Keep top level comments as only solutions, if you want to say something other than a solution put it in a new post. (replies to comments can be whatever)
Code block support is not fully rolled out yet but likely will be in the middle of the event. Try to share solutions as both code blocks and using something such as https://topaz.github.io/paste/ , pastebin, or github (code blocks to future proof it for when 0.19 comes out and since code blocks currently function in some apps and some instances as well if they are running a 0.19 beta)
Is there a leaderboard for the community?: We have a programming.dev leaderboard with the info on how to join in this post: https://programming.dev/post/6631465
I went with solving the quadratic equation, so part 2 was just a trivial change in parsing. It was a bit janky to find the integer that is strictly larger than a floating point number, but it all worked out.
In Python when using numpy to find the roots, sometimes you get a numeric artifact like 30.99999999999, which breaks this. Make sure to limit the significant digits to a sane amount like 5 with rounding to prevent that.
I wanted to try the easy approach first and see how slow it was. Didn't even take a second for part 2. So I just skipped the mathematical solution entirely.
Hi there! Looks like you linked to a Lemmy community using a URL instead of its name, which doesn't work well for people on different instances. Try fixing it like this: !nim@programming.dev
I decided to use the quadratic formula to solve part 1 which slowed me down while I struggled to remember how it went, but meant that part 2 was a one line change.
This year really is a roller coaster...
int countGoodDistances(int time, int targetDistance) {
var det = sqrt(time * time - 4 * targetDistance);
return (((time + det) / 2).ceil() - 1) -
(max(((time - det) / 2).floor(), 0) + 1) +
1;
}
solve(List> data, [param]) {
var distances = data.first
.indices()
.map((ix) => countGoodDistances(data[0][ix], data[1][ix]));
return distances.reduce((s, t) => s * t);
}
getNums(l) => l.split(RegExp(r'\s+')).skip(1);
part1(List lines) =>
solve([for (var l in lines) getNums(l).map(int.parse).toList()]);
part2(List lines) => solve([
for (var l in lines) [int.parse(getNums(l).join(''))]
]);
Feedback welcome! Feel like I'm getting the hand of Rust more and more.
use regex::Regex;
pub fn part_1(input: &str) {
let lines: Vec<&str> = input.lines().collect();
let time_data = number_string_to_vec(lines[0]);
let distance_data = number_string_to_vec(lines[1]);
// Zip time and distance into a single iterator
let data_iterator = time_data.iter().zip(distance_data.iter());
let mut total_possible_wins = 1;
for (time, dist_req) in data_iterator {
total_possible_wins *= calc_possible_wins(*time, *dist_req)
}
println!("part possible wins: {:?}", total_possible_wins);
}
pub fn part_2(input: &str) {
let lines: Vec<&str> = input.lines().collect();
let time_data = number_string_to_vec(&lines[0].replace(" ", ""));
let distance_data = number_string_to_vec(&lines[1].replace(" ", ""));
let total_possible_wins = calc_possible_wins(time_data[0], distance_data[0]);
println!("part 2 possible wins: {:?}", total_possible_wins);
}
pub fn calc_possible_wins(time: u64, dist_req: u64) -> u64 {
let mut ways_to_win: u64 = 0;
// Second half is a mirror of the first half, so only calculate first part
for push_time in 1..=time / 2 {
// If a push_time crosses threshold the following ones will too so break loop
if push_time * (time - push_time) > dist_req {
// There are (time+1) options (including 0).
// Subtract twice the minimum required push time, also removing the longest push times
ways_to_win += time + 1 - 2 * push_time;
break;
}
}
ways_to_win
}
fn number_string_to_vec(input: &str) -> Vec {
let regex_number = Regex::new(r"\d+").unwrap();
let numbers: Vec = regex_number
.find_iter(input)
.filter_map(|m| m.as_str().parse().ok())
.collect();
numbers
}
you can use into_iter() instead of iter() to get owned data (if you're not going to use the original container again). With into_iter() you dont have to deref the values every time which is nice.
Also it's small potatoes, but calling input.lines().collect() allocates a vector (that isnt ever used again) when lines() returns an iterator that you can use directly. You can instead pass lines.next().unwrap() into your functions directly.
Strings have a method called split_whitespace() (also a split_ascii_whitespace()) that returns an iterator over tokens separated by any amount of whitespace. You can then call .collect() with a String turbofish (i'd type it out but lemmy's markdown is killing me) on that iterator. Iirc that ends up being faster because replacing characters with an empty character requires you to shift all the following characters backward each time.
Overall really clean code though. One of my favorite parts of using rust (and pain points of going back to other languages) is the crazy amount of helper functions for common operations on basic types.
