Google Code Jam 2014 资格赛:Problem D. Deceitful War

This problem is the hardest problem to understand in this round. If you are new to Code Jam, you should probably try to solve the other problems first.

Problem

Naomi and Ken sometimes play games together. Before they play, each of them gets Nidentical-looking blocks of wood with masses between 0.0kg and 1.0kg (exclusive). All of the blocks have different weights. There are lots of games they could play with those blocks, but they usually play something they call War. Here is how War works:

  1. Each player weighs each of his or her own blocks, so each player knows the weights of all of his or her own blocks, but not the weights of the other player's blocks.
  2. They repeat the following process N times:
    1. Naomi chooses one of her own blocks, with mass ChosenNaomi.
    2. Naomi tells Ken the mass of the block she chose.
    3. Ken chooses one of his own blocks, with mass ChosenKen.
    4. They each put their block on one side of a balance scale, and the person whose block is heavier gets one point.
    5. Both blocks are destroyed in a fire.

Naomi has realized three things about War. First, she has realized that she loses a lot. Second, she has realized that there is a unique strategy that Ken can follow to maximize his points without assuming anything about Naomi's strategy, and that Ken always uses it. Third, she has realized that she hates to lose. Naomi has decided that instead of playing War, she will play a game she calls Deceitful War. The great thing about Deceitful War is that Ken will think they're playing War!

Here is how Deceitful War works, with differences between Deceitful War and War in bold:

  1. Each player weighs each of his or her own blocks. Naomi also weighs Ken's blocks while he isn't looking, so Naomi knows the weights of all blocks and Ken only knows the weights of his own blocks.
  2. They repeat the following process N times:
    1. Naomi chooses one of her own blocks, with mass ChosenNaomi.
    2. Naomi tells Ken a number, ToldNaomi, between 0.0kg and 1.0kg exclusive. Ken, who thinks they're playing War, thinks the number Naomi just told him is ChosenNaomi.
    3. Ken chooses one of his own blocks, with mass ChosenKen.
    4. They each put their block on one side of a balance scale, and the person whose block is heavier gets one point.
    5. Both blocks are destroyed in a fire.

Naomi doesn't want Ken to know that she isn't playing War; so when she is choosing which block to play, and what mass to tell Ken, she must make sure that the balance scale won't reveal that ChosenNaomi ≠ ToldNaomi. In other words, she must make decisions so that:

  • ChosenNaomi > ChosenKen if, and only if, ToldNaomi > ChosenKen, and
  • ToldNaomi is not equal to the mass of any of Ken's blocks, because he knows that isn't possible.

It might seem like Naomi won't win any extra points by being deceitful, because Ken might discover that she wasn't playing War; but Naomi knows Ken thinks both players are playing War, and she knows what he knows, and she knows Ken will always follow his unique optimal strategy for War, so she can always predict what he will play.

You'll be given the masses of the blocks Naomi and Ken started with. Naomi will play Deceitful War optimally to gain the maximum number of points. Ken will play War optimally to gain the maximum number of points assuming that both players are playing War. What will Naomi's score be? What would it have been if she had played War optimally instead?

Examples

If each player has a single block left, where Naomi has 0.5kg and Ken has 0.6kg, then Ken is guaranteed to score the point. Naomi can't say her number is ≥ 0.6kg, or Ken will know she isn't playing War when the balance scale shows his block was heavier.

If each player has two blocks left, where Naomi has [0.7kg, 0.2kg] and Ken has [0.8kg, 0.3kg], then Naomi could choose her 0.2kg block, and deceive Ken by telling him that she chose a block that was 0.6kg. Ken assumes Naomi is telling the truth (as in how the War game works) and will play his 0.8kg block to score a point. Ken was just deceived, but he will never realize it because the balance scale shows that his 0.8kg block is, like he expected, heavier than the block Naomi played. Now Naomi can play her 0.7kg block, tell Ken it is 0.7kg, and score a point. If Naomi had played War instead of Deceitful War, then Ken would have scored two points and Naomi would have scored zero.

Input

The first line of the input gives the number of test cases, T. T test cases follow. Each test case starts with a line containing a single integer N, the number of blocks each player has. Next follows a line containing N space-separated real numbers: the masses of Naomi's blocks, in kg. Finally there will be a line containing N space-separated real numbers: the masses of Ken's blocks, in kg.

Each of the masses given to Ken and Naomi will be represented as a 0, followed by a decimal point, followed by 1-5 digits. Even though all the numbers in the input have 1-5 digits after the decimal point, Ken and Naomi don't know that; so Naomi can still tell Ken that she played a block with mass 0.5000001kg, and Ken has no reason not to believe her.

