this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2024
6 points (100.0% liked)
NotAwfulTech
386 readers
4 users here now
a community for posting cool tech news you don’t want to sneer at
non-awfulness of tech is not required or else we wouldn’t have any posts
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Day 13, day 13 of shirking other responsibilities.
p1
Ok. So, I overthought this a little. Ultimately, this problem boils down to solving a system of 2 linear equations aka inverting a matrix.Of course, anyone who has done undergraduate linear algebra knows to look to the determinant in case some shit goes down. For the general problem space, a zero determinant means that one equation is just a multiple of the other. A solution could still exist in this case. Consider:
The following has no solution:
I thought of all this, and instead of coding the solution, I just checked if any such cases were in my input. There weren't, and I was home free.
p2
No real changes to the solution to p1 aside from the new targets. I wasn't sure if 64 bit ints were big enough to fit the numbers so I changed my code to use big ints.I'm looking at my code again and I'm pretty sure that was all unnecessary.
I liked day 13, a bit easy but in the right way.
Edit:
Spoilers
Although saying "minimum" was a bit evil when all of the systems had exactly 1 solution (not necessarily in ℕ^2), I wonder if it's puzzle trickiness, anti-LLM (and unfortunate non comp-sci souls) trickiness or if the puzzle was maybe scaled down from a version where there are more solutions.spoiler
Given the lack of edge cases, I feel the latter possibility is strong. I'm just glad it was easy!