CS594 Marks
	Name	Roll No	A1-P1	A1-P2	A1-P3	Remarks
	Max Marks		10	10	10
SL	Weight		3	3	4
1	ABHISHEK KUSHWAHA	204161001	10	8	10	Sqaure root can be done more efficiently
2	ABINASH KUMAR	204161002	7	6	1	Part(a) code was not indented properly, a bit modification required to run the code, Part (b) code was not indented properly, a bit modification required to run the code, Sqaure root can be done more efficiently. Part(c) Approach is wrong
3	AKSHAT JAIN	204161003	10	10	9	Part (c) Spriral grow is better then Circular grow, Part(b) code is excellent
4	ALPNA KUMARI	204161004	10	5	2	Part(b) used method is trivial and not efficient, partc(c) Approach is wrong
5	ANAND VERMA	204161005	10	7	8	Part(b) initial integer square root is not required if you use newton rapson/binary search method, code don’t ask/prompt for input. Part (c) Spriral grow is better then Circular grow. Why i<100000000?. This conndition should be generic.
6	ARJUN CHAUHAN	204161006	10	8	6	Sqaure root can be done more efficiently, part(c) it is better to double the step (or increment factor) as compared to incrementing by 1
7	GARIMA SINGH	204161007	9	8	9	Part(a) Missing comarisoon count for high<U. Part(b) initial integer square root is not required if you use newton rapson/binary search method Part (c) Spriral grow is better then Circular grow
8	HEMANT SINGH	204161008	10	8	9	Part(b) initial integer square root is not required if you use newton rapson/binary search method, (c) Spriral grow is better then Circular grow
9	LALIT SHARMA	204161009	8	10	6	1(a) not run properly, a bit modification required to run the code, part(c) it is better to double the step as compared to incrementing by 1
10	MUKKAMALA MADHUKAR	204161010	9	10	9	Part(a) Unusal loop break condition, Part(b): precision is defined differently interm of sqaure, Part (c) Spriral grow is better
11	ODE DEEPKUMAR R.	204161011	10	10	9	Part(c) confusing loop conditions, can be simplified
12	POOJA	204161012	10	8	9	Part(b) initial integer square root is not required if you use newton rapson/binary search method, (c) Spriral grow is better then Circular grow
13	RAJAT MAHESHWARI	204161013	10	8	9	Part(b) initial integer square root is not required if you use newton rapson/binary search method, Part (c) Spriral grow is better, why multiplication by 1000? may not be required.
14	RISHABH GUPTA	204161014	0	0	0	Assignment submission not found
15	SRIJIT CHAKRABARTY	204161015	0	0	0	Assignment submission not found
16	SURAJ KESHARWANI	204161016	10	8	9	Part(b) initial integer square root is not required if you use newton rapson/binary search method. Part (c) Spriral grow is better then Circular grow
17	TANUJ SHARMA	204161017	10	10	9	Part(b): it will go upto maximum accuracy but supposed to go upto specified accuracy, Part (c) Spriral grow is better then Circular grow
18	VINAY KUMAR	204161018	10	8	9	Sqaure root can be done more efficiently Part (c) Spriral grow is better then Circular grow
19	MAJ SHASHANK DUBEY	204161019	7	8	9	Part(a) Appraoch looks good, but there is coding mistakes, report much higher compision then required. Part(b) initial integer square root is not required if you use newton rapson/binary search method, Part (c) loop condition check is looks odd.
20	VIKASH CHAUHAN	204161020	10	8	9	Part(b) initial integer square root is not required if you use newton rapson/binary search method, (c) Spriral grow is better then Circular grow
21	AKASH SONI	204161021	9	10	9	Part(a) integer prompt is misssing, part(b) intal integer sqr root finding is unneceesary, (c) (c) Spriral grow is better then Circular grow
22	LAXITA AGRAWAL	206101005	10	10	9	Power calculationn is costly, use simple multiplication instead. Part(b): it will go upto maximum accuracy but supposed to go upto specified accuracy, Part (c) Spriral grow is better then Circular grow
	AVERAGE		8.59090909090909	7.63636363636364	7.22727272727273