Loading collection data...
Collections are a way for you to organize kata so that you can create your own training routines. Every collection you create is public and automatically sharable with other warriors. After you have added a few kata to a collection you and others can train on the kata contained within the collection.
Get started now by creating a new collection.
The last two sample tests need to be changed :
n_vals = [[1, 0], [2, 3], [3, 18], [4, 60], [5, 150], [342, **420115062**], [56753, **386209565**]]
Cool one!
Another curious number :
496
, there are so few...Already added by somebody.
I personally had to look it up.
.
you are training on a long-outdated version of the sample tests.
(
python
)The sample tests require a function named
pareto
and the expected output is a list of listThe submissions tests (also in the description) require a function named
pareto_front
whereas the expected output is a set of tuples.Th domination criteria is not explicit Wiki:
An allocation
{x_{1},\dots ,x_{n}}
, wherex_{i} in R^{k}
for alli
, is Pareto-optimal if there is no other feasible allocation{x_{1}',... ,x_{n}'}
where, for utility functionu_{i}
for each agenti
,u_{i}(x_{i}') >= u_{i}(x_{i})
for alli in {1, ... ,n}
withu_{i}(x_{i}') > u_{i}(x_{i})
for somei
This should have been an
Issue
. The kata is not solvable without these specifications.I agree with your suggestion. I've now changed the output type, updated the description, and notified the three authors whose solutions were invalidated.
Technically, the kata is now ready to be approved, but perhaps we should wait for a few more solutions and rank votes. Average assessed rank is
4kyu
, but one could argue that the handling of root multiplicities pushes this closer to3kyu
territory.Just my opinion, but given such low solve count (and the fact it's still in Beta) I'd suggest to apply this change, and leave a comment under each solution to notify and encourage them to re-submit.
It was a really nice kata. Unfortunately, the author hasn't been around since December 2022. I could change the output type from
float
toFraction
, but it would invalidate all existing five solution (including the author's). I'm not sure what the best way to proceed is.Only invalidated solutions were the ones which tried to use a correct prime checker and then append the wrong results as special cases.
Okay I have approved your fork with some modifications. If this invalidates solutions then it's on me.
You shouldn't end up invalidating any solutions if you add the import to the setup as well as preloaded.
It'll be disgusting, yes, but we haven't been given much choice.
My apologies for not responding to your original suggestion. Obviously the question of whether indexes should start at 0 or 1 is a matter of style. I prefer 1 in this case for the following reason: If someone says something like "the maximizing move was move 8", they most likely mean the 8th one, not the 9th one.
Loading more items...