I can confirm that I had a lot of issues with wuhudsm during my time as CodeChef Head Admin. One of those issues, which was not the focus here although you can see it in screenshots regarding problem proposals and errorgorn's first comments to them: wuhudsm seem to think that vague idea of what the problem might be about, without limitations or intended solution is already a good enough thing to propose. I guess the idea is that the coordinators will figure out what to do next with this half-baked idea, maybe they will come up with an interesting solution or mend the idea into actually being a problem one can solve and therefore wuhudsm can use in a contest as author.

I understand that coming up with problems is not an exact science and one of the valid methods is to throw shit against the wall and see what sticks, then mend and form it to make a problem. The issue is that the person doing the mending should be yourself, or maybe your collaborators. Not the coordinator. It is not the coordinator's job to actually come up with a problem for you. Yes, sometimes they do this and you should be grateful, but you shouldn't make it the norm.

There was (or maybe still is, I'm too old to remember) a trend when authors posted how many problems were rejected to make their round. And it was supposed to be "the higher that number is — the better". I don't understand the logic here. The only thing a high number proves is that your internal bar for "the problem I'm not ashamed to show the coordinator" is waaaay too low. wuhudsm decided to go even further and send "not a problem"s to coordinators (plural). I guess it kinda makes sense to send it to several coordinators at the same time because it increases the probability that one of them will come up with an actual problem while looking at the shit you sent.

I was very surprised when I saw that wuhudsm is setting CF rounds, while also maintaining "The Forces" community whatever the fuck that is and people seem to like his problems and be thankful for his contribution. I thought "maybe he got better" but I guess he just doubled down on his shitty behaviour and found targets that are kinder than me (not a dig at current CF/CC coordinators, nothing wrong with being nice to potential problemsetters).

I'm really glad that errorgorn was brave enough to publicly talk about this situation. I think we would all benefit from having better insight into coordinators' work. It is not an easy side gig, and a good coordinator is the thing that separates good rounds from bad.

We are carefully looking into the situation and will inform you when we make a decision.

Psychotic_D was taking a session on problem-setting day before yesterday. While he was entering Polygon, one could see several CF alt accounts auto saved. Fortunately, I took a note of that and found EndlessDreams's account was also saved by him. Here is the image supporting my claim.

That's racist. If someone from a country is a cheater it doesn't give you any information about other citizens of that country.

After went through the post and the comments(including the explanation wuhudsm wrote). My summary is that wuhudsm had a wrong understanding about that coordinator has the authority to compose the problems into a contest instead of the writer himself. I think errorgorn was right to point this out and now making wuhudsm on the same page. This reduces the chaos in the future.

Actually I'd also like to point out that wuhudsm did a great job on creating interesting problems on many platforms. I've partipated Codeforces, Codechef, TheForces rounds authored by him. I've also been a tester of his round like 960. I want to say that a productive writer like him is making the community better and better.

As long as they are on the page, I would suggest we give wuhudsm more chance to grow and improve instead of criticize on the mistakes.

As a lot of comments above me have already said, the fourth submission pair you provided in this blog is a good evidence for the claim you are making. I hope that someone with appropriate power will take action soon.

I am writing this comment in response to this:

Please correct me where I am wrong and help me in making him pay for his actions.

I believe the elephant in the room that we need to address in these "exposing cheaters" blogs is the fact that the blog doesn't immediately go to its main points, which takes more of HQ's time to process and take action.

To me, the important pieces of information in this blog are:

• The submission timing screenshots.
• The evidence you present: the submission pairs.
• Probably, to an extent, the group you believe the cheater is part of.

The other parts aren't necessary for HQ or other relevant people to take action, are they?

The more irrelevant information you include, the less credible your blog becomes, and the less people want to believe your evidence. I would really appreciate it if "exposing cheater" blogs were straight to the point, presenting the objective facts on why the person is cheating, not filled with other unnecessary information merely to attract attention.

Codeforces lore going wild. Can't wait for season 2.

It seems that it's your alt account.

I'm afraid your financial future looks bleak my man.

Of course, one can disagree on the definition of "very useful topic". But I agree that all the listed topics are useful, especially the Lucas Theorem which I used dozens of times which is unheard of for such a seemingly niche thing.

