A wrong solution to C2 got accepted: https://codeforces.me/contest/2284/submission/397621024↵
↵
I submitted the exact same code initially and received a WA. However, when I submitted it again, without making any changes, it got accepted.↵
↵
I understand that an incorrect solution might pass due to gapsIt doesn't seem fair in competitive programming when the same incorrect code can receive different verdicts on separate submissions.The reason behind this soln getting accepted ins test coverage, but this raises ahe weakness of test cases i think. ↵
↵
UPD--↵
↵
my concernabout the reliability of the judging system. It doesn't seem fair in competitive programming when the same incorrect code can receive different verdicts on separate submissions.↵
↵
Shouldn't identical submissions produce consistent verdicts under the same judging conditions?is not about getting accepted by changing return; to return ;↵
. It was about getting lucky even though the answer is wrong. ↵
the solution is correct when the number of times we need to generate random numbers is correct. In this , the number is calculated using wrong probabilities but still the author got lucky and his solution got accepted in the first try.↵
That means the test cases were not strong enough , that's all.↵
↵
The method used here is absolutely fine but the calculated number of times we need to generate an random number is wrong , i just wanted to flag that mistake but i think you all understood it wrongly.↵
↵
I submitted the exact same code initially and received a WA. However, when I submitted it again, without making any changes, it got accepted.↵
I understand that an incorrect solution might pass due to gaps
↵
UPD--↵
↵
my concern
↵
Shouldn't identical submissions produce consistent verdicts under the same judging conditions?
. It was about getting lucky even though the answer is wrong. ↵
the solution is correct when the number of times we need to generate random numbers is correct. In this , the number is calculated using wrong probabilities but still the author got lucky and his solution got accepted in the first try.↵
That means the test cases were not strong enough , that's all.↵
↵
The method used here is absolutely fine but the calculated number of times we need to generate an random number is wrong , i just wanted to flag that mistake but i think you all understood it wrongly.↵
