nishkarsh's blog

By nishkarsh, history, 20 months ago, In English

A. Find Min Operations

By nishkarsh

Hint 1
Hint 2
Solution
Code

B. Brightness Begins

By nishkarsh

Hint 1
Hint 2
Solution
Code 1
Code 2

C. Bitwise Balancing

By P.V.Sekhar

Hint 1
Hint 2
Solution
Code

D. Connect the Dots

By P.V.Sekhar

Hint 1
Hint 2
Solution
Code

E. Expected Power

By nishkarsh

Hint 1
Hint 2
Solution
Code

F. Count Leaves

By nishkarsh

Hint 1
Solution
Code
  • Vote: I like it
  • -357
  • Vote: I do not like it

| Write comment?
»
20 months ago, hide # |
 
Vote: I like it +325 Vote: I do not like it

whats the point of allowing $$$O(n \cdot 1024)$$$ solutions in E

  • »
    »
    20 months ago, hide # ^ |
     
    Vote: I like it -184 Vote: I do not like it

    well, we reduced the bound on A to make sure nlog^2A passes.

    We didn't knew that these solutions existed.

    • »
      »
      »
      20 months ago, hide # ^ |
       
      Vote: I like it +25 Vote: I do not like it

      know*

    • »
      »
      »
      20 months ago, hide # ^ |
       
      Vote: I like it +14 Vote: I do not like it

      I think $$$a_i \lt 2^{14}$$$ or something would've been the optimal choice if i am not mistaken $$$O(n \log^2 A)$$$ should pass as long as there is no bad constant factor and the more naive solution wouldn't have passed but i am sure it was hard to predict that such solutions would pop up + thanks for the amazing contest.

      • »
        »
        »
        »
        20 months ago, hide # ^ |
         
        Vote: I like it +10 Vote: I do not like it

        It's not hard to expect that the dp 1024n is too easy and obvious to anyone who has solved dp+ev before

        • »
          »
          »
          »
          »
          20 months ago, hide # ^ |
           
          Vote: I like it -23 Vote: I do not like it

          Yes it is straight forward but $$$n$$$ is still upto $$$2 \cdot 10^5$$$ so passing shouldn't seem smooth, some people even got TLE.

      • »
        »
        »
        »
        20 months ago, hide # ^ |
         
        Vote: I like it +12 Vote: I do not like it

        What is amazing about this contest?

    • »
      »
      »
      20 months ago, hide # ^ |
       
      Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

      then you just killed the problem

  • »
    »
    20 months ago, hide # ^ |
     
    Vote: I like it +24 Vote: I do not like it

    my O(n * 1024) solution passed (4000ms), so I optimized to O(min(n, 1024) * 1024) and it passed 2500ms.

    • »
      »
      »
      20 months ago, hide # ^ |
       
      Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

      This also didn't seem intended but yeah this solution also exists and it runs in $$$O(\text{max } a_i^2)$$$.

    • »
      »
      »
      20 months ago, hide # ^ |
       
      Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

      can you please explain your optimized solution for problem E?

      • »
        »
        »
        »
        20 months ago, hide # ^ |
        Rev. 6  
        Vote: I like it +10 Vote: I do not like it

        Sure. Here’s how I came up with the optimization:

        1. Notice that if n > 2^10, we have duplicates.
        2. Q: What properties does the XOR operation have that can help with duplicates? A: If we have an even number of duplicates, XOR = 0. If we have an odd number of duplicates, XOR = the number.
        3. We need to precompute two values for each unique number (less than 2^10): pdp[i][0] — the probability of getting value i an even number of times. pdp[i][1] — the probability of getting it an odd number of times.
          Dp base for each number = {1, 0} (100% chance of getting zero times).
        4. How do we calculate these values? Iterate over all values, and for value i (with prob pi), we have two transitions: pdp[i] = { pdp[i][0] * (1-pi) + pdp[i][1] * pi, pdp[i][0] * pi + pdp[i][1] * (1-pi) }. I hope these transitions are clear to understand.
        5. Then, we can reuse the previous solution O(n * 1024), but instead of iterating over all a[i], we will iterate only over unique a[i]. Instead of p[i], use previously calculated probability dp prob_dp[a[i]] for calculating the new dp. Two transitions: if we take an even number of a[i] or an odd number of a[i].

        My solution (rust): https://mirror.codeforces.com/contest/2020/submission/283652607 In my case cnt array is pdp precalculations.

