[Community Puzzle] Queneau Numbers

Puzzles
#1

Some testcases are wrong. 15 is not actually a Queneau number, since the sequence has order of 5.
It repeats 3 times in the output, while the definition of a Queneau number states that permutation should consist of a single cycle of length n.

1 Like
#2

summoning @_CG_VonRickroll

#3

Hmm… You’re right. Rather than change the tests, though, I’d recommend changing the description to state “Queneau-like numbers”, and to define this as the set of numbers n such that the Queneau-Daniel permutation Qn is of order m, where m is a factor of n. Make sense?

Otherwise we will likely invalidate the more than 200 existent solutions.

  • danBhentschel
#4

magaiti is right and the problem has not been corrected (see also http://oeis.org/A054639).

#5

Aren’t you high-level enough for that?

#6

I added an erratum

1 Like
#7

@JBM Apparently not (I could farm the levels, but I don’t know which level you have to reach so that does not motivate me much). Anyway I would not modify anything without discussing about it on the forum beforehand.

@Kirbiby Nice correction! Thanks!

#8

My bad.

The level needed to edit approved puzzles, IIRC, is 29.

#9

Ok, well I was only ~400 XP away. Now I’m high-level enough and I can confirm it’s Lvl 29.

#10

Maybe have I missed something, but I do not think the erratum is very clear.

The fourth test fails because it does not match the erratum part of the statement (the cycle length is 5, not exactly 15), but I still had 100% after submitted my code.

Is it possible to change the test cases without changing the validation cases?

#11

Maybe my english is not good enough :smiley:

In broad terms, the erratum means “forget about the Queneau number definition, just do N permutations and check you fall back on the starting position”

1 Like
#12

Hi @Kirbiby, I should have double-checked before posting, because you are right : your erratum section explains everything.

I had forgotten I was an english newbie and I have read too fast. Nevertheless, I think your broad terms alternative is much clearer :slight_smile:

But, unless I am mistaken, you have not completly answered my question : I was wondering if replacing the fourth test case with a test without sub-cycles would be a good idea. It would not invalidate existing solutions, the test case would match the validation case, and the erratum section would not be needed anymore.

Thanks for your answer and have a good week-end !

1 Like