Advent of Code

Advent of Code 2024 – Day 01 – Historian Hysteria

Apparently I only attempt do Advent of Code every other year.  I had this vague thought about doing this thing in JavaScript this year, but considering I am way better at Python than JS, and I have yet to actually complete one of these 100%, i should stick with what am good-ish at.  

The early day are always stupid easy.  It’s usually around halfway they have some super goofy and hard problem that I get stuck on.  The main change this year is doing it through the Bash terminal.  Though I think I did it this way in 2020.  I may swap later, who knows.  The only real annoyance is opening and closing files to test run.

I also have not done a lot of coding in a while, so I had to search up on how to do a few things.  It was a good starter scenario though, it used a lot of things I have forgotten.

I don’t do anything super fancy with my code on these, I have seen some annoyingly unreadable one liners a few times.  I always prefer clean code.  The thing runs in essentially zero time anyway, I don’t need to be “milliseconds more efficient”.

Anyway, here is my solution for part 1 and 2 of Day 1.

with open("Day01Input.txt") as file:
    data = file.read()

sets = [each.split(" ") for each in data.split("\n")]
sets.pop()

list1 = []
list2 = []

for each in sets:
   list1.append(int(each[0]))
   list2.append(int(each[1]))

list1.sort()
list2.sort()

total = 0
total2 = 0
for i in range(len(list1)):
    total += abs(list1[i]-list2[i])
    total2 += list1[i]*list2.count(list1[i])

print(total)
print(total2)

Advent of Code 2022, I’m Done

Well, I made it farther than my last “in real time attempt” in 2020 by 3 starts. I may check in one the puzzles each day, but my experience is, they only get more complex as time goes on, so I doubt I’ll be completing any more of them. Each day is starting to take a lot more time to solve out, the solutions are getting a lot more finicky to produce. We’ve also reached the point where the puzzle inputs also feel ridiculously obtuse. Like the Day 15 puzzle, where every number was in the millions, basically, for the only purpose of making everything slow without some sort of magic reduction math. Though skimming through other’s solutions, there didn’t seem to really BE any “magic reduction” option there. \

Which is fine. It’s not supposed to be easy. I don’t expect it to be easy.

But I have long ago accepted that things I’m doing for relaxation or enjoyment, should at least be relaxing and enjoyable. And These puzzles have reached a point where the amount of enjoyment and relaxation I get from them is no longer worthwhile.

So I’m choosing to end this year’s journey here.

Maybe I’ll go back and finish them some day, but more at my own leisure. I mean, I had started doing the old 2015 puzzles in the week leading up to this year’s event. I was never doing this in any attempt to get on the leader boards or anything anyway, hell I didn’t even start most day’s puzzles until the day was half over or later.

For what it’s worth, i did make a strong attempt on Day 15 but I just could not get it to output the correct answer, and I’m not real sure why. I couldn’t even get the sample input to work out, I was always one off. It’s possible, and likely, I was counting the space where the beacon existed, but my actual input data was off by a little over 1 million, and there are not 1 million beacons on the board. Plus it was 1 million under, where my sample input solution was 1 over.

I’m not even attempting today’s, for Day 16. I can see the logic needed, but the nuance to accomplish it will just take me too long to code out and like I said above, enjoyment and relaxation is the point. I don’t need to add hours of stress to my day.

Advent of Code 2022, Day 14

Man, I really enjoyed today’s puzzle. Like, a lot. I think because it kind of felt like a game level, and probably also because it’s fluid dynamics and I am totally into Physics and Engineering shit.

For the “Plot” you enter into a cave and discover a cavern with sand falling from the ceiling. The sand accumulates in a pile and “flows” around based on some simple left then right rules. This problem consisted of a few separate but connected steps.

Step one, create an empty “cave”. This was simple enough, especially now that I remember how stupid lists are. Last time I needed to make a grid, I was appending a list and it turns out that Python doesn’t actually copy lists unless you explicitly ask it to. Which is frankly, “Fucking Stupid”. But whatever, list.copy() works too.

Step 2, draw the rocks from the input file. Each line consists of a start note, then a series of connected dots to the end point of a line of rocks.

Step 3, was to pour the sand. Which involves dropping a “chunk” of sand, down until it hits the floor, then flowing it left or right to fill an area. Once the sand starts falling off, then display the count of the total chunks. If I were more clever about my code, I could build a sweet little ASCII animation of each step, but I probably won’t anytime soon because well, I have other things I need to do too.

Part 2 modifies this, by adding a floor, instead of counting the amount of sand until it fills, and falls into the abyss below, now you count until it fills then fills all the way back to the top. This actually screwed me up a bit.

The coordinates given are all large, like, in the 500 range. In order to make my rock formation manageable, I had cut these down by the min max values so the cave was not much wider than the rock formation. The problem is, now I need to accumulate a pile across the floor, so I need the width. Like, a LOT of width. So I had to modify my code all over to bring the width back to my cave matrix.