Edit: oh yeah, also strings have a .parse() method to converts it to a number e.g. data.parse() where the parse takes a turbo fish of the numeric type. As always, turbofishes arent required if rust already knows the type of the variable it's being assigned to.
Thanks for making some time to check my code, really appreciated!
the split_whitespace is super useful, for some reason I expected it to just split on single spaces, so I was messing with trim() stuff the whole time :D. Could immediately apply this feedback to the Challenge of today! I've now created a general function I can use for these situations every time:
input.split_whitespace()
.map(|m| m.parse().expect("can't parse string to int"))
.collect()
}
A nice simple one today. And only a half second delay for part two instead of half an hour. What a treat. I could probably have nicer input parsing, but that seems to be the theme this year, so that will become a big focus of my next round through these I'm guessing. The algorithm here to get the winning possibilities could also probably be improved upon by figuring out what the number of seconds for the current record is, and only looping from there until hitting a number that doesn't win, as opposed to brute-forcing the whole loop.
// math.floor(i) == i if i.isWhole, but we want i-1
def hardFloor(d: Double): Long = (math.floor(math.nextAfter(d, Double.NegativeInfinity))).toLong
def hardCeil(d: Double): Long = (math.ceil(math.nextAfter(d, Double.PositiveInfinity))).toLong
def wins(t: Long, d: Long): Long =
val det = math.sqrt(t*t/4.0 - d)
val high = hardFloor(t/2.0 + det)
val low = hardCeil(t/2.0 - det)
(low to high).size
def task1(a: List[String]): Long =
def readLongs(s: String) = s.split(raw"\s+").drop(1).map(_.toLong)
a match
case List(s"Time: $time", s"Distance: $dist") => readLongs(time).zip(readLongs(dist)).map(wins).product
case _ => 0L
def task2(a: List[String]): Long =
def readLong(s: String) = s.replaceAll(raw"\s+", "").toLong
a match
case List(s"Time: $time", s"Distance: $dist") => wins(readLong(time), readLong(dist))
case _ => 0L
I spent a lot more time than necessary optimizing the count-ways-to-beat function, but I'm happy with the result. This is my first time using the | operator to flatten a list into function arguments.
edit: unfortunately, the lemmy web page is unable to properly display the source code in a code block. It doesn't display text enclosed in pointy brackets <>, perhaps it looks too much like HTML. View code on github.
Code
use v6;
sub MAIN($input) {
my $file = open $input;
grammar Records {
token TOP { "\n" "\n"* }
token times { "Time:" \s* +%\s+ }
token distances { "Distance:" \s* +%\s+ }
token num { \d+ }
}
my $records = Records.parse($file.slurp);
my $part-one-solution = 1;
for $recordsΒ».Int Z $recordsΒ».Int -> $record {
$part-one-solution *= count-ways-to-beat(|$record);
}
say "part 1: $part-one-solution";
my $kerned-time = $records.join.Int;
my $kerned-distance = $records.join.Int;
my $part-two-solution = count-ways-to-beat($kerned-time, $kerned-distance);
say "part 2: $part-two-solution";
}
sub count-ways-to-beat($time, $record-distance) {
# time = button + go
# distance = go * button
# 0 = go^2 - time * go + distance
# go = (time +/- sqrt(time**2 - 4*distance))/2
# don't think too hard:
# if odd t then t/2 = x.5,
# so sqrt(t**2-4*d)/2 = 2.3 => result = 4
# and sqrt(t**2-4*d)/2 = 2.5 => result = 6
# therefore result = 2 * (sqrt(t**2-4*d)/2 + 1/2).floor
# even t then t/2 = x.0
# so sqrt(t^2-4*d)/2 = 2.x => result = 4 + 1(shared) = 5
# therefore result = 2 * (sqrt(t^2-4*d)/2).floor + 1
# therefore result = 2 * ((sqrt(t**2-4*d)+t%2)/2).floor + 1 - t%2
# Note: sqrt produces a Num, so perhaps the result could be off by 1 or 2,
# but it solved my AoC inputs correctly π.
my $required-distance = $record-distance + 1;
return 2 * ((sqrt($time**2 - 4*$required-distance) + $time%2)/2).floor + 1 - $time%2;
}
Brute forced it, runs in 60 ms or so. Only shortcut is quitting the loop when the distance drops below the record. I didn't bother with the closed form solution here because a) it ran so fast and b) I was concerned about floats, rounding and off-by-one errors. Will probably implement it later!
