https://www.codingame.com/training/medium/bijective-numeration
Send your feedback or ask for help here!
Created by @David_Augusto_Villa,validated by @Kaplone,@Andriamanitra and @Witman.
If you have any issues, feel free to ping them.
Should have been in easy, or maybe even a clash.
Not a CoC, easy is just fine.
Fun note: there’s a puzzle called Spreadsheet Labels in the Hard section that is basically the same problem with radix 26 and only alphabetic symbols ^^
@pardouin Indeed, there is this one too (except it starts at A = 0, so represented numbers are shifted by one).
So there’s suggestion for clash, precedent for hard, and at least mention of everything inbetween. Hopefully we can agree it’s not very hard, yes?
I’d personally label it easy but I don’t care if it’s medium, difficulty rankings are not very important.
For sake of posterity:
I had initially marked it easy, but those puzzles tend to be things like conditionals and loops. Bumped to medium when several people (more than 2) commented it was trickier than expected. Intermediate skills like encoding and radix imply medium level difficulty anyway.
In my honest assessment, Spreadsheet Labels should also be medium.
1 Like
Hi. I failed at Validator 7 and I don’t understand why because I’ve passed all the tests. If anyone has an hint, please feel free to share it with me. Thanks
I’d like to investigate, but I don’t see your solution listed, perhaps because it hasn’t fully passed yet. Is there any way you can directly share it with me?
Hi, thank you. Maybe on discord?
I did it in 7 minutes so may be a CoC (even if it is an hard one).
Else it is easy… (I wasn’t sure at first that the result should be given as standard number, the given example should stress that somehow !)
CodinGame community-games-creation
Either that, or I can turn the validator into a test case, and fill in with 2 new validators. Then you’d be able to see it.
1 Like
I sent a message on discord. This the second option seems good to me too. I could see for myself where the problem lies.
Got it, great! The problem is in your generation, not parsing. You should be able to see it fail the new test case now, but let me know if you’d like me to look further.