Problem E1 from the latest Div2 was already used before in a different contest. It's the same as 1486D - Max Median
Problem E1 from the latest Div2 was already used before in a different contest. It's the same as 1486D - Max Median
| # | User | Rating |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Benq | 3792 |
| 2 | VivaciousAubergine | 3647 |
| 3 | Kevin114514 | 3603 |
| 4 | jiangly | 3583 |
| 5 | turmax | 3559 |
| 6 | tourist | 3541 |
| 7 | strapple | 3515 |
| 8 | ksun48 | 3461 |
| 9 | dXqwq | 3436 |
| 10 | Otomachi_Una | 3413 |
| # | User | Contrib. |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Qingyu | 157 |
| 2 | adamant | 153 |
| 3 | Um_nik | 147 |
| 4 | Proof_by_QED | 146 |
| 5 | Dominater069 | 145 |
| 6 | errorgorn | 141 |
| 7 | cry | 139 |
| 8 | YuukiS | 135 |
| 9 | TheScrasse | 134 |
| 10 | chromate00 | 133 |
This isn't a rare occurrence and also not usually a big deal unless the author copied an existing problem intentionally, which is obviously not the case here.
It's just not fair tbh, I don't mean like a similar idea was used before—I mean it's literally the same problem, just worded differently it is like leaking probs
It's not the same problem, they have different definitions of a median
ok they are not copy-paste prob XD
but still anyone with rate > 1000 can edit the code to get it accepted in this version
We are very sorry this happened. We didn't know about this problem (although I did solve the problem lol).
See here for an explanation. Btw, I just want to point out that it requires a little insight: maximal submedian (with our definition of a median) = maximal submedian (with the usual definition of a median).
I do not think it is that trivial, but apparently it is.
If we unrate a contest every time a problem is a duplicate or subproblem of an existing problem, we would be unrating at least half of all contests (and nearly all Div. 3 and Div. 4).
I'm not saying the round should be made unrated, but I do think the author should check if the problem was already used before or not
They probably did check, and just didn’t find this problem. You can’t expect a team of coordinators, problemsetters, and testers to know every single CP problem that has ever been set before.
Tester: we didn't know about test 5.
Setter: we didn't know about problems.
So they are a bad coordinators LOL, just search or ask.
square head found the problem and the setter didn't, is square head better than the setter!
1/10 rage bait
You are free to try to write your own contest if you think it is so easy to write one without any issues
I did a lot man, this is my alt because I know that I will be downvoted
I'm not a master and can't make a masters problems so I can't make a division
If the setting is not easy then getting WA in system test is not easy also
did you read the prob ? it actually the same basic search on google will get you the prob just search "max med for range l ,r on CF" and you will see it as first link
Everyone can use this to check whether the problem is used before
Sorry about that. E2 (hard) was invented first and the subtask E1 was added later to balance the difficulty, so this was clearly not intentional. Nobody (authors and testers) realized this problem already existed. You can read more about problem coincidences here.
Some people have pointed out that http://yuantiji.ac could be used. I think it's best to avoid external services to avoid problem leakage, but it could be cool if Codeforces had a self-hosted version of that.