Submit | All submissions | Best solutions | Back to list |
EQUASOLV - Solving linear equations |
Solve a system of N (1<N<7) linear equations of the form a1*x1+a2*x2+...+aN*xN=c. ai and c are real numbers. A unique solution is assured.
Input
First line with number N, then N lines with a1, a2,...aN, c separated by space.
Output
The results for x1, x2,...xN one in each line. The floats should have a precision of 5 digits after the decimal-point.
Example
Input: 2 1 2 3 2 3 4 Output: -1.00000 2.00000
Added by: | HWK |
Date: | 2011-02-28 |
Time limit: | 3.636s |
Source limit: | 50000B |
Memory limit: | 1536MB |
Cluster: | Cube (Intel G860) |
Languages: | All except: SCM qobi |
hide comments
|
|||||
2014-05-14 18:42:30 Mitch Schwartz
@Dominique: Thanks, Ruby is fun and I've still got a lot to learn. :) |
|||||
2014-05-13 20:57:51 Dominique VAILLANT
@Mitch: Although a Ruby fanatic for a long time, I'm very impressed by your wondering Ruby performances in many problems. What a pub for 'Matz'! :D |
|||||
2011-10-04 16:29:14 HWK
@Jander: I guess you mean EQUASOLV, don't you? Is your E-mail adress in your user data correct? Then I'll send you the answer with a PM. |
|||||
2011-10-04 12:17:13 Jander
@HWK: I'm intrigued as to what algorithm you're using then to solve this problem. |
|||||
2011-10-04 11:54:39 HWK
Have a look at http://www.spoj.pl/problems/THREETWN/ My best solutions: Ruby 278 Python 294 |
|||||
2011-10-04 11:08:55 HWK
@Jander: The quick and dirty Python clone with 171 bytes. Incredible! I'll also try it with Ruby but I guess it won't be shorter than my 'algo'. Edit: Your algo in Ruby can't beat my one - 153<->144. @hallvabo: 171 bytes uncompressed, compressed only a few less. Last edit: 2011-10-04 11:38:13 |
|||||
2011-10-04 10:58:19 Jander
@HWK: I like the term "awesome" for that code. It's remarkably neat and self-contained. It was your comment about only using one '/' that got me thinking about alternative techniques. I'm certainly keeping this piece of code in my toolkit for other (production) matrix solving code. |
|||||
2011-10-04 10:37:52 HWK
@hallvabo: I've seen Janders last awesome Perl solution. So I think a Python clone of it should be shorter than 236 bytes. I'll try it. Maybe I should try to convert it to Ruby too. :-) |
|||||
2011-10-03 16:43:31 Hallvard Norheim Bø
HWK: can you improve Python too? My best uncompressed solution is 236 bytes. |
|||||
2011-10-03 12:36:53 HWK
Your 174 motivated me too to look at my solution again. Perhaps I'll find another improvement, but probably not 30 bytes. Edit: Only 24 bytes saved. But 46 bytes less my first Ruby solution. :-) To show the difference between our solutions: I use only one '+', '-' and '/'. Last edit: 2011-10-03 15:07:05 |