79fb03f4 test is unsolvable, water flow
Closed this issue · 5 comments
Problem
My first prediction
My reasoning.
- It seems water can flow backwards into holes. maybe water can flow forward into a hole.
My second prediction
My reasoning.
- Guide the water above the hole obstacle, without sending any water below the obstacle.
At this point I looked at what was the expected result.
Expected
I'm quite surprised to see that the water flows into the hole. But not around the entire structure. It seems like a mistake.
There is no example among the train pairs, that shows this behavior.
Solution
Tweak one of the train pairs, so it demonstrates what to do in similar scenarios.
It's true, the train pairs do not train for this specific situation, and it seems very difficult. I solved it the first try. The key to solving it is not overthinking what is happening. There are very few things that the "water" actually does. Because it splits around a "stone", it can then do two things... until it passes said stone. After which, it needs to continue, immediately in line with the obstacle, as a single stream. The area in question is very concerning, but only if you get carried away with your narrative. I know that last statement doesn't help. It is 100% solvable. Try thinking more "simply."
AGI enthusiasts bonus for being gihub-savvy: note the use of "water" and "stone," something most adults have experience with (I grew up in a forest). How can one possibly help a machine relate to these "naturally human" ideas? Answer that question, and your code might do quite well! Hint: Grab a billion photos of hillside creeks from the world wide web... not!
That said, example 5 output is quite incorrect. The middle stone has its flow blocked, and it should only continue after the upper and lower stone. It definitely should not be flowing back uphill. I would love to be corrected.
If there are these tiny errors in the examples, someone (or some thing...) attempting to use every detail of every example will fail. As a human, I simply ignored the complexity of 5 output. But after further thought ("Agua...") I want back to the crime scene and sure enough, the wrongness is apparent. --
Since it is solvable, then the 5 output must be incorrect. Otherwise, @neoneye's "if it can flow uphill" comment would totally hold. It's one or the other, and I'd put my money on "bad example." Anyone else solve this and feel that 5 output is OK?
(sigh) on much more careful examination, example 4 output shows precisely what should happen. The flow is just blocked on one side, and it does a "half stream" process on the other side. example 4 proves example 5 is incorrect.
suggested edit of example 5 output...
...or leave it! Humans make mistakes all the time, and other humans (granted, not all other humans) can usually work around those mistakes. If you want truly G AGI, it would have to be able to navigate an imperfect world!!!
"Thanks for the workout..." -Bruce Lee
Thanks for the reports. I issued a fix for this task (live at HEAD).