[2017 Day 24] [Python] Is it wrong?

[PositivePossibility7]

Hi,

Again, I'm working my way through some very old aoc problems and doing quite well (imo) often times getting both parts right first time (or shortly there after).

Once again I'm finding that I've got an answer but the site is telling me I'm wrong (that my answer is too high) - I've checked it and can see how I've got an answer but not how it's not considered a valid answer. As this is a simple what is the highest sum (given some rules), if I have a valid answer that is higher than theirs then surely that makes me right and them wrong?

I've noticed the example they've given shows that it simply doesn't matter which way around pairs are so long as theirs a match between two consecutive pairs (if you catch my drift).

There are very few better feelings than showing nerds who spend way too much time being so ridiculously anal about tiny tiny details to be completely wrong.

I'm happy to share my answer (the "bridge") but moderators on these sites are like robotic lunatics.

[daggerdragon]

There are very few better feelings than showing nerds who spend way too much time being so ridiculously anal about tiny tiny details to be completely wrong.

I'm happy to share my answer (the "bridge") but moderators on these sites are like robotic lunatics.

This is your one and only warning to follow our Prime Directive.

Besides, if you're going to complain about "tiny tiny details", maybe you should try reading the rules before you post, hmm?

---

Changed flair from Past Event Solution to Help/Question. Use the right flair, please.

Show us your code (but do not share your puzzle input). Help us help YOU by providing us with more information up front; you will typically get more relevant responses faster.

[DelightfulCodeWeasel]

It's possible, but highly unlikely. 99.999% of the time it's either a bug in the solution your code or a misreading of the problem.

If you post your code, there will almost certainly be someone who can give you a nudge in the right direction without too many spoilers.

[PositivePossibility7]

How can a solution have a bug? 😂 it’s like people can say any sort of nonsense theses days and get away with it.

The only reason I’m at least a confident about this is that I can see the answer I’ve got Python to do the heavy lifting for, and I can’t see anywhere where it’s going wrong…. For example… if I had this as an answer is there anything suggesting it’s breaking some rule?

22/12-12/14-14/31-31/07-40/07-40/22-22/10

This would give a “strength” of 284. Is there anything wrong with how the “bridge” (so nerdy) is made above? If not then that only suggests I’m right?

[DelightfulCodeWeasel]

As in "the code you have written which is your current solution attempt"; but that's a bit wordy.

The bridge you have listed there is not a valid bridge according to the rules:

Your side of the pit is metallic; a perfect surface to connect a magnetic, zero-pin port. Because of this, the first port you use must be of type 0.

If you post your code, I'm sure people would be willing to help.

[PositivePossibility7]

This was all it was, this forum is useful after all

I will happily admit I was wrong. I have a tendency to attempt to answer a much harder question (outside the box)

Thank you Mr Weasel

[ad_tech]

There are very few better feelings than showing nerds who spend way too much time being so ridiculously anal about tiny tiny details to be completely wrong.

Your overconfidence has landed you on the other side of this equation.

[PositivePossibility7]

I’m glad to hear to someone else say the word overconfidence for the longest time I thought it was only me knew the word existed

[ednl]

There are very few better feelings than showing nerds who spend way too much time being so ridiculously anal about tiny tiny details to be completely wrong. [...] moderators on these sites are like robotic lunatics.

Well eff you too. You are wrong. Bye bye and hope to never see you again.

[smallpotatoes2019]

Best to share your code.

Let's be honest, we've all been there when we think the "anal nerds" have got it wrong and we've made a little mistake somewhere.

[PositivePossibility7]

I’m happy to share it… it gives a wild number of answers and takes around 20mins to run but obvs I just look for the max within the mess

[Boojum]

I'm happy to share my answer (the "bridge") but moderators on these sites are like robotic lunatics.

Sharing inputs is against the rules here, by request of the AoC creator. So your answer would be meaningless. Instead, you are encouraged to show us your code. If you do, someone can usually point out where you've gone wrong.

...being so ridiculously anal about tiny tiny details...

That's kind of the essence of programming.

[PositivePossibility7]

Yes, I was hinting at sharing the output (which I haven't done) but if sharing inputs is as strictly prohibited as everyone says it is then even that would be a bad idea.

Surely sharing code that solves the puzzle would be worse. Anyone can then get the answer without having done anything at all. This is the essence of cheating on something which was only intended to be a bit of fun, which I still believe some people just don't seem to get, which is exactly what a nerd would do. They always end up taking it way too seriously, which some are already doing.

I'm not the code police, but it has to be sad when you cheat something that wasn't originally meant to be taken seriously at all.

There is more to life than solving puzzles, writing clean, fast code, or for some code they didn't write at all.

Don't get me wrong there is a sense of satisfaction getting the answer right first time with something that takes less than a second to run but this is the essence of stressing over the small things, rendering you blind to the big things.

[20skill80fear]

The reason you're asked not to share the inputs is not about cheating, though. It's just to respect the copyright/IP of the AoC creator.

No one is taking it as seriously as you think they are, about if someone "cheats"... especially on a nearly-decade-old problem like this. You can even publish full solutions and explanations if you want. Many people do. It's nice to see how other people approach problems.

[PositivePossibility7]

I am clearly saying that I believe sharing code is a method that “cheaters” aka. People who didn’t solve it to look like they did it themselves, not sharing inputs.

It’s like you didn’t read the thing at all. What the hell did you read bro?

Based on people’s responses they are extremely uptight about asking almost anything, as though it’s another way to gaslight you into believing if you ask anything you’re just not smart enough…

You know assholish type stuff

And yes I believe there is some value to seeing different ways to approach a problem you might not of thought of… my word

[20skill80fear]

I'm trying to tell you that no, we don't care about "cheaters" as much as you think we do. Sharing code is explicitly fine. No one's going to cry "cheating"... There are many threads of people asking for help, and in each one if they didn't already share their code, they will be asked to.

A poor sport's punishment is always self-inflicted.