The code works for Part 1 and Part 2 at once. Basically, it finishes Part 1, like normal, display the output count, and, just for fun, an ASCII image of the filled rocks, then, it just, starts a fresh, slightly modified loop. For the modified loop, the break for “falling off” is removed. Instead, it checks to see if it can move, and if it can’t, before placing the sand block, it verifies if it moved at all by comparing it’s position to the start position. If it hasn’t moved, it breaks the loop, prints the filled screen, and the sand count total.

import math

with open("Day14Input.txt") as file:
    data = file.read()

lines = data.split('\n')

def draw_cave(lx, ly):
    grid = []
    line = []
    floor = []
    for i in range(0,lx*2):
        line.append(".")
    for j in range(0,ly+2):
        grid.append(line.copy())
    for i in range(0, lx * 2):
        floor.append("#")
    grid.append(floor)
    return grid

def draw_rocks(rocks,cave):
    for rockline in rocks:
        for i in range(len(rockline)-1):
            startx = int(rockline[i][0])
            starty = int(rockline[i][1])
            endx = int(rockline[i+1][0])
            endy = int(rockline[i+1][1])
            if starty == endy:
                xrange = sorted([startx, endx])
                for horiz in range(xrange[0],xrange[1]+1):
                    cave[starty][horiz] = "#"
            if startx == endx:
                yrange = sorted([starty, endy])
                for vert in range(yrange[0], yrange[1]+1):
                    cave[vert][startx] = "#"
    return cave

def show_cave():
    for i in cave:
        print(" ".join(i))

smallest_x = 100000
smallest_y = 100000
largest_x = -1
largest_y = -1
rocks = []
for line in lines:
    sets = line.split(" -> ")
    r = []
    for n in sets:
        nsplit = n.split(",")
        if int(nsplit[0]) < smallest_x:
            smallest_x = int(nsplit[0])
        if int(nsplit[1]) < smallest_y:
            smallest_y = int(nsplit[1])
        if int(nsplit[0]) > largest_x:
            largest_x = int(nsplit[0])
        if int(nsplit[1]) > largest_y:
            largest_y = int(nsplit[1])
        r.append(n.split(","))
    rocks.append(r)

# print(f"{smallest_x} {largest_x} | {smallest_y} {largest_y}")
# print(rocks)

cave = draw_cave(largest_x,largest_y)
# show_cave()
rocky_cave = draw_rocks(rocks,cave)

sand_start = 500
rocky_cave[0][sand_start] = "+"

captured = True
sand_count = 0
while captured:
    sand_pos = [0,sand_start]

    sand_drop = True
    while sand_drop:
        if sand_pos[0] > len(rocky_cave)-3:
            captured = False
            sand_drop = False
        elif rocky_cave[sand_pos[0]+1][sand_pos[1]] == ".":
            sand_pos[0] += 1
        elif rocky_cave[sand_pos[0]+1][sand_pos[1]-1] == ".":
                sand_pos[0] += 1
                sand_pos[1] -= 1
        elif rocky_cave[sand_pos[0]+1][sand_pos[1]+1] == ".":
                sand_pos[0] += 1
                sand_pos[1] += 1
        else:
            sand_count+=1
            rocky_cave[sand_pos[0]][sand_pos[1]] = "O"
            sand_drop = False

    # show_cave()

print(sand_count)
show_cave()
# Part 1 = 728

#### RESUME FOR PART 2 #####
captured = True
while captured:
    sand_pos = [0,sand_start]

    sand_drop = True
    while sand_drop:
        if sand_pos[0] > len(rocky_cave)-1:
            captured = False
            sand_drop = False
        elif rocky_cave[sand_pos[0]+1][sand_pos[1]] == ".":
            sand_pos[0] += 1
        elif rocky_cave[sand_pos[0]+1][sand_pos[1]-1] == ".":
                sand_pos[0] += 1
                sand_pos[1] -= 1
        elif rocky_cave[sand_pos[0]+1][sand_pos[1]+1] == ".":
                sand_pos[0] += 1
                sand_pos[1] += 1
        else:
            if sand_pos == [0,sand_start]:
                captured = False
            else:
                rocky_cave[sand_pos[0]][sand_pos[1]] = "O"
            sand_count+=1
            sand_drop = False

print(sand_count)

show_cave()
# Part 2 = 27623

Advent of Code 2022, Day 13

Have I ever mentioned before how much I hate Recursion?

So, I feel like I mentioned on a previous Advent of Code post, half the problem of these puzzles is figuring out how to massage the input. Which I started to work with until I found the eval() function, which I don’t recall using before. But it basically will take something like a string that looks like a list, say, “[2,[4,5,6]]” and make it into a list of lists. Which solved the first problem I had.

