Thanks K1o0n for being the mvp of this round.
Idea: Vladosiya
Preparation: K1o0n
Let's prove why it's always better to add to the smallest number, let $$$a \le b \le c$$$, then compare the three expressions: $$$(a+1)\times b \times c$$$, $$$a \times (b+1) \times c$$$, and $$$a \times b \times (c+1)$$$. Remove the common part $$$a \times b \times c$$$, and we get: $$$b \times c$$$, $$$a \times c$$$, $$$a \times b$$$.
$$$b \times c \ge a \times c$$$, since $$$a \le b$$$, similarly, $$$b \times c \ge a \times b$$$, since $$$a \le c$$$. Therefore, we can simply find the minimum $$$5$$$ times and add one to it. And thus, obtain the answer.
Another, primitive approach is to simply iterate through what we will add to $$$a$$$, $$$b$$$, and $$$c$$$ with three loops.
Since we can only add $$$5$$$ times, the time complexity of the solution is $$$O(1)$$$.
for _ in range(int(input())):
arr = sorted(list(map(int,input().split())))
for i in range(5):
arr[0]+=1
arr.sort()
print(arr[0] * arr[1] * arr[2])
Idea: Noobish_Monk
Preparation: K1o0n
Let's say we want to connect two casseroles with lengths $$$x$$$ and $$$y$$$. We can disassemble one of them into pieces of length $$$1$$$ and then attach them to the casserole of size $$$y$$$. In total, we will perform $$$2x - 1$$$ operations. Since we want to connect $$$k$$$ pieces, at least $$$k - 1$$$ of them will have to be disassembled and then attached to something. If we attach something to a piece, there is no point in disassembling it, because to disassemble it, we will need to remove these pieces as well. Therefore, we want to choose a piece to which we will attach all the others. It will be optimal to choose a piece with the maximum size and attach everything to it. Thus, the answer is $$$2 \cdot (n - mx) - k + 1$$$, where $$$mx$$$ $$$-$$$ the length of the maximum piece.
Solution complexity: $$$O(n)$$$.
#include <bits/stdc++.h>
using namespace std;
signed main() {
int T;
cin >> T;
while (T--){
int n, k;
cin >> n >> k;
vector<int> s(k);
int m = -1;
for (int i = 0; i < k; i++){
cin >> s[i];
m = max(m, s[i]);
}
cout << 2 * (n - m) - k + 1 << '\n';
}
}
for _ in range(int(input())):
n,k = map(int,input().split())
mx = max(map(int, input().split()))
print((n - mx) * 2 - (k - 1))
1992C - Gorilla and Permutation
Idea: K1o0n
Preparation: K1o0n
Let $$$p$$$ be some permutation. Let's look at the contribution of the number $$$p_i$$$ to the sum $$$\sum_{i=1}^n {f(i)}$$$. If it is less than $$$k$$$, the contribution is $$$0$$$, otherwise the contribution is $$$p_i \cdot (n - i + 1)$$$. Similarly, let's look at the contribution of $$$p_i$$$ to the sum $$$\sum_{i=1}^n {g(i)}$$$. If it is greater than $$$m$$$, the contribution is $$$0$$$, otherwise it is $$$p_i \cdot (n - i + 1)$$$. Since $$$m \lt k$$$, each number gives a contribution greater than $$$0$$$ in at most one sum. Therefore, it is advantageous to place numbers not less than $$$k$$$ at the beginning, and numbers not greater than $$$m$$$ at the end. Also, numbers not less than $$$k$$$ should be in descending order to maximize the sum of $$$f(i)$$$. Similarly, numbers not greater than $$$m$$$ should be in ascending order to minimize the sum of $$$g(i)$$$.
For example, you can construct such a permutation: $$$n, n - 1, \ldots, k, m + 1, m + 2, \ldots, k - 1, 1, 2, \ldots, m$$$. It is easy to see that $$$\sum_{i=1}^n f(i)$$$ cannot be greater for any other permutation, and $$$\sum_{i=1}^n g(i)$$$ cannot be less for any other permutation, so our answer is optimal.