This is how you properly investigate. Not the random personal garbage in the previous threads.

As a tester, I wish good luck to participants!

This is the real "Catching the mole"!

thinking that cheaters are the reason you aren't high rated is a cope to avoid confronting the fact that you need to improve at cp

Is he a tester?

bad B2!

Since i was hosting this session, i can confirm this Screenshot is true. Sad to read this. But from his skills i am not really sure is he cheating or not... cause not everyone can explain problem setting etc if they are not decently pro.

The live scoreboard is finally up! https://scoreboard.egoi23.se/scoreboard_2024.html

Heyo, for those who are reading this, I highly recommend you to participate in Codechef Starters 144. Even though I was never a big fan of CodeChef contests, I watched satyam343 pour his heart, sweat, soul and tears into the contest. Even if you don't usually do CodeChef, you should totally make an exception just this once!

MikeMirzayanov

As a tester again, I tested today.

That is a damn good investigation bro.

It only proves he is not totally incompetent

His true skill might be of CM, Master or even IM as he is currently. However, it is true that he used false means to get here regardless of whether its his true skill or not.

B2 with 500 pts is just not worthy doing... To many cases make it not beautiful.(in my algo) And C is mostly a Elementary mathematics prob.

I don't like math :(

You have a nice storytelling style. Can’t wait for part 3!

nice cat

ICPC

Screencast with commentary

The link is broken. My friend saved it before it vanished so I reuploaded it.

i said the evidence was bad, not that he didnt cheat (in fact if you take a look at my messages, you will see that i wrote I myself find it suspicious)

I also tagged mike in the previous to previous blog where there was actual evidence. I care only about the truth and I repeat i am not a friend of his. https://codeforces.com/blog/entry/131781#comment-1173618

Bro really tried to play 4d chess but ended up getting mated himself.

In C if $$$a_i$$$ is turned into $$$\text{log}$$$ $$$a_i$$$, it's the same problem as 1883E - Look Back.

No, because these trees grow upside down!

thank you for giving me such a special experience of eating s**t.

I hope defnotmee will be joining the FBI shortly.

Problem D is just a copycat of this problem: https://acmp.ru/index.asp?main=task&id_task=884

Simply copy pasted my old code and got AC in 10 mins, dislike for testers.

B was pretty bad imho. Why did B2 have so less points? It was much harder than B1

Is cat an official problem setter?

Thanks, you just made me rich.

In conventional math typesetting, \ldots ($$$\ldots$$$) and \cdots ($$$\cdots$$$) are used differently in the following manner:

• \ldots is used within an enumeration. a_1, a_2, \ldots, a_n: $$$a_1, a_2, \ldots, a_n$$$.
• \cdots is used between operators. a_1 + a_2 + \cdots + a_n: $$$a_1 + a_2 + \cdots + a_n$$$.

\dots is a variant that automatically detects these two usage patterns and becomes \ldots or \cdots accordingly. Here are \dots versions of the above examples:

• a_1, a_2, \dots, a_n: $$$a_1, a_2, \dots, a_n$$$,
• a_1 + a_2 + \dots + a_n: $$$a_1 + a_2 + \dots + a_n$$$.

You going to ICPC proves nothing. And btw different colleges have different criteria so, many tier-1 colleges like IITs, BITS, NITs have multiple team participating so they tend to select their top teams even though they are above the cutoff and many tier-3 colleges like yours have very few teams participating so to diversify different colleges participating they select many colleges that are way below the rankings of many tier-1 bottom teams.

Dont boast just because you are selected for regionals. for all we care you could have cheated your way like him.

It was an online contest after all.

If you cant support then please keep your opinion to yourself if you cant understand the proofs given.

I've always wanted to know why most people who catch cheaters seem to write blogs that are barely coherent, disorganized messes.

Please give some easy and good questions :)

Big fan btw :)

As a tester

worst contest last time

Firstly, ICPC rankings are given to teams, not to individuals.(The fourth highest rated person from the same college as him has gotten plagiarized on Codechef and has multiple skipped submissions on codeforces but still his team did extremely well at ICPC Regionals, for instance).

