17

Day 13: Claw Contraption

Megathread guidelines

  • 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)
  • You can send code in code blocks by using three backticks, the code, and then three backticks or use something such as https://topaz.github.io/paste/ if you prefer sending it through a URL

FAQ

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Acters@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Python

Execution time: ~<1 millisecond (800 microseconds on my machine)

Good old school linear algebra from middle school. we can solve this really really fast. With minimal changes from part 1!

FastCode[ paste ]

from time import perf_counter_ns
import string

def profiler(method):
    def wrapper_method(*args: any, **kwargs: any) -> any:
        start_time = perf_counter_ns()
        ret = method(*args, **kwargs)
        stop_time = perf_counter_ns() - start_time
        time_len = min(9, ((len(str(stop_time))-1)//3)*3)
        time_conversion = {9: 'seconds', 6: 'milliseconds', 3: 'microseconds', 0: 'nanoseconds'}
        print(f"Method {method.__name__} took : {stop_time / (10**time_len)} {time_conversion[time_len]}")
        return ret

    return wrapper_method

@profiler
def main(input_data):
    part1_total_cost = 0
    part2_total_cost = 0
    for machine in input_data:
        Ax,Ay,Bx,By,Px,Py = [ int(l[2:]) for l in machine.split() if l[-1] in string.digits ]
        y,r = divmod((Ay * Px - Ax * Py), (Ay * Bx - Ax * By))
        if r == 0:
            x,r = divmod(Px - Bx * y, Ax)
            if r == 0:
                part1_total_cost += 3*x + y
        y,r = divmod((Ay * (Px+10000000000000) - Ax * (Py+10000000000000)), (Ay * Bx - Ax * By))
        if r == 0:
            x,r = divmod((Px+10000000000000) - Bx * y, Ax)
            if r == 0:
                part2_total_cost += 3*x + y

    return part1_total_cost,part2_total_cost

if __name__ == "__main__":
    with open('input', 'r') as f:
        input_data = f.read().strip().replace(',', '').split('\n\n')
    part_one, part_two = main(input_data)
    print(f"Part 1: {part_one}\nPart 2: {part_two}")

[-] Sparrow_1029@programming.dev 2 points 1 week ago

This is a really excellent, clean solution! Would you mind breaking down how the piece of linear algebra works (for a shmo like me who doesn't remember that stuff frum school heh ๐Ÿ˜…)

[-] Acters@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

https://lemmy.world/comment/13950499

take the two equations, solve for y, and make sure y is fully divisible.

[-] hades@lemm.ee 2 points 1 week ago

It's interesting that you're not checking if the solution to x is a whole number. I guess the data doesn't contain any counterexamples.

[-] Acters@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

we are solving for y first. If there is a y then x is found easily.

(Ax)*x + (Bx)*y = Px and (Ay)*x + (By)*y = Py

Because of Ax or Ay and Bx or By, lets pretend that they are not (A*x)*x and (A*y)*y for both. they are just names. could be rewritten as: (Aleft)*x + (Bleft)*y = Pleft and (Aright)*x + (Bright)*y = Pright

but I will keep them short. solving for y turns into this:

y = (Ay*Px - Ax*Py) / (Ay*Bx - Ax*By)

if mod of 1 is equal to 0 then there is a solution. We can be confident that x is also a solution, too. Could there be an edge case? I didn't proof it, but it works flawlessly for my solution.

Thankfully, divmod does both division and mod of 1 at the same time.

[-] Sparrow_1029@programming.dev 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Thank you so much for your explanation! I kind of found some clues looking up perp dot products & other vector math things, but this breaks it down very nicely.

I implemented your solution in rust, and part 2 failed by +447,761,194,259 (this was using signed 64-bit integers, i64). When I changed it to use signed 64 bit floating-point f64 and checked that the solution for x produces a whole number it worked.

[-] Acters@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Did you run my python code as is? I would hope it works for everyone. though, I am unsure what the edge cases are, then.

[-] Sparrow_1029@programming.dev 1 points 1 week ago

I did run your code as-is in an ipython REPL to check. These were the results:

REPL session

# With unmodified `main` function & `import string` not shown
In [4]: with open("inputs/day13.txt", "r") as f:
   ...:     input_data = f.read().strip().replace(',', '').split('\n\n')
   ...:

In [5]: part_one, part_two = main(input_data)

In [6]: part_one
Out[6]: 39748

In [7]: part_two
Out[7]: 74926346266863

# Then I modified the function to check if x is fractional
In [8]: def main(input_data):
   ...:     part1_total_cost = 0
   ...:     part2_total_cost = 0
   ...:     for machine in input_data:
   ...:         Ax,Ay,Bx,By,Px,Py = [ int(l[2:]) for l in machine.split() if l[-1] in string.digits ]
   ...:         y,r = divmod((Ay * Px - Ax * Py), (Ay * Bx - Ax * By))
   ...:         if r == 0:
   ...:             x = (Px - Bx * y) / Ax
   ...:             if x % 1 == 0:
   ...:                 part1_total_cost += 3*x + y
   ...:         y,r = divmod((Ay * (Px+10000000000000) - Ax * (Py+10000000000000)), (Ay * Bx - Ax * By))
   ...:         if r == 0:
   ...:             x = ((Px+10000000000000) - Bx * y) / Ax
   ...:             if x % 1 == 0:
   ...:                 part2_total_cost += 3*x + y
   ...:
   ...:     return part1_total_cost,part2_total_cost
   ...:

In [9]: part_one, part_two = main(input_data)

In [10]: part_one
Out[10]: 39748.0

In [11]: part_two
Out[11]: 74478585072604.0  # Correct answer for pt 2 of my input

If you're curious to check against my puzzle input, it's here

Thank you again for the back & forth, and for sharing your solution!

[-] Acters@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

there is exactly ONE "machine" that causes your result to be incorrect. ONLY for part 2.

Button A: X+67, Y+67
Button B: X+16, Y+73
Prize: X=4877, Y=7214

I see now what your corner case causes. so when my script solves for y first. it will be exact. BUT when you solve for x, it will be not divisible... makes sense now. I didn't expect this. This only occurs because of part 2! so dastardly. well, that was interesting. I guess I am forced to add that extra check... rip those microsecond gains.

[-] Sparrow_1029@programming.dev 1 points 1 week ago

Ooh that is tricky of them. Good catch!

[-] VegOwOtenks@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

They do, if the remainder returned by divmod(...) wasn't zero then it wouldn't be divisble

[-] Acters@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

you are right, we solve for y, but I am confident that solving for x after y would yield the correct result as long as y is fully divisible.

this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2024
17 points (90.5% liked)

Advent Of Code

920 readers
25 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 2024

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

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