Then there was the checks itself. The puzzle was a series of lists full of lists and integers, that needed to be sorted based on some criteria. It basically amounts to a series of if checks, if the data is a list or an int and what to do, if the lengths are the same or different, if one value is larger than the other. Except it can be lists in lists, hence the need for recursion. I felt like I was really close, but then scrapped that for a new approach. Then I got stuck again, then I realized I needed to loop through the internal list. Everything eventually lined up for part 1 nicely.

On to Part 2. Which basically amounts to, using the algorithm on the entire list, instead of just pairs.

I was actually a bit disappointed because I was sure I had come up with a clever way to solve this without the sorting algorithm. I left it in the code, but it’s not used. Here it is anyway.

## Not Used But This really feels like it should have worked.
def decoder(decode_list):
    new_list = []
    for each in decode_list:
        each = each.replace("[]", "0")
        each = each.replace("[", "")
        each = each.replace("]", "")
        each = each.replace(",", "")
        new_list.append(int(each[0]))
    new_list.sort()
    print(new_list)
    print((new_list.index(6)+1)*(new_list.index(2)+1))

The idea was, that I would flatten each list out to an integer, then sort the data that way. The target values needed were simply, 2 and 6. The initial sort put 2 and 6 at basically positions 2 and 6. because 2 is less than 200 when sorting. So it dawned on me, that 2 and 6, would always be the “first” at the “start of the 2s” and “start of the 6s”. So the I just added the first digit to the list, then sorted that, and took the first 2 and first 6. And it still didn’t work.

Figures it wouldn’t be that simple.

While contemplating using nested for loops, I decided to check some other solutions, and found something I had not used before, “cmp_to_key”. After reading up on it, it seems it can be used with the sort function to generate sorts based on a key value returned from a function.

So I modified my sort unction to use +1, -1, and 0 instead of True and False.

Aaaaand, it still didn’t sort, it wasn’t sorting. I had forgotten that I needed to use eval() on each entry, to turn it into Lists instead of Strings. My sort wasn’t working because it doesn’t work on Strings. So I corrected that and bam! Working.

from functools import cmp_to_key

with open("Day13Input.txt") as file:
    data = file.read()

split_data = data.split("\n\n")
decode_data = []
for line in data.replace("\n\n", "\n").split("\n"):
    decode_data.append(eval(line))

def compare_lists(left,right):
    # print(left)
    # print(right)

    if isinstance(left, int) and isinstance(right, int):
        # print(f"{left} {right}")
        if left < right:
            return 1
        elif left > right:
            return -1
        return 0

    if isinstance(left, list) and isinstance(right, list):
        for value in range(min(len(left), len(right))):
            check_value = (compare_lists(left[value], right[value]))
            # print(f"{left[value]} {right[value]}")
            # print(check_value)
            if check_value != 0:
                return check_value

        if len(left) < len(right):
            return 1
        elif len(left) > len(right):
            return -1
    if isinstance(left, int) and isinstance(right, list):
        return compare_lists([left], right)
    if isinstance(left, list) and isinstance(right, int):
        return compare_lists(left, [right])

    return 0

## Not Used But This really feels like it should have worked.
def decoder(decode_list):
    new_list = []
    for each in decode_list:
        each = each.replace("[]", "0")
        each = each.replace("[", "")
        each = each.replace("]", "")
        each = each.replace(",", "")
        new_list.append(int(each[0]))
    new_list.sort()
    print(new_list)
    print((new_list.index(6)+1)*(new_list.index(2)+1))

index_sum = 0
for i in range(len(split_data)-1):
    set1 = split_data[i].split("\n")[0]
    set2 = split_data[i].split("\n")[1]

    match = compare_lists(eval(set1), eval(set2))
    # print(match)

    if match == 1:
        index_sum += (i+1)


print(index_sum)
# 6373 Too high
# 5997 Too low
# 6187

decode_data.append([[2]])
decode_data.append([[6]])
#decoder(decode_data)
decode_data.sort(key=cmp_to_key(compare_lists), reverse=True)
# for each in decode_data:
#     print(each)
print((decode_data.index([[2]])+1)*(decode_data.index([[6]])+1))

# 23520

Advent of Code 2022, Day 12

So, day 12, you get an elevation map, and you get to run a path-finding algorithm on it to find the shortest path up the hill.

That sounds kind of complicated.

So I did it with the best computer I have available, my mind. And Microsoft Word, and some color coded path markers. I did do a bit of black outs on obvious dead ends so my final map looks like some sort of government document but I got the answer. It probably took me less time than it would have to figure out and write code to do it too. I started after finishing breakfast, put on a podcast on the headphones and a half hour later, I had the map.

I did have a brain fart that screwed me up, For some reason I was using the Upper Left corner as “Start”. Start was actually the big fat “S” in the middle of the first column.

Anyway, no code, but here is an image of my finished map.