bigSchrodinger's blog

By bigSchrodinger, history, 13 months ago, In English

chromate00 has cheated alot in the past and he has done it again! Compare his solution to the leaked solution.

chromate00 stop cheating!

  • Vote: I like it
  • -30
  • Vote: I do not like it

| Write comment?
»
13 months ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +27 Vote: I do not like it

I think most people will get a similar (if not same) solution to that task? Can you provide objective evidence that I cheated in this round.

  • »
    »
    13 months ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    Wow, this is sad to read. It is obvious from the submissions that you have cheated, and it's an insult to the reader's competence that you choose to deny it. None of the top competitors have a similar approach, so the excuse that the problem is so simple that "most people will get a similar (if not same) solution" is completely baseless and disrespectful to when this is truly the case.

    I am disappointed to read this. I had thought from your recent blogs that you were an aid to the community, but clearly I was completely mistaken. I hope that your submission is flagged and, for your sake, chromate00, that you retract this shameless defence and come clean.

    • »
      »
      »
      13 months ago, # ^ |
      Rev. 4   Vote: I like it +3 Vote: I do not like it

      Looking at his code, its highly likely chromate00 cheated.

      That he uses a non-top performer's code to defend himself, when specifically asked for a top-performer's code, doesn't make him look good either.

      Who knows what was the extent of the cheating that happened in last contest, given that the solution for D was so widely/easily available on the internet.

      Very sad.

  • »
    »
    13 months ago, # ^ |
    Rev. 2   Vote: I like it +3 Vote: I do not like it

    its pretty obvious that its a copied code, the only part that is different is the calculation of inverses

    Every part of the calculation is exactly the same as the video. Even upto printing the answer, except that you correct the mod mistake.

    Stop lying FFs.

    Also, you submitted a code which got pretests passed, and then literally just changed the name of a variable, and resubmitted, nothing else changed. Do you really expect us to believe that you werent trying to make your code look different than the yt code there?

    • »
      »
      »
      13 months ago, # ^ |
      Rev. 2   Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

      then literally just changed the name of a variable, and resubmitted

      See that I redefined a variable with the same name just some lines later. I knew it may cause consequences, that is why I changed that variable's name.

      • »
        »
        »
        »
        13 months ago, # ^ |
          Vote: I like it +5 Vote: I do not like it

        fair but it doesnt change the fact that your implementation is literally exactly the same as the yt solution.

        People can have the same idea no doubt, but such similar implementation cannot be a coincidence

»
13 months ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +9 Vote: I do not like it

chromate00 definitely cheated here. His submission in Ruby 191598874 is pretty much the same except for changing inv with pow

»
13 months ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +26 Vote: I do not like it

He is such a good guy to be a cheater. He didn't do that!