    • »
      »
      »
      20 months ago, hide # ^ |
       
      Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

      it is still O(n*1024) ?

  • »
    »
    20 months ago, hide # ^ |
     
    Vote: I like it +4 Vote: I do not like it

    I came up with that solution at my first look at E after solving C, but $$$O(n⋅1024)$$$ would definitely TLE, and I couldn't improve my approach. It kinda makes me feel sad to know that such were ACed now :)

    • »
      »
      »
      20 months ago, hide # ^ |
      Rev. 2  
      Vote: I like it +3 Vote: I do not like it

      283614074 Brute force solution runs 0.9s. Much less than Time Limit 4s, and quite close to official solution which runs 0.7s. When I come to the problem, I get the idea same as the tutorial. But later I see $$$a_i \lt 1024$$$, so I decide to submit $$$O(1024 \min{\{n, 1024\}})$$$ solution which saves lines of codes.

      • »
        »
        »
        »
        20 months ago, hide # ^ |
        Rev. 2  
        Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

        say n = 1 across test cases , then u can have 2e5 test cases in each loop of 1024 makes the complexity O(1024*t) ryght ?

        • »
          »
          »
          »
          »
          20 months ago, hide # ^ |
           
          Vote: I like it +3 Vote: I do not like it

          No. The statement says $$$t \le 10^4$$$, and the worst case is $$$2 \times 10^5 \times 1024$$$, nothing to do with $$$t$$$.

          • »
            »
            »
            »
            »
            »
            20 months ago, hide # ^ |
             
            Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

            crrct , my point is that O(1024min{n,1024}) solution is not the case ,

          • »
            »
            »
            »
            »
            »
            10 months ago, hide # ^ |
             
            Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

            Doesn't that give TLE? As you mentioned 2 * 1e5 * 1024 > 1e8.

            I implemented it 330934118. It doesn't work.

            • »
              »
              »
              »
              »
              »
              »
              10 months ago, hide # ^ |
               
              Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

              Idea is to have a bunch of test cases, all with n < 1024, but the sum of n over all test cases becomes 2e5.

              This way, even if we consider unique values only, the worst case is 2e5 * 1023. Which is giving TLE.

              • »
                »
                »
                »
                »
                »
                »
                »
                10 months ago, hide # ^ |
                Rev. 6  
                Vote: I like it +3 Vote: I do not like it

                Maybe you've encountered a compiler bug. My idea is to stick with modern compilers like GCC-14 and don't use GCC-7.

                330966332 Actually I submitted your code and it passed

                • »
                  »
                  »
                  »
                  »
                  »
                  »
                  »
                  »
                  10 months ago, hide # ^ |
                  Rev. 2  
                  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

                  Bruh. Will have to check this out then. Thanks. Can I fix this by just changing my compiler type while submitting codes? I don't want to mess with my local system setup right now. I'm asking this so that I can use better compilers if I'm ever getting TLE because of something like this, while not having to change my local setup right now.

  • »
    »
    20 months ago, hide # ^ |
     
    Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    I replaced 4 modulo operation with 1 in my solution. And it got passed

  • »
    »
    20 months ago, hide # ^ |
     
    Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    yeah, my O(n*1024) passed in 765ms

»
20 months ago, hide # |
 
Vote: I like it +6 Vote: I do not like it

Can anyone explain how did we get the direct formula in B??

  • »
    »
    20 months ago, hide # ^ |
     
    Vote: I like it +2 Vote: I do not like it

    Every number has an even number of factors, except square numbers.

    We can prove the first fact by finding a factor a of number n. Then, if n is not a square n/a is another factor of n.

    If n is a square, then we double count sqrt(n), as we count n/sqrt(n) and sqrt(n) which are the same value. This leads to an odd number of factors(every other factor + 1).

    Using this, if a switch is flipped an even number of times, it returns back to 1. If it flipped an odd number of times, it returns to 0.

»
20 months ago, hide # |
 
Vote: I like it -76 Vote: I do not like it

This was a good round, unless I FST ofc, then it was a horrible round. I think that there should be more problems like this — problems that don't require so much IQ, but $$$do$$$ require coding. These problems are what might be called chill problems.

»
20 months ago, hide # |
 
Vote: I like it +1 Vote: I do not like it

Now after seeing the solution of B problem.... I just want to cry ):

»
20 months ago, hide # |
 
Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

I was able to figure out that number of ON bulbs after n operations is related to sqrt(n) but was going in opposite track. Here only perfect squares are off and other are ON.

