Hello.
Today I (ir5) and rng_58 are the authors of Codeforces Beta Round #71. During the contest, you may meet some animals and be asked to solve their tasks.
We sincerely thank for RAD for solving and testing the problems, for Maria Belova for checking the English problem statements, and for MikeMirzayanov for this great system.
Good luck.
UPD:
The round is over. The result was following:
Top 10 participants in the first division:
2. Petr
3. A_A_Lunyov
4. dancho
5. wrong
6. ACRush
7. e-maxx
8. watashi
9. Egor
10. LayCurse
Top 3 participants in the second division:
1. birbbit
2. sbzlyessit
3. Tayama
Congratulations!
If so including images will be nice :)
Но я не до конца уверен в правильности своего решения.
Сначала делаем подмену. Рассматриваем разности соседних лампочек (или что там было).
Теперь одна операция - это изменение двух лампочек на расстоянии a[i]. А всего надо поменять ≤ 2K лампочек. Строим граф с вершинами (0, 1, ..., n) и ребрами между u и v, если |u - v| = a[i]. В нем находим БФСом попарные расстояния между вершинами, которые надо менять. И в полученном графе из ≤ 2K вершин находим минимальное по весу паросочетание (тут как раз у меня только примерное доказательство правильности).
UPD. Прошла. Значит, все таки правильное решение.
As for me, I expected at least 30+ contestants would solve D correctly, but the result was only 6 ACs.
Overall, it seems that A,B was all right. C was solved by 200+ contestants, so I think C was actually not so very easy.
D,E are solved by only about 10 people yet. I believe those(D,E) are nice problems and you may learn something here.
---
Thank you for comments, Sir ivan.metelsky.
I could find no clue to solve...
I'm waiting for editorials.
Suppose one is hacking others' solutions and searches for a particular bug. When a solution seems to contain that bug, one is likely to challenge. Now, if the bug was in fact covered by pretests, he is surely wrong and is wasting time (and points if he is impatient with hacking). On the other side, if the bug was not covered by pretests, then the time is not surely wasted.
I propose that after locking a problem, one can submit solutions for that problem, they are checked on the pretests, and the result is reported back.
An existing way to get the same information is to first write and submit the wrong solution, and then submit the right one. But this way, it costs additional and points for the resubmission and for the time taken to write the wrong solution first. In my opinion, being able to get this information without the penalty would be fair and won't cause any harm when the problem is already locked.
But in general I completely agree with you.
Of course no, it's only an ethics, there are no any special secrets at that article.