May cook-off

In question 1 of division1 the line is “L and R(inclusive)”, it depicts that only R is included and not L, but the correct answer comes after including both L and R

I think this line properly conveyed the meaning that both L and R are inclusive. If only R had been inclusive, it would have been mentioned more precisely.

1 Like

l and r (inclusive) meant include both…
also see constraints l \le r
which means it should be both inclusive logically…
see explanation of case2 [l,r]
“[ ]” means both inclusive


Codechef is now hanging all the time, very weird…


Yeah. The IDE was so buggy and the problem pages weren’t even opening until you refreshed every damn second.


Can somebody give some test cases for this problem?

Sorry, didn’t read the statement properly :stuck_out_tongue:

I’m so grateful that you withdrew your reply without someone commenting on it. I would’ve seriously doubted you being 5 star.

3 4 3
6 7 3
2 10 3
3 10 3
2 9 3
3 9 3

Answers are
Ping me if you need more test cases
Don’t use inbuilt ceil and floor functions…

1 Like

Second Problem in Div2 was similar to :-
Arithmetic Progression

How is 6 7 3 => 0 but 3 10 3 => 3?

6 7 only have 6 as multiple of 3…
But gcd of {6} is 6 not 3

D’oh. I got the question totally wrong. Thanks.

1 Like

Thanks for your input. Still waiting for the time when you’ll write the editorials for each and every comment you wrote saying “I’ll write an editorial for this. You guys are complicating things etc.” Like, you just literally comment everywhere that you’ll write an editorial. I’ve seen your name so many times, I remember it more than tourist’s full name.

check this : Unofficial editorial for GCDSET

1 Like

7 9 4
Answer : 0
if you think it’s 1 since we can get 8 think once again what’s the gcd

That is your personal problem.

It sure is. I’m so sorry for asking you to keep up with your promise. Totally my fault.

Okay…I forgive you.

1 Like

Thanks!!! I had misunderstood the problem.

1 Like