»
20 months ago, hide # |
 
Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

I understood the binary search solution for problem B. But, I am not able to figure out how direct formula $$$n = \lfloor k + \sqrt{k} +0.5 \rfloor$$$ came. Can anyone please explain it?

  • »
    »
    20 months ago, hide # ^ |
     
    Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    dont think abt that farmula number of number of perfect squares<=k and add to k(ie (int)sqrt(k)) now we can only cross atmost one more square in b/w [k,k+(int)sqrt(k)] which is ((int)sqrt(k)+1)^2 check for that and add 1 the farmula given directly checks it mathematically

  • »
    »
    20 months ago, hide # ^ |
    Rev. 2  
    Vote: I like it +1 Vote: I do not like it

    Suppose $$$\lfloor \sqrt n \rfloor = m$$$, $$$m^2 \lt n \lt (m+1)^2$$$ (note that n wouldn't be a square, as the square lightbulb itself is closed)

    So, $$$m^2-m \lt k \lt m^2+m+1, m-0.5 \lt \sqrt k \lt m+0.5$$$ (inequality is true as k is an integer)

    $$$\lfloor \sqrt k +0.5 \rfloor = m = \lfloor \sqrt n \rfloor$$$, $$$ n = k + \lfloor \sqrt k +0.5 \rfloor$$$

»
20 months ago, hide # |
 
Vote: I like it +18 Vote: I do not like it

In problem B, how do we derive the formula $$$( n = \left\lfloor k + \sqrt{k} + 0.5 \right\rfloor )$$$ from the equation $$$( n - \left\lfloor \sqrt{n} \right\rfloor = k )$$$?

  • »
    »
    20 months ago, hide # ^ |
    Rev. 2  
    Vote: I like it +1 Vote: I do not like it

    Derivation:

    Suppose $$$\lfloor \sqrt n \rfloor = m$$$, $$$m^2 \lt n \lt (m+1)^2$$$ (note that n wouldn't be a square, as the square lightbulb itself is closed)

    So, $$$m^2-m \lt k \lt m^2+m+1, m-0.5 \lt \sqrt k \lt m+0.5$$$ (inequality is true as k is an integer)

    $$$\lfloor \sqrt k +0.5 \rfloor = m = \lfloor \sqrt n \rfloor$$$, $$$ n = k + \lfloor \sqrt k +0.5 \rfloor$$$

    Intuition:

    Suppose $$$l^2 \leq k \lt (l+1)^2$$$, we have $$$n = k+l$$$, if $$$n \geq (l+1)^2$$$, we have to add 1 to compensate for that new square. So $$$n=k+l$$$ or $$$n=k+l+1$$$

    $$$n \geq (l+1)^2 , k \geq l^2+l+1 \gt l^2+l+0.25, \sqrt k \gt l+0.5$$$

    The formula follows.

    • »
      »
      »
      20 months ago, hide # ^ |
       
      Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

      I understand the derivation, but I am unsure how $$$m - 0.5 \lt \sqrt{k} \lt m + 0.5$$$ follows from the condition $$$m^2 - m \lt k \lt m^2 + m + 1$$$.

      • »
        »
        »
        »
        20 months ago, hide # ^ |
         
        Vote: I like it +1 Vote: I do not like it

        $$$m^2-m \lt (m^2-m+1/4) = (m-0.5)^2 \lt k \lt (m+0.5)^2 = m^2+m+1/4 \lt m^2+m+1$$$

        As you can see, 1/4 is added for lower bound, 3/4 is removed for upper bound, so the inequality only works because k is a positive integer.

»
20 months ago, hide # |
 
Vote: I like it +3 Vote: I do not like it

If maxa is sth like 2^20, E will be a good problem. What a pity.

»
20 months ago, hide # |
Rev. 2  
Vote: I like it +53 Vote: I do not like it

A O(1) solution for C exists: if some solution exists both b ^ d and c ^ d will be solutions. This comes from simplifying the truth table.

»
20 months ago, hide # |
 
Vote: I like it +19 Vote: I do not like it

In problem C simply set a to b xor d and check if it works

»
20 months ago, hide # |
 
Vote: I like it +1 Vote: I do not like it

You put image of editorial C to editorial D. By accident I suppose

»
20 months ago, hide # |
 
Vote: I like it +7 Vote: I do not like it

I got the idea of problem B fast because of 1909E - Multiple Lamps.