Solution complexity: $$$O(n)$$$.
for _ in range(int(input()):
n,m,k = map(int,input().split())
print(*range(n,m,-1), *range(1,m))
Idea: ArSarapkin
Preparation: K1o0n
In this problem, there are two main solutions: dynamic programming and greedy algorithm.
Dynamic programming solution: $$$dp_i$$$ $$$-$$$ the minimum number of meters that need to be swum to reach the $$$i$$$-th cell. The base case of the dynamic programming is $$$dp_0 = 0$$$. Then, the update rule is: \begin{equation*} dp_i = \text{minimum of} \begin{cases} dp_{i-1} + 1& \text{if } A_i = \text{'W'} \\ min(dp_j) & \text{for all } j, \text{where:} \max(0, i — m) \le j < i \text{ and } A_j = \text{'L'} \end{cases} \end{equation*} Solution complexity: $$$O(nm)$$$.
Greedy algorithm solution: If we can jump, we want to jump to the shore if possible. If we can't, we want to jump to any log ahead to jump from it later. If we can't, we jump as far as possible to avoid crocodiles and swim as little as possible.
Solution complexity: $$$O(n)$$$.
def run() -> None:
n,m,k = map(int, input().split())
A = input()
logs = [i for i in range(n) if A[i] == "L"]
logs.append(n+1)
i = -1
next_log = 0
while i < n-1:
if m >= logs[next_log] - i:
i = logs[next_log]
else:
i+=m
if i > n-1:
print("YES")
return
while i < n and i < logs[next_log]:
if A[i] != "C" and k > 0:
i+=1
k-=1
else:
print("NO")
return
next_log +=1
print("YES")
for _ in range(int(input())):
run()
#include <bits/stdc++.h>
using namespace std;
int main() {
int t;
cin >> t;
while (t--) {
int n, m, k;
cin >> n >> m >> k;
string s;
cin >> s;
vector<int> dp(n + 2, -1);
dp[0] = k;
for (int i = 1; i <= n + 1; i++) {
if (i != n + 1 && s[i - 1] == 'C')
continue;
for (int t = 1; t <= m; t++)
if (i - t >= 0 && (i - t == 0 || s[i - t - 1] == 'L'))
dp[i] = max(dp[i], dp[i - t]);
if (i > 1 && s[i - 2] == 'W')
dp[i] = max(dp[i], dp[i - 1] - 1);
}
if (dp[n + 1] >= 0)
cout << "YES\n";
else
cout << "NO\n";
}
}
Idea: Noobish_Monk, K1o0n
Preparation: K1o0n
Notice that $$$n * a - b$$$ is strictly less than $$$10^6$$$, i.e., it has no more than $$$6$$$ digits. The number of characters in the strange calculation $$$n * a - b$$$ is equal to $$$|n| * a - b$$$, where $$$|n|$$$ is the number of digits in n. Let's iterate over the value of $$$a$$$, and then determine the boundaries $$$minB$$$ and $$$maxB$$$ for it, such that $$$|n| * a \gt maxB$$$ and $$$|n| * a - minB \le 6$$$. Then: \begin{cases} minB = |n| * a- 6 \\ maxB = |n| * a- 1 \end{cases} Let's iterate over all $$$b$$$ from $$$minB$$$ to $$$maxB$$$. To quickly check the strange calculation, let's only find its first $$$|n| * a - b$$$ digits. This way, we can find all suitable pairs $$$(a, b)$$$.
Solution complexity: $$$O(a)$$$.
for _ in range(int(input())):
n = int(input())
sn = str(n)
lenN = len(str(n))
ans = []
for a in range(1, 10001):
minB = max(1, lenN * a - 5)
maxB = lenN * a
for b in range(minB, maxB):
x = n * a - b
y = 0
for i in range(lenN * a - b):
y = y * 10 + int(sn[i % lenN])
if x == y:
ans.append((a, b))
print(len(ans))
for p in ans:
print(*p)
Idea: Noobish_Monk
Preparation: Noobish_Monk
Let's consider the greedy algorithm ``take as long as you can''. Let's prove that it works. In any optimal division, if we take the first segment of non-maximum length, we will not violate the criteria if we transfer one element from the second segment to the first. Therefore, the given greedy algorithm is correct.