function part1(input) {
const split = input.split("\n");
const times = split[0].match(/\d+/g).map((x) => parseInt(x));
const distances = split[1].match(/\d+/g).map((x) => parseInt(x));
let sum = 0;
for (let i = 0; i < times.length; i++) {
const time = times[i];
const recordDistance = distances[i];
let count = 0;
for (let j = 0; j < time; j++) {
const timePressed = j;
const remainingTime = time - j;
const travelledDistance = timePressed * remainingTime;
if (travelledDistance > recordDistance) {
count++;
}
}
if (sum == 0) {
sum = count;
} else {
sum = sum * count;
}
}
return sum;
}
Part 2
function part2(input) {
const split = input.split("\n");
const time = parseInt(split[0].split(":")[1].replace(/\s/g, ""));
const recordDistance = parseInt(split[1].split(":")[1].replace(/\s/g, ""));
let count = 0;
for (let j = 0; j < time; j++) {
const timePressed = j;
const remainingTime = time - j;
const travelledDistance = timePressed * remainingTime;
if (travelledDistance > recordDistance) {
count++;
}
}
return count;
}
Was a bit late with posting the solution thread and solving this since I ended up napping until 2am, if anyone notices theres no solution thread and its after the leaderboard has been filled (can check from the stats page if 100 people are done) feel free to start one up (I just copy paste the text in each of them)
That was so much better than yesterday. Went with algebra but looks like brute force would have worked.
python
import re
import argparse
import math
# i feel doing this with equations is probably the
# "fast" way.
# we can re-arange stuff so we only need to find the point
# the line crosses the 0 line
# distance is speed * (time less time holding the button (which is equal to speed)):
# -> d = v * (t - v)
# -> v^2 -vt +d = 0
# -> y=0 @ v = t +- sqrt( t^2 - 4d) / 2
def get_cross_points(time:int, distance:int) -> list | None:
pre_root = time**2 - (4 * distance)
if pre_root < 0:
# no solutions
return None
if pre_root == 0:
# one solution
return [(float(time)/2)]
sqroot = math.sqrt(pre_root)
v1 = (float(time) + sqroot)/2
v2 = (float(time) - sqroot)/2
return [v1,v2]
def float_pair_to_int_pair(a:float,b:float):
# if floats are equal to int value, then we need to add one to value
# as we are looking for values above 0 point
if a > b:
# lower a and up b
if a == int(a):
a -= 1
if b == int(b):
b += 1
return [math.floor(a),math.ceil(b)]
if a < b:
if a == int(a):
a += 1
if b == int(b):
b -= 1
return [math.floor(b),math.ceil(a)]
def main(line_list: list):
time_section,distance_section = line_list
if (args.part == 1):
time_list = filter(None , re.split(' +',time_section.split(':')[1]))
distance_list = filter(None , re.split(' +',distance_section.split(':')[1]))
games = list(zip(time_list,distance_list))
if (args.part == 2):
games = [ [time_section.replace(' ','').split(':')[1],distance_section.replace(' ','').split(':')[1]] ]
print (games)
total = 1
for t,d in games:
cross = get_cross_points(int(t),int(d))
cross_int = float_pair_to_int_pair(*cross)
print (cross_int)
total *= cross_int[0] - cross_int[1] +1
print(f"total: {total}")
if __name__ == "__main__":
parser = argparse.ArgumentParser(description="day 6 solver")
parser.add_argument("-input",type=str)
parser.add_argument("-part",type=int)
args = parser.parse_args()
filename = args.input
if filename == None:
parser.print_help()
exit(1)
file = open(filename,'r')
main([line.rstrip('\n') for line in file.readlines()])
file.close()
Not much to say... this was pretty straightforward.
def race(charge_time: int, total_time: int) -> int:
return charge_time * (total_time - charge_time)
def main(stream=sys.stdin) -> None:
times = [int(t) for t in stream.readline().split(':')[-1].split()]
distances = [int(d) for d in stream.readline().split(':')[-1].split()]
product = 1
for time, distance in zip(times, distances):
ways = [c for c in range(1, time + 1) if race(c, time) > distance]
product *= len(ways)
print(product)
Part 2
Probably could have done some math, but didn't need to :]
def race(charge_time: int, total_time: int):
return charge_time * (total_time - charge_time)
def main(stream=sys.stdin) -> None:
time = int(''.join(stream.readline().split(':')[-1].split()))
distance = int(''.join(stream.readline().split(':')[-1].split()))
ways = [c for c in range(1, time + 1) if race(c, time) > distance]
print(len(ways))
Yesterday, I decided to code in Tcl. That program is still running, i will go back to the day 5 post once it finishes :)
Today was super simple. My first attempt worked in both cases, where the hardest part was really switching my ints to long longs. Part 1 worked on first compile and part 2 I had to compile twice after I realized the data type needs. Still, that change was made by search and replace.