The idea
»
20 months ago, hide # |
 
Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

How was I supposed to solve that B problem, I literally had 0 idea that I will have to build a formulae for that, plus the observation required for the problem isn't normal at all.

  • »
    »
    20 months ago, hide # ^ |
     
    Vote: I like it +1 Vote: I do not like it

    Here is how I approached it. First I assumed it to be a dumb problem. And from my past experience and noticing that n and k are not far apart in the samples, and by thinking about prime factorization and number of factors (however I didn't dive into that because I was lazy) I suspect maybe only the first few bulbs are not on. And I printed a table of the first 100 n and k, and quickly realized that k=n-(int)sqrtl(n). Obviously then you may construct some weird formula to do it backwards, but I suddenly came up with binary search and solved it.

  • »
    »
    20 months ago, hide # ^ |
     
    Vote: I like it +1 Vote: I do not like it

    I didn't think of establishing a formula when solving this problem, but I found the following pattern by observing the case of n=24: 0110111101111110111111110 Using this rule, the problem is transformed into how many zeros need to be inserted into k ones

»
20 months ago, hide # |
 
Vote: I like it +11 Vote: I do not like it

contest is too math

»
20 months ago, hide # |
 
Vote: I like it +8 Vote: I do not like it

In B no need for a formula, you can just binary search for the answer, it only needs that observation

  • »
    »
    20 months ago, hide # ^ |
     
    Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    That observation is too much for me, tell me how much more I need to practice in order to get that B always right.

    • »
      »
      »
      20 months ago, hide # ^ |
       
      Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

      I saw that observation before in blogs but usually you just need practice to get observations fast, if you aren't sure how to practice correctly I think there's lots of cf blogs on it

»
20 months ago, hide # |
Rev. 2  
Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Can someone help me with my code for E. I am finding probability for each bit to be active or not then for all number adding it's contribution to expectation.

Code

z[i][0][j] represent prob in first i element our subset's xor will have j'th bit set

z[i][1][j] represent prob in first i element our subset's xor will not have j'th bit set

then for each number(0-1023) i add contribution number 5's contribution would be simply (z[n-1][0][0]*z[n-1][1][1]*z[n-1][2][0])*5*5

  • »
    »
    20 months ago, hide # ^ |
     
    Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    Squaring is not linear so you can't handle bit by bit without doing the editorial's trick, what works is z[i][j] represents probability in first i element that the xor is equal to j

  • »
    »
    20 months ago, hide # ^ |
     
    Vote: I like it +8 Vote: I do not like it

    At first I thought of something similar for this problem. The issue is that the probability of getting a 1 on the ith bit is not independent to the probability of getting a 1 on the jth bit. An example of this may be that given the case:

    1

    3

    5000

    I can either take the 2^0 bit and the 2^1 bit or I can take neither, yet your implementation may give some probability to 2's contribution.

  • »
    »
    20 months ago, hide # ^ |
     
    Vote: I like it +5 Vote: I do not like it

    I had the same idea when implementing at first, but the bit-by-bit approach doesn't work because you're trying to use linearity of expectation on a non-linear operation (squaring). If you're given $$$A=[101_2]$$$ and $$$P=[0.5]$$$, then you should have a 50% chance of obtaining $$$0^2=0$$$ and a 50% chance of obtaining $$$(101_2)^2 = 25$$$. However, if you solve bit-by-bit, your solution will conclude that you have a 25% chance of obtaining $$$(000_2)^2=0$$$, a 25% for $$$(001_2)^2=1$$$, 25% for $$$(100_2)^2=16$$$, and 25% for $$$(101_2)^2=25$$$, which should be impossible since you can only xor by full numbers, not just their individual bits.

  • »
    »
    20 months ago, hide # ^ |
     
    Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    Let's say you only have one element in the array, 3. I believe your solution produces a non-zero expected value for the XOR to be 1, because the 0th bit is set in 3. But a XOR value of 1 cannot be achieved.

»
20 months ago, hide # |
 
Vote: I like it +32 Vote: I do not like it

The editorial solution for E is too complicated. There is a much easier O(1024 * n) dynamic programming solution which comfortably fits within time limit.

»
20 months ago, hide # |
 
Vote: I like it +16 Vote: I do not like it

Why is Carrot not working !?