Output

For each test case, output one line containing "Case #x: y z", where x is the test case number (starting from 1), y is the number of points Naomi will score if she plays Deceitful War optimally, and z is the number of points Naomi will score if she plays War optimally.

Limits

1 ≤ T ≤ 50.
All the masses given to Ken and Naomi are distinct, and between 0.0 and 1.0 exclusive.

Small dataset

1 ≤ N ≤ 10.

Large dataset

1 ≤ N ≤ 1000.

Sample

Input

4
1
0.5
0.6
2
0.7 0.2
0.8 0.3
3
0.5 0.1 0.9
0.6 0.4 0.3
9
0.186 0.389 0.907 0.832 0.959 0.557 0.300 0.992 0.899
0.916 0.728 0.271 0.520 0.700 0.521 0.215 0.341 0.458

Output

Case #1: 0 0
Case #2: 1 0
Case #3: 2 1
Case #4: 8 4

转载于:https://www.cnblogs.com/stonehat/p/3660068.html

以下是对提供的参考资料的总结,按照要求结构化多个要点分条输出: 4G/5G无线网络优化与网规案例分析: NSA站点下终端掉4G问题:部分用户反馈NSA终端频繁掉4G,主要因终端主动发起SCGfail导致。分析显示,在信号较好的环境下,终端可能因节能、过热保护等原因主动释放连接。解决方案建议终端侧进行分析处理,尝试关闭节电开关等。 RSSI算法识别天馈遮挡:通过计算RSSI平均值及差值识别天馈遮挡,差值大于3dB则认定有遮挡。不同设备分组规则不同,如64T和32T。此方法可有效帮助现场人员识别因环境变化引起的网络问题。 5G 160M组网小区CA不生效:某5G站点开启100M+60M CA功能后,测试发现UE无法正常使用CA功能。问题原因在于CA频点集标识配置错误,修正后测试正常。 5G网络优化与策略: CCE映射方式优化:针对诺基亚站点覆盖农村区域,通过优化CCE资源映射方式(交织、非交织),提升RRC连接建立成功率和无线接通率。非交织方式相比交织方式有显著提升。 5G AAU两扇区组网:与三扇区组网相比,AAU两扇区组网在RSRP、SINR、下载速率和上传速率上表现不同,需根据具体场景选择适合的组网方式。 5G语音解决方案:包括沿用4G语音解决方案、EPS Fallback方案和VoNR方案。不同方案适用于不同的5G组网策略,如NSA和SA,并影响语音连续性和网络覆盖。 4G网络优化与资源利用: 4G室分设备利旧:面对4G网络投资压减与资源需求矛盾,提出利旧多维度调优策略,包括资源整合、统筹调配既有资源,以满足新增需求和提质增效。 宏站RRU设备1托N射灯:针对5G深度覆盖需求,研究使用宏站AAU结合1托N射灯方案,快速便捷地开通5G站点,提升深度覆盖能力。 基站与流程管理: 爱立信LTE基站邻区添加流程:未提供具体内容,但通常涉及邻区规划、参数配置、测试验证等步骤,以确保基站间顺畅切换和覆盖连续性。 网络规划与策略: 新高铁跨海大桥覆盖方案试点:虽未提供详细内容,但可推测涉及高铁跨海大桥区域的4G/5G网络覆盖规划,需考虑信号穿透、移动性管理、网络容量等因素。 总结: 提供的参考资料涵盖了4G/5G无线网络优化、网规案例分析、网络优化策略、资源利用、基站管理等多个方面。 通过具体案例分析,展示了无线网络优化中的常见问题及解决方案,如NSA终端掉4G、RSSI识别天馈遮挡、CA不生效等。 强调了5G网络优化与策略的重要性,包括CCE映射方式优化、5G语音解决方案、AAU扇区组网选择等。 提出了4G网络优化与资源利用的策略,如室分设备利旧、宏站RRU设备1托N射灯等。 基站与流程管理方面,提到了爱立信LTE基站邻区添加流程,但未给出具体细节。 新高铁跨海大桥覆盖方案试点展示了特殊场景下的网络规划需求。
评论
添加红包

请填写红包祝福语或标题

红包个数最小为10个

红包金额最低5元

当前余额3.43前往充值 >
需支付:10.00
成就一亿技术人!
领取后你会自动成为博主和红包主的粉丝 规则
hope_wisdom
发出的红包
实付
使用余额支付
点击重新获取
扫码支付
钱包余额 0

抵扣说明:

1.余额是钱包充值的虚拟货币,按照1:1的比例进行支付金额的抵扣。
2.余额无法直接购买下载,可以购买VIP、付费专栏及课程。

余额充值