I guess today was meant to be a real time race to get first answer? This is like day 1 stuff! Still, I have kids and a job so I did not get to stay up until the problem was posted.
I used C++ because I thought something intense may be coming on the part 2 problem, and I was burned yesterday. It looks like I spent another fast language on nothing! I think I'll keep zig in the hole for the next number cruncher.
// File: day-6a.cpp
// Purpose: Solution to part of day 6 of advent of code in C++
// https://adventofcode.com/2023/day/6
// Author: Robert Lowe
// Date: 6 December 2023
#include
#include
#include
#include
std::vector parse_line()
{
std::string line;
std::size_t index;
int num;
std::vector result;
// set up the stream
std::getline(std::cin, line);
index = line.find(':');
std::istringstream is(line.substr(index+1));
while(is>>num) {
result.push_back(num);
}
return result;
}
int count_wins(int t, int d)
{
int count=0;
for(int i=1; i d) {
count++;
}
}
return count;
}
int main()
{
std::vector time;
std::vector dist;
int product=1;
// get the times and distances
time = parse_line();
dist = parse_line();
// count the total number of wins
for(auto titr=time.begin(), ditr=dist.begin(); titr!=time.end(); titr++, ditr++) {
product *= count_wins(*titr, *ditr);
}
std::cout << product << std::endl;
}
// File: day-6b.cpp
// Purpose: Solution to part 2 of day 6 of advent of code in C++
// https://adventofcode.com/2023/day/6
// Author: Robert Lowe
// Date: 6 December 2023
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
std::vector parse_line()
{
std::string line;
std::size_t index;
long long num;
std::vector result;
// set up the stream
std::getline(std::cin, line);
line.erase(std::remove_if(line.begin(), line.end(), isspace), line.end());
index = line.find(':');
std::istringstream is(line.substr(index+1));
while(is>>num) {
result.push_back(num);
}
return result;
}
long long count_wins(long long t, long long d)
{
long long count=0;
for(long long i=1; i d) {
count++;
}
}
return count;
}
int main()
{
std::vector time;
std::vector dist;
long long product=1;
// get the times and distances
time = parse_line();
dist = parse_line();
// count the total number of wins
for(auto titr=time.begin(), ditr=dist.begin(); titr!=time.end(); titr++, ditr++) {
product *= count_wins(*titr, *ditr);
}
std::cout << product << std::endl;
}
Not sure if it's the most optimal, but I figured it's probably quicker to calculate the first point when you start winning, and then reverse it to get the last point when you'll last win. Subtracting the two to get the total number of ways to win.
Takes about 3 seconds to run on the real input
Python Solution
class Race:
def __init__(self, time, distance):
self.time = time
self.distance = distance
def get_win(self, start, stop, step):
for i in range(start, stop, step):
if (self.time - i) * i > self.distance:
return i
def get_winners(self):
return (
self.get_win(0, self.time, 1),
self.get_win(self.time, 0, -1),
)
race = Race(71530, 940200)
winners = race.get_winners()
print(winners[1] - winners[0] + 1)
# part 1
times = input[0][5..].split.map &.to_i
dists = input[1][9..].split.map &.to_i
prod = 1
times.each_with_index do |time, i|
start, last = find_poss(time, dists[i])
prod *= last - start + 1
end
puts prod
# part 2
time = input[0][5..].chars.reject!(' ').join.to_i64
dist = input[1][9..].chars.reject!(' ').join.to_i64
start, last = find_poss(time, dist)
puts last - start + 1
def find_poss(time, dist)
start = 0
last = 0
(1...time).each do |acc_time|
if (time-acc_time)*acc_time > dist
start = acc_time
break
end end
(1...time).reverse_each do |acc_time|
if (time-acc_time)*acc_time > dist
last = acc_time
break
end end
{start, last}
end
This one was straightforward, especially since Lean's Floats are 64bits. There is one interesting piece in the solution though, and that's the function that combines two integers, which I wrote because I want to use the same parse function for both parts. This combineNumbers function is interesting, because it needs a proof of termination to make the Lean4 compiler happy. Or, in other words, the compiler needs to be told that if n is larger than 0, n/10 is a strictly smaller integer than n. That proof actually exists in Lean's standard library, but the compiler doesn't find it by itself. Supplying it is as easy as invoking the simp tactic with that proof, and a proof that n is larger than 0.
As with the previous days, I won't post the full source here, just the relevant parts.
The full solution is on github, including the main function of the program, that loads the input file and runs the solution.