»
20 months ago, hide # |
 
Vote: I like it -7 Vote: I do not like it
»
20 months ago, hide # |
 
Vote: I like it +3 Vote: I do not like it

Seems like you didnt consider two much easier solutions in D and E

  • »
    »
    20 months ago, hide # ^ |
     
    Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    I have solved D using different approach.I won't say it is easy but if someone wants to see here it it 283680740

    • »
      »
      »
      20 months ago, hide # ^ |
       
      Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

      I solved it with approach that if we fix d and a_i % d, the request is just to merge some vertices inside segment, so its just +1 on segment offline

»
20 months ago, hide # |
Rev. 2  
Vote: I like it +12 Vote: I do not like it

Problem D has a much easier $$$O(nd^2 + m)$$$ solution.

»
20 months ago, hide # |
 
Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Can anyone tell me what I am doing wrong looking at my profile, I am unable to reach pupil

»
20 months ago, hide # |
 
Vote: I like it +1 Vote: I do not like it

$$$O(nd+m)$$$ solution to D: 283633809 We can brute force all edges and run dfs for connected components, since there are at most $$$2*d$$$ edges per node.

»
20 months ago, hide # |
Rev. 4  
Vote: I like it +2 Vote: I do not like it

Can anyone help me debug my code, It failed test case 8. I tried so hard today but not enough :(

Submission:283668245

  • »
    »
    20 months ago, hide # ^ |
     
    Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    use sqrtl, because sqrt looses precision with big numbers (i didn't solve B because of that)

    • »
      »
      »
      20 months ago, hide # ^ |
       
      Vote: I like it +1 Vote: I do not like it

      I struggled with this as well, until I finally decided to google for "c++ square root of int64" and was able to solve the problem just in time. Then I looked at the tutorial and discovered sqrtl.

»
20 months ago, hide # |
 
Vote: I like it +5 Vote: I do not like it

For C, can someone explain why it is bit independent? I am unable to wrap my head around it

  • »
    »
    20 months ago, hide # ^ |
     
    Vote: I like it +5 Vote: I do not like it

    Assume it is not bit independent. Then there must be some i, for which (a|b)'s i-th bit is not set and (a&c)'s i-th bit is set. If (a&c)'s i-th bit is set, then a's i-th bit must also be set. But if a's i-th bit is set, then (a|b)'s i-th set must also be set, which is a contradiction. Therefore it is bit independent.

  • »
    »
    20 months ago, hide # ^ |
    Rev. 2  
    Vote: I like it +1 Vote: I do not like it

    Subtraction in kth bit place in p - q = r affect other places only if pk is 0 and qk is 1.

    All other cases

    For this case to happen, (ak | bk) = 0 which means ak = 0
    but (ak & ck) = 1 which means ak = 1 which is a contradiction
    Hope the explanation is clear!

»
20 months ago, hide # |
Rev. 4  
Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

An alternative solution to the problem D in $$$O(max_d * n + m)$$$

Consider the point $$$x$$$, note that it can only be connected to the $$$max_d$$$ points that go in front of it. We will support $$$dp[x][d] = k$$$, where $$$x$$$ is the coordinate of a point on a numeric line, $$$d$$$ is the length of the reverse step, $$$k$$$ is the maximum number of steps that will be taken from point $$$x$$$ with step $$$d$$$. Then note that we can move from point $$$x - d$$$ to point $$$d$$$ only if $$$dp[x - d][d] \gt 0$$$. In this case, we will draw an undirected edge between the points $$$x - d$$$ and $$$d$$$. Recalculate the dynamics for point $$$x$$$ as follows $$$dp[x][d] = max(dp[x][d], dp[x - d][d] - 1)$$$

Dynamics base, initially for all $$$x$$$ and $$$d$$$, $$$dp[x][d] = 0$$$. Now for all m triples $$$a_i, d_i, k_i$$$ we get $$$dp[a_i][d_i] = max(dp[a_i][d_i], k_i)$$$

At the end, using dfs, we will find the number of connectivity components

Code of this solution: 283668708

»
20 months ago, hide # |
Rev. 2  
Vote: I like it +5 Vote: I do not like it

In the editorial of F, I think it should be $$$f(p^{ik},d)$$$ instead of $$$f(p^{i}k,d)$$$

»
20 months ago, hide # |
 
Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it
»
20 months ago, hide # |
Rev. 3  
Vote: I like it +15 Vote: I do not like it

Where's the originality?