Secondly, This is just way too much evidence for someone to be innocent imo.

I guess that depends on the definition of cheating. I wouldn't say I cheated, but I definitely (accidentally) helped other people cheat.

we will never know who has the best cheating practices

Now Dhurvil is caught red-handed. I urge the ban of these cheaters from CF and ban their IP address so that they may not form new accounts.

MikeMirzayanov KAN Dominater069 acraider Priyansh31dec lookcook pkhaustov

Lmao he just changed pair to 2d dp .How tf did it survive plag check

An insignificant addition but I always write algorithmic complexity as \mathcal{O}(N) $$$\mathcal{O}(N)$$$ instead of just O(N) $$$O(N)$$$ purely for aesthetic reasons.

Note that to view the difference properly you might want to change your math renderer into "Common HTML" or "SVG" (you can do it by right-clicking a LaTeX formula):

satyam343 Orz

As a tester, I wish good luck to every participant!

I agree with you that these behaviors are not professional and need to be fixed.

But we had to see that these behaviors are not initiated from evil purposes (IMO evil purposes here are something like cheat to get high rated or screw up a contest). I believe that he wants the community to be better.

Just give him some time to grow up and to be more professional.

I have not been contacted about the cash prize. Should I just wait, or?

$$$n \le 18$$$ $$$O(2^n n^2)$$$

$$$n \le 20$$$ $$$O(2^n n)$$$ (иногда $$$n^2$$$)

$$$n \le 100$$$ $$$O(n^4)$$$

$$$n \le 500-800$$$ $$$O(n^3)$$$

$$$n \le 1000-4000$$$ $$$O(n^2 log n)$$$

$$$n \le 5000-10000$$$ $$$O(n^2)$$$ иногда нельзя $$$O(n^2)$$$ памяти

$$$n \le 5 \cdot 10^4$$$ $$$O(n \sqrt{n} log n)$$$

$$$n \le 10^5$$$ $$$O(n \sqrt{n})$$$ или $$$O(n log^2 n)$$$

$$$n \le 2 \cdot 10^5$$$ $$$O(n \sqrt{n})$$$ или $$$O(n log^2 n)$$$

$$$n \le 4-5 \cdot 10^5$$$ (или до $$$10^6$$$) $$$O(n logn)$$$

Это примерно что часто бывает на ограничениях по $$$n$$$, но это лишь очень примерные асимптотики и далеко не всегда совпадают с решением, это скорее к чему стоит стремиться.

Ещё бывают ограничения на другие числа в задаче, часто это $$$\le n$$$, $$$\le 10^6$$$, $$$\le 10^9$$$, $$$\le 10^{12}$$$, $$$\le 10^{18}$$$, иногда это тоже важно

Disagree with this opinion: don't set problems like this again.

This problem('s statement) is much more beautiful than that (even if i am a Chinese, i still think the problem you mentioned is too complex for me to appreciate).

And most of all, this is an atcoder BEGINNER contest (I do agree with that on a ARC or AGC original-idea-problem is important), reusing some beautiful ideas should be encouraged: If evan ABC could not introduce this one, how people around the world could know it.

Bravo.

I think \times is also a good choice: $$$2\times 4$$$.

I think we shouldn't use program language in math formula: $$$a=a+1$$$ or $$$a\gets a+1$$$ a\gets a+1?

I think we should use a\pmod b=c $$$a\bmod b=c$$$ instead of a\mod b=c $$$a\mod b=c$$$, and use a\equiv b\pmod c $$$a\equiv b\pmod c$$$ instead of other strange ways.

GCD has it's \gcd $$$\gcd$$$, LCM doesn't. But LCM has \operatorname{lcm} $$$\operatorname{lcm}$$$ though looks no difference from \text{lcm} $$$\text{lcm}$$$.

As a multiple time contributor of TheForces, I notice that I also faced the same situation with 1936E.
Saw this post and reviewing some testing contests and DMs with him, I notice that I have seen the problem(luckily, in there $$$n \le 6000$$$ and during actual contest I can't reach problem D1E), but I wasn't said to stop to participate the round officially.

I like his problem and want to help the community, but according to current things around the community, I shouldn't too trust random people. Shame on me...

