Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Verify The Jackbot 10684 #251
Verify The Jackbot 10684 #251
Changes from 6 commits
889a2e1
1733020
bd16997
c62420e
11cca76
a1d3045
90ad9dd
d7c78db
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would say that it is not obvious that this function is computing the result we want it to compute. Therefore, we need to prove that this is indeed the case. One idea would be to do this as follows:
solve_naive(seq: &VecWrapperI32) -> i32
that solves the problem by using two nested loops (one loop checks all possible start positions of the subsequence, and the second one computes all possible sums that start at that position).solve_rec(seq, seq.len()) >= solve_naive(seq)
(it should be much easier to prove>=
than==
).Is it clear how to do that?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I will try to do it and see if I manage.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If you get any questions, please let me know.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Does this work with an
#[extern_spec]
implementation, like here?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Does
#[extern_spec]
allow adding a purelookup
function? (As far as I remember there were some serious problems with supporting theIndex
andIndexMut
traits.)There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I tried but I also couldn't find a way to support lookup.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah yes, you're right, the encoding panics when trying to call such a function. I suppose you could write a trusted wrapper only for the lookup function but then it's more messy.