Problem Codeforces 976 Div2 $$$F$$$ be directly copied from AtCoder Beginner Contest 370 G link: https://atcoder.jp/contests/abc370/editorial/10906

The core idea of both problems is absolutely identical, including the approach of solving them with a convolution technique. The only noticeable difference between the two problems lies in how the function $$$f(prime)$$$ and $$$f(prime^{ki}, b)$$$ is computed. Other than that, the rest of the structure, including the logic and solution techniques, are the same. This raises concerns about originality and fair practice in problem setting across competitive programming platforms.

Problem Codeforces 976 Div2 $$$E$$$ has solution with the most basic dp idea with $$$O(n \cdot 1024)$$$.

As someone who placed officially 12-th in Div 2, I’m absolutely disappointed with how Codeforces 976 Div2 F turned out.

»
20 months ago, hide # |
Rev. 6  
Vote: I like it +1 Vote: I do not like it

An alternate solution to D which doesn't use DP:

Similar to the solution in the editorial I used a DSU to keep track of components, but to check whether elements $$$i$$$ and $$$i+d_i$$$ are connected, I simply need to check among operations $$$j$$$ where $$$d_j = d_i$$$, and $$$a_j \% d_j = i\%d_i$$$. I used a map to store sets of operations together based on $$$d_j$$$ and $$$a_j\%d_j$$$, and I stored each operation as a pair $$$[ a_j, a_j + k_j \cdot d_j ]$$$.

Now each set of operations can now simply be represented as sets of intervals, and I used a datastructure which I called an IntervalSet which internally uses an std::set to efficiently a insert intervals in amortized $$$O(\text{log n})$$$ and store them efficiently by combining overlapping intervals and query whether an interval is completely included in the set in $$$O(\text{log n})$$$ where $$$n$$$ is the number of intervals in the set. This allows me to simply query whether $$$[i,i+d_i]$$$ is included in the among the operations with $$$d_j = d_i$$$, and $$$a_j \% d_j = i\%d_i$$$ which makes the code very simple.

void solve(){
  int n,m; cin>>n>>m;
  
  DSU dsu(n);
  
  map<pii, IntervalSet2<int>> mp;
  for_(i,0,m) {
    int a,d,k; cin>>a>>d>>k;
    a--;
    mp[{d,a%d}].insert({a, a+k*d}); 
  }
  
  for_(i,0,n){
    for_(di,1,11){
      if (i+di >= n) break;
      if (mp[{di,i%di}].contains({i,i+di})) dsu.merge(i,i+di);
    }
  }
  
  auto groups = dsu.groups();
  cout<<sz(groups)<<nl;
}

My submission: 283669482

PS: I used ChatGPT to help in implementing the IntervalSet class so its not in a great state rn;) and I haven't seen any implementations of such an IntervalSet class, so I would love to learn about any other implementations you guys know about.

»
20 months ago, hide # |
 
Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

problem B solution without Binary search : solution

»
20 months ago, hide # |
 
Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

problem a can be solved by take log?

»
20 months ago, hide # |
Rev. 3  
Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Although I know $$$O(1204\cdot n)$$$ is not the standard solution to E, I have encountered a strange TLE in this solution by just moving $$$M = 10^9 + 7$$$ to the inside of the $$$solve()$$$. 283686661 283686119 Could anyone tell me what's going on?

»
20 months ago, hide # |
 
Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

For E I used the dumb O(1024*n) solution but idk why I'm TLEing. For this submission 283708821 it TLE test 12 since I did dp%MOD. But for the previous submission 283708742 it passes, but I all did was changing the MOD so that it MODs the whole thing instead of the dp itself. How in the world is this not the same thing???

Pls help if anyone know the issue thx <3

»
20 months ago, hide # |
 
Vote: I like it +5 Vote: I do not like it

F can also be solved using standard min_25 sieve trick: https://mirror.codeforces.com/contest/2020/submission/283749226

»
20 months ago, hide # |
 
Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

For problem C why is it giving WA on test-11?

283777193

»
20 months ago, hide # |
 
Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

in problem d can't we just make a graph with the help of dsu with the help of given nodes that we receive during input and then calculate the number of connected components?