Now let's figure out how to quickly understand if the segment can be extended. First, find all divisors of the number $$$x$$$. If the number $$$a_i$$$ is not a divisor of it, then it cannot be included in any set of numbers whose product is equal to $$$x$$$, so we can simply add it to the segment. If $$$a_i$$$ is a divisor, we need to somehow learn to understand whether it, in combination with some other divisors, gives the number $$$x$$$ on the segment. We will maintain a set of divisors that are products of some numbers in the segment. To update the set when adding $$$a_i$$$, we will go through all the divisors of this set and for each divisor $$$d$$$ add $$$d \cdot a_i$$$ to the set. If we added the number $$$x$$$ to the set, $$$a_i$$$ will already be in the next segment and we need to clear the set.
P. S.: About implementation details and runtime. If you maintain the set in a set structure, then we get a runtime of $$$O(n \cdot d(x) \cdot \log(d(x)))$$$, where $$$d(x)$$$ is the number of divisors of $$$x$$$. Instead of a set, you can use, for example, a global array $$$used$$$ of size $$$10^5 + 1$$$, as well as maintain a vector of reachable divisors. Using these structures, you can achieve a runtime of $$$O(n \cdot d(x))$$$.
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
using namespace std;
const int A = 1e6 + 1;
bool used[A];
bool divs[A];
void solve() {
int n, x;
cin >> n >> x;
vector<int> a(n);
vector<int> vecDivs;
for (int d = 1; d * d <= x; d++) {
if (x % d == 0) {
divs[d] = true;
vecDivs.push_back(d);
if (d * d < x) {
vecDivs.push_back(x / d);
divs[x / d] = true;
}
}
}
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
cin >> a[i];
int ans = 1;
used[1] = true;
vector<int> cur{ 1 };
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
if (!divs[a[i]])
continue;
vector<int> ncur;
bool ok = true;
for (int d : cur)
if (1ll * d * a[i] <= x && divs[d * a[i]] && !used[d * a[i]]) {
ncur.push_back(d * a[i]);
used[d * a[i]] = true;
if (d * a[i] == x)
ok = false;
}
for (int d : ncur)
cur.push_back(d);
if (!ok) {
ans++;
for (int d : cur)
used[d] = false;
used[1] = true;
used[a[i]] = true;
cur = vector<int>{ 1, a[i] };
}
}
for (int d : vecDivs) {
divs[d] = false;
used[d] = false;
}
cout << ans << '\n';
}
signed main() {
int T;
cin >> T;
while (T--)
solve();
return 0;
}
Idea: Noobish_Monk, K1o0n
Preparation: K1o0n
We will iterate over the size of the set $$$k$$$ and its $$$\text{MEOW}$$$, $$$m$$$. If $$$2k \geqslant n$$$, then the set $$$x$$$ will fill all the remaining numbers up to $$$n$$$, and there may still be some larger than $$$n$$$ in it, so the $$$MEOW$$$ of all such sets will be $$$2k+1$$$, and there will be a total of $$$C(n, k)$$$ such sets for each $$$k$$$. If $$$2k \lt n$$$, $$$m$$$ lies in the interval from $$$k+1$$$ to $$$2k+1$$$. Notice that there can be exactly $$$m - 1 - k$$$ numbers before $$$m$$$, and correspondingly $$$2k + 1 - m$$$ numbers to the right of $$$m$$$, so the answer needs to be added with $$$C_{m - 1}^{m - 1 - k} \cdot C_{n - m}^{2k + 1 - m} \cdot m$$$.
