpCod6DSKRYS8xDhzqycvhjmKNhppjv |
| 2026-02-25 00:04:20 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 245 seconds) |
| 2026-02-25 00:00:02 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2026-02-24 23:57:40 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | *yes I do because |
| 2026-02-24 23:56:18 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | yes, because there's also sqrt |
| 2026-02-24 23:56:05 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <ijouw> There is div from Integral, no need for double cast for /2 |
| 2026-02-24 23:54:57 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | overengineered spoilers: https://cses.fi/paste/b23bf94c9440505af9ce60/ (if we're sharing anyway...) |
| 2026-02-24 23:53:22 +0100 | <mauke> | spoilers: https://cses.fi/paste/7167882c695ce46ff9ce6b/ |
| 2026-02-24 23:52:26 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | *took |
| 2026-02-24 23:52:11 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | stdout handling is slow, told you |
| 2026-02-24 23:51:52 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | mauke: I tool the liberty to submit your solution to the judge; it takes 0.59s |
| 2026-02-24 23:50:42 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <ijouw> I am debating whether i want to put it in an automatic solver |
| 2026-02-24 23:50:41 +0100 | <mauke> | my solution doesn't use lists :-) |
| 2026-02-24 23:49:28 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | mine is overengineered, I used a sqrt |
| 2026-02-24 23:49:17 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | that sounds like mauke's solution (exchanged ideas in private chat) |
| 2026-02-24 23:48:57 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) |
| 2026-02-24 23:48:52 +0100 | <haskellbridge> | <ijouw> I now have a formal proof by induction with step 4 |
| 2026-02-24 23:47:36 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | this is all <0.001s on my machine lol |
| 2026-02-24 23:47:21 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | so that's 0.02s for the computation, 0.14s for the serialisation, and 0.05s for the printing |
| 2026-02-24 23:47:01 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | and if I do `evaluate . length . unwords . map show` instead, I get 0.16s |
| 2026-02-24 23:46:49 +0100 | <lantti> | ah, so there it is :) |
| 2026-02-24 23:46:41 +0100 | __monty__ | (~toonn@user/toonn) (Quit: leaving) |
| 2026-02-24 23:46:14 +0100 | <lantti> | ah, ok, I got it to 0.21s too by eliminating two calls to length and one to delete |
| 2026-02-24 23:45:57 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | ok if I replace the `putStrLn . unwords . map show` with `mapM_ evaluate` then maximum runtime goes from 0.21s to 0.02s |
| 2026-02-24 23:44:39 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-cl.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2026-02-24 23:42:41 +0100 | <mauke> | it should run all of them |
| 2026-02-24 23:42:19 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | then the server would mark my answer wrong and (presumably? didn't try) not proceed to the larger test cases |
| 2026-02-24 23:40:31 +0100 | <newmind> | tomsmeding: without printing and just evaluating its fast on the server too? |
| 2026-02-24 23:39:30 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | I am using lists only to pass to `putStrLn . unwords . map show` |
| 2026-02-24 23:39:15 +0100 | <mauke> | you guys are using lists? |
| 2026-02-24 23:38:37 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | (that server is really slow...) |
| 2026-02-24 23:38:13 +0100 | tromp | (~textual@2001:1c00:3487:1b00:7955:9591:6018:7ef9) (Quit: My iMac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…) |
| 2026-02-24 23:36:59 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | turns out my lists weren't actually lazy when printed -- I was materialising them with 'length'. If I don't do that, my worst-case time on the judge server goes from 0.30s to 0.21s |
| 2026-02-24 23:36:26 +0100 | pavonia | (~user@user/siracusa) siracusa |
| 2026-02-24 23:36:19 +0100 | prdak | (~Thunderbi@user/prdak) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds) |
| 2026-02-24 23:34:59 +0100 | machinedgod | (~machinedg@d172-219-48-230.abhsia.telus.net) machinedgod |
| 2026-02-24 23:34:27 +0100 | arahael | (~wetfoot@user/arahael) arahael |
| 2026-02-24 23:33:57 +0100 | kawzeg | (kawzeg@2a01:4f9:c013:cfbf::1) kawzeg |
| 2026-02-24 23:33:39 +0100 | kawzeg | (kawzeg@2a01:4f9:c013:cfbf::1) (Server closed connection) |
| 2026-02-24 23:33:30 +0100 | <lantti> | but that might work against me as well, lets see |
| 2026-02-24 23:33:12 +0100 | <lantti> | all that can still go away if i make a loop instead of a list |
| 2026-02-24 23:32:50 +0100 | <lantti> | I also use a delete on one of the lists to remove that one int that needs to move to the other set |
| 2026-02-24 23:32:41 +0100 | arandombit | (~arandombi@user/arandombit) (Ping timeout: 248 seconds) |
| 2026-02-24 23:31:55 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | interesting |
| 2026-02-24 23:31:48 +0100 | <lantti> | yes, to the constant time |