My solution:https://mirror.codeforces.com/contest/2020/submission/283746432

»
20 months ago, hide # |
Rev. 4  
Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Looking at the tutorial of problem E, it isn't clear why the contribution of pairs of bits from both operands can be added together. When we think about the multiplication, we observe that multiple pairs $$$(i,j)$$$ can affect the same bit of the result and yield a carry over. Thus, we don't know a priori if that bit will be set (with some probability) or not, but the contribution should only count when the bit is set.

However, after some consideration, I've concluded that it doesn't matter whether the bit will be set. What matters is that the contribution of all pairs will add up (in terms of expected value), just as it would in the multiplication. Please correct me if I'm wrong in this reasoning.

  • »
    »
    20 months ago, hide # ^ |
    Rev. 2  
    Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it
    You can write f(S) like this:

    Yes, it doesn't really matter whether there is carry over. It's just convenient to look at the number in base 2, that's all.

»
20 months ago, hide # |
 
Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

bro $$$E$$$ is so easy so yet so less accepted submissions , I missed out too , easiest problem in the contest if you know how to do memory optimisation in DP

»
20 months ago, hide # |
 
Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

The same solution problem B in JAVA does not work

»
20 months ago, hide # |
 
Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

In problem E, I tried O(n * 1024) and got tle, so I spent a lot of time to optimize it and did not have enough time to solve D.

And after contest finish, I knew that just need to add ios::sync_with_stdio to get AC

»
20 months ago, hide # |
 
Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Can someone tell me how I can solve B in java? As far as I know there's no equivalent of sqrtl() in java and Math.sqrt() introduces precision errors for larger inputs.

»
19 months ago, hide # |
Rev. 2  
Vote: I like it -10 Vote: I do not like it

Thanks for the editorial

»
19 months ago, hide # |
 
Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

The binary search in Question B is still a bit difficult to understand. For example, when k=6, both n=8 and n=9 can be calculated on a computer as diff=n-sqet(n)=6=k. So how can this issue be avoided?

  • »
    »
    19 months ago, hide # ^ |
     
    Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    you have to find the smallest n satisfying n-sqrt(n) = k so in the code also when mid-sqrt(mid) >= k then r = mid and else l = mid which ensures that l will be the largest number such that l — sqrt(l) < k and r will be the smallest such that r-sqrt(r) >= k.

»
18 months ago, hide # |
Rev. 2  
Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

can someone explain why for A the following logic is giving WA

int n, k;
cin >> n >> k;
if(k > n || k == 1) {
    cout << n << endl;
    continue;
} 

int cnt = 0;
while(n) {
    int a = log(n)/log(k);
    n -= pow(k, a);
    cnt++;
}
cout << cnt << endl;
»
10 months ago, hide # |
 
Vote: I like it +3 Vote: I do not like it

Min_25 is too hard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

»
9 months ago, hide # |
 
Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

thanks, now i know sqrtl

»
9 months ago, hide # |
 
Vote: I like it +3 Vote: I do not like it

Problem D has a much simpler solution in $$$O(m+n \cdot d)$$$ time and $$$O(n \cdot d)$$$ space.

The idea is we can simply keep a map which maps $$$d$$$ to a map having $$$a_i$$$ mapped to max possible $$$k$$$.

So we just have to iterate over the last 10 vertices at max, if for that $$$d$$$ we have $$$i-d$$$ stored in the map, we try connecting them (using DSU), and store $$$mp[d][i] = max(mp[d][i],mp[d][i-d]-1)$$$.

This passes easily in the given time constraints!

My submission: 336833210 for reference.

»
8 months ago, hide # |
Rev. 2  
Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

What was that D problem's editorial! naahh hell naahh! lord save me

»
4 months ago, hide # |
 
Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Anyone has the book in B's tut because the link didn't work

»
3 months ago, hide # |
 
Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

We can also look at the proof of problem B in this way. Number of factors of a number is

d(n) = (a+1) * (b+1) * (c+1) ...

where n = p1^a1 * (p2 ^a2) * (p3^a3)..

So, when n is a perfect square, d(n) would be always (odd*odd*odd). When n is not a perfect square, it will be (odd) * (odd) *(odd+1) = odd * odd * even. This would make d(n) even always.

»
5 weeks ago, hide # |
 
Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Problem B can be solved far more efficiently following the solution: 371910904

It has a time complexity of log2(log10(n)).

Square rooting gives us the number of turned off bulbs. We should additionally turn these number of bulbs on. But these additional bulbs will also have some turned off bulbs due to being perfect squares. We keep square rooting until the offset comes down to zero.