Asymptotic complexity of the solution: $$$O(n^2)$$$.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
const int mod = 1e9 + 7;
int add(int a, int b) {
if (a + b >= mod)
return a + b - mod;
return a + b;
}
int sub(int a, int b) {
if (a < b)
return a + mod - b;
return a - b;
}
int mul(int a, int b) {
return (int)((1ll * a * b) % mod);
}
int binpow(int a, int pw) {
int b = 1;
while (pw) {
if (pw & 1)
b = mul(b, a);
a = mul(a, a);
pw >>= 1;
}
return b;
}
int inv(int a) {
return binpow(a, mod - 2);
}
const int N = 15000;
int f[N], r[N];
void precalc() {
f[0] = 1;
for (int i = 1; i < N; i++)
f[i] = mul(f[i - 1], i);
r[N - 1] = inv(f[N - 1]);
for (int i = N - 2; i > -1; i--)
r[i] = mul(r[i + 1], i + 1);
}
int C(int n, int k) {
if (n < 0 || k < 0 || n < k)
return 0;
return mul(f[n], mul(r[k], r[n - k]));
}
inline void solve() {
int n;
cin >> n;
int ans = 1;
for (int k = 1; k <= n; k++) {
if (2 * k >= n) {
ans = add(ans, mul(2 * k + 1, C(n, k)));
continue;
}
for (int m = k + 1; m <= 2 * k + 1; m++) {
int c = mul(C(m - 1, m - 1 - k), C(n - m, 2 * k + 1 - m));
ans = add(ans, mul(mul(C(m - 1, m - 1 - k), C(n - m, 2 * k + 1 - m)), m));
}
}
cout << ans << '\n';
}
signed main() {
int T = 1;
cin >> T;
precalc();
while(T--)
solve();
return 0;
}








Thanks for the fast text editorial!
tks for the tutorial :D
Could you also solve problem D by using game theory logic and designing an array that will mark spots that are winning and others that are losing, so an array w[d+1] for which w[d] is winning, for every i that path[i]=='C' w[i]=losing ... I tried to solve it during the contest with this approach, but failed on implementation so I want to know if the approach is valid to polish the implementation or to try a different approach.
just simulate the game + greedy :)
Seems like you are looking for a dp solution, one of which is described in the tutorial. However it turns out you need to keep more information than a binary value in that array because of the swimming constraint
Yes, but in an implementation with a vector<tuple<....>> I could keep winning state, if 1 a char('c',...), and swimming or jumping constraint, which I could update correctly so the game conditions are satisfied.
I think my submission can help you understand the implementation details. I keep in each index a $$$pair$$$ indicating whether we can reach that cell or not, and $$$min$$$ water cells swam till now.
Transitions are the same as editorial
i just simulate his optimal moves (greedy). i am him.
Ah yes I see what he meant now.
small advice: try to adjust your indentation to $$$4$$$ spaces instead of $$$8$$$ as it's more readable, and name your variables for easier idea understanding (It took me much to understand your code) and also to help you in debugging matters
noted!
I did it with graphs XD
:)
Notice that n∗a−b is strictly less than 10^6 , i.e., it has no more than 5 digits.Please edit that to 6 digits. Thanks!
that (the editorial) is correct. strictly less than 10^6 means <= 99999 -> max 5 digits :)
Oh sorry, my bad :')
disjoint_sid_union is right.
I actually started questioning myself for a moment xD
u trippin
oh shoot :))) so sorry. ahhh
A simpler implementation for F
Could you please explain your solution?
let $$$x$$$ be the number that will make our current segment good, means that if there is numbers in our segment such that $$$a_i \cdot a_j \cdot \cdot \cdot a_l = x $$$, the segment will be counted as good, however the problem wants only bad segments so we need to make sure that we can't have $$$x$$$
notice that in order to have $$$x$$$ all of $$$a_i \cdot a_j \cdot \cdot \cdot a_l $$$ need to be divisors of $$$x$$$
let $$$s$$$ be a set that contains any number that will make our segment good so initially it will be $$$s =$$$ { $$$x$$$ }
now we iterate over the numbers, and check if this number is in $$$s$$$, if it's in $$$s$$$ then this number will make our segment good if we contain it with our current segment, we don't want that as we only want bad segments, so we need start a new segment and increase our $$$ans$$$ by $$$1$$$ and reset $$$s$$$
if the number is not in $$$s$$$, we need to work with it because lets say or $$$s = $$$ { $$$4$$$ , $$$8$$$ }, and we find $$$a_i = $$$ $$$2$$$ , that means we need $$$4$$$ or $$$8$$$ but we got $$$2$$$, what if we got another $$$2$$$ after some time ?
