12
☃️ - 2023 DAY 11 SOLUTIONS - ☃️
(programming.dev)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2023
12 points (80.0% liked)
Advent Of Code
736 readers
1 users here now
An unofficial home for the advent of code community on programming.dev!
Advent of Code is an annual Advent calendar of small programming puzzles for a variety of skill sets and skill levels that can be solved in any programming language you like.
AoC 2023
Solution Threads
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 |
Rules/Guidelines
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep all content related to advent of code in some way
- If what youre posting relates to a day, put in brackets the year and then day number in front of the post title (e.g. [2023 Day 10])
- When an event is running, keep solutions in the solution megathread to avoid the community getting spammed with posts
Relevant Communities
Relevant Links
Credits
Icon base by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient
console.log('Hello World')
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Man this one frustrated me because of a subtle difference in the wording of part 1 vs part 2. I had the correct logic from the start, but with an off-by-one error because of my interpretation of the wording. Part 1 says, "any rows or columns that contain no galaxies should all actually be twice as big" while part 2 says, "each empty column should be replaced with
1000000empty columns".I added 1 column/row in part
1, and1_000_000in part 2. But if you're replacing an empty column with1_000_000, you're actually adding999_999columns. It took me a good hour to discover where that off-by-one error was coming from.Yepp, this one got me as well! I found the discrepancy when testing against the sample through, which showed the result for a factor 100 (which needed to be 99). Knowing the correct outcome made debugging a lot easier.
I always make sure my solution passes all the samples before trying the full input.
Me too. I ran all the samples, and I was still banging my head. I can usually see the mistake if it's an off-by-one error in a calculation, but this was a mistake in reading the problem description, so I couldn't see it at first.
Yeah the descriptions contain a lot of story fluff, but also critical bits of information.