MathForces

To make a few things clear:

As the founder of TheForces I swear that we've not shared any solutions during any official contests from any platform, to make sure that we're not a big cheating group, you can ask the trusted testers of codeforces who have been TheForces members for a long time.

I'm also shocked now because I didn't know this amount of cheating between some of our moderators, I'll make everything clear asap.

brother you set a round with a cheater who thought $$$2^{100}$$$ fits in long long and you're saying he is "so talented" and "I know their skills so well".

when is this charade going to end

after a contest, about half of the participants wish they had employed this strategy

A pedantic $$$TeX$$$ nician here...

For math operators like lcm, I suggest using \mathop{\mathrm{lcm}}, because it gives a better spacing control than just \text{lcm}, and also it works as a big operator, like: $$$\displaystyle \mathop{\mathrm{lcm}}_{k=1}^{n} a_k$$$ (\gcd also works as a big operator, so my definition provides feature parity with \gcd). [UPD: Also look at the post about \operatorname below.]

In the case of mod, using \pmod as a binary operator may not be a best choice, because \pmod is originally meant for your latter usage (parenthesized modulo). I think \mathbin{\mathrm{mod}} is more appropriate when it's used as a binary operator ($$$a \mathbin{\mathrm{mod}} b$$$), or maybe \mathbin{\%} looks even better: $$$a \mathbin{\%} b$$$. [UPD: Also look at the post mentioning \bmod below.]

For $$$\times$$$, I would avoid using it except for the matrix dimension (like "an $$$n \times m$$$ matrix"), because avoiding $$$\times$$$ and $$$\div$$$ is mostly a convention in math typesetting (except for elementary school textbooks), but I admit this is largely a matter of taste.

I have provided some evidence and clues to the CF administrator this afternoon(it is UTC+8 here). I sincerely hope that everyone will not hastily draw conclusions and wait for the official results.

blud tried to cook the contest, but at the end he got cooked himself

searching up tourist is crazy

what in the facebook is this bruh

Rare occurrence when I lost any remaining will to solve problems in a contest

See you again never

What are the score distributions?

Spreading awareness about shitty behaviour is not bullying.

увы нет, ведь можно использовать абсолютно идентичную идею

только вместо дерева Фенвика используется дерево отрезков

finally satyam343 round

Have you provided for or against?

I thought this idea was really neat, so I decided to write my own implementation of it with some comments to make it accessible. Thanks for sharing! 271969422 O(n) per test case

As a tester, the problems were really nice 👍

Psychotic_D do you remember something?

"It's easy to bypass MOSS, I think.

Someday (today) cheaters will know they don't have to share codes, sharing ideas is enough."

The submissions look awfully suspicious. I urge codeforces to look into it. MikeMirzayanov

OMG ORZ satyam343 I AM YOUR BIGGEST FAN

As not a tester, I hope I get +3 delta

First of all, having alternate accounts is against the rules. Second, my claim is that Psychotic_D and EndlessDreams are two different people sharing codes. That is even more agains the rules.

Interesting scoring distributuion

It's not DP, just brute force.

Wrong question. Geothermal how much did you pay?

As a tester, this is my first contest as a tester, I wish luck for participants!

Scoring distribution when??

Please don't FST, please don't FST

why even make problem like C?

slowing down use of double for TL really make problem little bit fancy?

Strange score distribution... B1 shoule be 500 and B2 deserves 1000.

It decreases my and thousands of other Indian's motivation seeing this cheater becoming International Master, Please ban him for the sake of codeforces.

Problems are only used for a specific small group of people who can be considered as testers.Also this contest is not publicly available

I think it's just to attract attention. The previous two blogs had sprinkled in additional personal information, which was enough to keep people commenting about that information due to some parties feeling offended.

They must've thought that it must be hard to not notice a blog getting hundreds of comments, even if those comments are irrelevant to the actual cheating evidence and more about the cheater's background.

I've got absolutely no reason to trust any of your words. I wouldn't be surprised if tomorrow someone carefully looks through your submissions and finds out that you are a cheater too. If I set problems with someone, I can clearly determine if this person corresponds to their rating or not. Those people are cheaters and definitely not talented in any way. You should've noticed that for sure.