that would be $$$2$$$ $$$\cdot$$$ $$$2 = $$$ $$$4$$$ which is a number that we are looking for, so we need to iterate over $$$s$$$ and check if ($$$s_i \mod a_i == 0$$$ ) then we add $$$s_i \div a_i$$$ to $$$s$$$
so $$$s$$$ will be $$$s =$$$ { $$$2$$$ , $$$4$$$ , $$$8$$$ } and then when we get to the second $$$2$$$ we will check if its in $$$s$$$ and so on ...
the lower bound is to fast things up as we may not need to iterate over all $$$s$$$ but to start from a number thats $$$ a_i \le s_i$$$
if its still not clear please copy my code and try to work with it and test it with samples
How? i've been trying to understand how this approach doesn't exceed the time limits for hours. isn't its complexity O(n x number of divisors of x)? In that case doesn't it exceed 10^7 as no. of divisors of x can go uptil 100 and n can go up till 10^5?
As I know, $$$10^7$$$ fits within even 1s
Is it possible for ~9k+ people to solve D in DIV 3 ?
Yes, it was much easier than normal Div. 3 D.
All thanks to telegram
F solution should contain 17 lines of code.
I agree. F seems easier than E, although I couldn't reach either of them during the contest. Afterwards, it took me about 10min to figure out a solution for F, while E required a fair amount of mathematical reasoning.
The hardest part of F was understanding the problem statement. xD
A simpler solution to F: 270026683 with a time complexity $$$O(n d(x) log(d(x)))$$$
The set
avoidstores values that should not occur in the current segment. For example, let x = 12, a = [2, 3, 2, ...]. Initially the set contains 12. When encountering 2, we put 6 into set, because 6*2=12; encountering 3, we put 4 and 2 into set, because 4*3=12 and 2*3*2=12. After that when encountering another 2, we find that it is already in set, so we need to split here, and reset the set with {12, 6}.My solution complexity is just $$$O(n d(x))$$$
Sorry for misreading the tutorial. Then it's a shorter but less efficient solution lol (but I think mine can also be optimized with the same trick or by using unordered_set
oh yeahhhhhhhhh. i should've think simpler
E can be solved in constant time just iterating over the number of digits of n*a-b 270038095
Your solution is mind-blowing to me. Great Job! Can you give some idea behind the proof, that, no other solutions would exist besides these for the cases?
If you have the number of digits of n*a-b, then you can have the difference between a and b, then you can replace b in function of a, and calculate a from n*a-b.
Pretests were too weak. My solution of F got an FST with TL but passed pretests with time of 200ms, and in B there wasn't a pretest with big enough a
what are the conditions to get MLE like if we make a vector of 10^10 or if we make a 2-3 vectors of 10^5 like which type of dps can we make what is make value of n for an 2DP and 3DP if anyone can tell or refer me to a post telling these
umm, can you restate? hard to read.
I solved D using 0-1 BFS. Each cell can go to no more than 10 cells next to it ( except if it contains a crocodile). So if the next cell is water the cost is 1 otherwise the cost is 0. Then after calculating the shortest path from cell 0 , the answer is YES if the cost is less than or equal k and NO otherwise.
Here is my submission:
https://mirror.codeforces.com/contest/1992/submission/269951020
a bit overkill tbh...
oops i had G left with 30 minutes to spare but was too lazy to read it im math main so coudlve (maybe?) reached pupil :(
I WANT JUSTICE.
My contest submission : 269977715
Same code submission: 270045857
My submission getting runtime error but other submission accepted, this whole thing ruined my contest rating.
Please do something about this.
Same Code submission: 270185546
Accepted Again.
Please rejudge my contest solution, and change my standings in leaderboard.
PLEASE AUTHORS.
In problem C, numbers between $$$m$$$ and $$$k$$$ affect neither $$$f$$$ nor $$$g$$$, so their permutation is irrelevant. In fact, you don't even need $$$k$$$ to solve the problem: just iterate from $$$n$$$ down to $$$m+1$$$, then from $$$1$$$ to $$$m$$$.
In fact, test case 3 of problem C has bad input format (maybe extra spaces in somewhere), which causes my submission 269935508 got a wrong WA in fst. If reading tokens one by one, it (270282247) gots a AC.
Even little probability, if Noobish_Monk, K1o0n can take a look and rejudge, I will give much appreciate for that.
I looked in my generator, in fact there are no extra spaces, but there is a newline character in the end of file as it is in all the problems if it matters to you. Sadly I/we can't rejudge your submission. Sorry. Fun fact, I submitted your solution myself with no changes , it got OK. xD. I guess you're just unlucky...
Thanks for your reply. It's the most sad story during my cf life. 2 problems got fst. C is mysterious wrong verdict, and F is tle due to Node.js.
good contest , thanks for fast editorial !
the problem D was bit different !
here is my solution to the problem ( greedy , c++ ) — 269977837
prblm D with iterative DP:`` Your text to link here...
My alternate approach for E:
Let $$$ans = n\cdot a-b$$$ for some pair of integers $$$(a, b)$$$. We know the number of digits in $$$ans$$$ is equal to $$$|ans| = |n|\cdot a-b$$$ and for all $$$n \gt 1$$$, $$$n \gt |n|$$$ (here again $$$|n|$$$ is the number of digits in n). Now, $$$ans$$$ can be reformulated as:
$$$ans = (n-|n|)\cdot a + |n|\cdot a-b$$$
Simplifying this we get;
$$$a = \frac{ans - |ans|}{n - |n|}$$$
$$$b$$$ can be computed in $$$O(1)$$$ once we calculate $$$a$$$. So traversing over all possible $$$ans$$$ gives the answer in practically $$$O(1)$$$ (not sure about the complexity).
My implementation
The complexity is actually $$$O(log^2(n*a - b))$$$ for $$$a\neq 1$$$. I also did the same thing.
I got the $$$O(\log n)$$$ part in my calculations, which I decided to report as practically $$$O(1)$$$ because of the bounds on $$$n$$$ in the task. How did you get the $$$O(\log a)$$$ part though?
I just looped through all possible values of $$$n*a-b$$$ which take $$$O(log(n*a-b))$$$ time. Then, the process of computing the number of digits also take that time. (can be optimized a bit though)
anyone please explain r array here in G solution
It's for reverse factorials. They are calculated this way:
$$$r_n = inv(f_n)$$$
$$$r_i = r_{i+1} \cdot (i+1)$$$
Can't we take f[n]*(inv(f[r]*f[n-r]))
Yeah but that's $$$O(log MOD)$$$ for every binomial coefficient, which results in longer runtime
I'm not getting it how the greedy is working in problem D?? As if everytime we get the log and try to jump as further as possible then in O(N) how can we be sure that we will not get any crocodile in such jump?? And if we do get the crocodile or we get the water but we have spent all the k's then how we'll make the informed decision about that in just O(N) time ??
In tutorial for F they said
What does this even mean?
It's short for "proof by induction". If we have some split in segments, where the length of the first one isn't maximal, we can move one element from the second and it would still be a correct split, while the number of segments could've only gotten less. Doing this process with every segment is the proof for greedy
The editorial for A doesn't prove that incrementing the smallest number is optimal when we repeat the process 5 times. It only proves that it's optimal for 1 time.
Yes, I agree that at the end they should have written: "Let's run this algorithm 5 times and get the answer to the problem.". But they did everything else, because at the beginning they announced that a<=b<=c, which means that the variables must be sorted initially, which means if you just do this algorithm 5 times everything will work.
If my understanding is correct, that's not what he is saying. I think his point is that just because you take the locally optimal choice every time doesn't necessarily mean that you will get the globally optimal result. For this problem, it is true. That's not the case for every problem.
There are only 4 stages of this algorithm which are:
Where a is lowest number and c is largest of these 3. Let's look at all the options for starting:
This only works if the variables are in the range from 1<=a,b,c<INF.And accordingly, it works in THIS task.Prove me that im wrong instead of downvoting. I really dont care about it.Imma be honest. I have no idea what you are talking about.
I came up with some proof but it doesn't sound very easy for D3A. Please tell me if you know a simpler proof. On the positive side, the following proof works for any number of operations and more than three numbers.
Consider two sequences $$$p$$$ and $$$q$$$ where $$$p$$$ is the result of the greedy algorithm from the editorial and $$$q$$$ is any other sequence obtained via the same process described in the statement. I claim that $$$p' \prec q'$$$ ($$$p'$$$ minorizes $$$q'$$$) where $$$p'$$$ and $$$q'$$$ are versions of $$$p$$$ and $$$q$$$ sorted in non-increasing order. This is rather intuitive because the greedy algorithm from the editorial achieves the minimum possible sum of the first $$$k$$$ elements in sorted order for any $$$k$$$, corresponding to minorization.
Consider a function $$$f(x) = -\log x$$$ on domain $$$[1, +\infty)$$$. It is convex because its second derivative $$$d^2/dx^2 (-\log x) = 1/x^2 \gt 0$$$ on our domain. According to Karamata's Inequality we now conclude that $$$\sum_i (-\log p_i) \le \sum_i (-\log q_i)$$$, which is equivalent to $$$\sum_i \log p_i \ge \sum_i \log q_i$$$. Exponentiate both sides to obtain $$$\prod_i p_i \ge \prod_i q_i$$$.
Yeah this is overcomplicated, but the idea to take logs is very good.
If we generalize to wanting to maximize the product $$$a_1 a_2 \dots a_k$$$ at the end ($$$a_i \ge 0$$$), this is equivalent to maximizing $$$\log a_1 + \log a_2 + \dots + \log a_k$$$ (we can say $$$"\log 0" = -\infty$$$).
Now if we consider the function $$$d(n) = \log(n + 1) - \log n$$$, this function is strictly decreasing over $$$n$$$. Since $$$d(a_i)$$$ is the benefit we get from incrementing $$$a_i$$$, it's clear that a straightforward greedy approach of always choosing the smallest first is the right way to go.
Proof by AC
even without proving, it's still possible to solve in 6^3 * 1,000 time:
I believe it's possible to solve this problem for any number $$$n$$$ of initial values and any number $$$m$$$ of operations, in $$$O(m + n \log n)$$$ using a greedy approach.
First, sort the initial values and append some huge number. Let $$$i$$$ denote the index of the current number, modulo $$$k$$$, where $$$k$$$ is the index of the next greater number. While $$$a_i$$$ is less than $$$a_k$$$, increment $$$a_i$$$ and then $$$i$$$. When $$$a_i$$$ becomes equal to $$$a_k$$$, increment $$$k$$$ and keep iterating until all operations are used. Finally, compute the answer.
in question D he has to swim k units right? #include
include
include
using namespace std; typedef long long ll;
ll f(vector &ar, int n, int k, int m) { if (n == 0) return k == 0 ? 0 : -1; ll min_steps = LLONG_MAX; bool found = false; for (int i = 1; i <= m; i++) { if (n — i < 0) break; if ((ar[n — i] == 'W' && k > 0) || ar[n — i] != 'W') { int new_k = k; if (ar[n — i] == 'W') new_k--; ll steps = f(ar, n — i, new_k, m); if (steps != -1) { min_steps = min(min_steps, steps + 1); found = true; } } } return found ? min_steps : -1; }
int main() { ll t; cin >> t; while (t--) { ll n, m, k; cin >> n >> m >> k; vector ar(n + 1, '0'); for (ll i = 1; i <= n; i++) { cin >> ar[i]; } ll check = f(ar, n, k, m); if (check == -1) cout << "NO" << endl; else cout << "YES" << endl; } return 0; } this is giving worng on test 2 idk why...the k is 2 but available only 1 W so how can k be equal ?so it shud be no ryt?
He is allowed to use $$$k$$$ or less.
Is a segment always a continuous array(subarray)?
for F,
input :
4 8
4 2 2 4
optimal division should be 4 4, 2 2
as per the editorial its 4, 2 2, 4.
help please.
yes it is always a subarray
in problem G's solution, shouldn't m be MEX and not MEOW
Problem F was really good, given the combination of the use of the greedy idea and the $$$dp$$$ approach to find subsequence products. Learnt something new!
can u explain the dp approach of problem f?
I was referring to the same approach mentioned in the editorial. Let me elaborate it here for you.
The greedy idea is to always extend our segment to the right as long as possible until it remains "bad" that is, no subsequence in the segment multiplies to $$$x$$$. This was proved in the editorial that it works, but to know when to stop extending the segment, we need to perform a dynamic programming that will tell us what all factors of $$$x$$$ have been produced by some subsequence in our current segment.
Now, we maintain a set of numbers $$$\text{products}$$$ that can be obtained by multiplying the numbers of some subsequence in the segment that we are currently extending. Now, to know if we can include the current element $$$a[i]$$$ or not in the segment, we need to check if this can create a product of $$$x$$$. This can simply be done by checking if $$$a[i] \mid x$$$ i.e. $$$x$$$ is divisible by $$$a[i]$$$; and the product $$$\frac{x}{a[i]}$$$ exists in $$$\text{products}$$$. If both of the above conditions are true, then we need to end the current segment here and start a new segment from $$$i$$$ (thus making the set empty)
Otherwise, we will update our set of products by iterating through it and for each product $$$p$$$ in it, we will insert the new product $$$p\cdot a[i]$$$ into the set. Note that this might involve duplication of products, so we must update the set using another temporary new set. Details can be found in this submission, which runs in approx. $$$1$$$ s.
The complexity of the solution is $$$O(n\sqrt[3]{x})$$$ as $$$x$$$ has at most $$$\sqrt[3]{x}$$$ divisors.
Can anyone explain the proof of F? Why does this greedy algorithm work. I am stuck in understanding that why taking as much as possible will produce minimum number of bad segments?
Consider the first two segments. If the first one isn't as long as it can be, we can move one element from second segment to the first and both segments are still {bad}. Second segment might become empty, no new segments appear, so by moving element to the first segment we can't mke our answer worse. After we added as many elements to the first segment as possible, we can erase it from the array and use the same logic for next segments. That's why greedy works
Text editorial is very intuitive..!!!
In the tutorial of G , for the case 2k<n , there is a typo, the answer needs to be added with
(m-1)C(m-1-k) * (n-m)C(2k+1-m) * m
Noobish_Monk
Hey guys, I had an out-of-the-box solution for problem E. I wanted to know your opinion on the same as the approach might be controversial:
Brute forcing all possible combinations without giving much thought would take
O(n*max(a)*max(b))amount of time. A general thumb rule is that the time forO(1e8)operations is in the order of a second. Therefore iterating over alln,a,btook me around 4-8 minutes, and did not take much effort to code it out. I stored the output into a file (removed the trivial cases ofn == 1anda-b == 1), and copied it into my final submission code, as each of the cases (except for 1) seemed to have not greater than 5 solutions each.This wasn't during the contest but it seems like a nice way to tackle questions that don't have a humongous output for all test cases combined, and the input range is very limited, and brute force fetches the output quickly(for a human) without much thinking. Obviously this question's solution was not so difficult to think about or implement, but it seems like a good idea nevertheless in general.
Feel free to give your comments on the same, albeit controversial or not. Below is a link to my submission for the same:
https://mirror.codeforces.com/contest/1992/submission/284429181