Can someone tell me how to solve this problem? http://acm.sgu.ru/problem.php?contest=0&problem=543
Thanks a lot :)
№ | Пользователь | Рейтинг |
---|---|---|
1 | tourist | 4009 |
2 | jiangly | 3823 |
3 | Benq | 3738 |
4 | Radewoosh | 3633 |
5 | jqdai0815 | 3620 |
6 | orzdevinwang | 3529 |
7 | ecnerwala | 3446 |
8 | Um_nik | 3396 |
9 | ksun48 | 3390 |
10 | gamegame | 3386 |
Страны | Города | Организации | Всё → |
№ | Пользователь | Вклад |
---|---|---|
1 | cry | 165 |
2 | maomao90 | 164 |
3 | Um_nik | 163 |
4 | atcoder_official | 161 |
5 | adamant | 160 |
6 | -is-this-fft- | 158 |
7 | awoo | 157 |
8 | TheScrasse | 154 |
9 | nor | 153 |
9 | Dominater069 | 153 |
Can someone tell me how to solve this problem? http://acm.sgu.ru/problem.php?contest=0&problem=543
Thanks a lot :)
Название |
---|
Greedy? My approach:
First, for each index, decrease the number a(i-th) by r
x
times until the a(i-th) number is less than r. If a(i-th) is equal to 1, add 1 to a(i-th). Add x to the total number of tables needed.For first sample inpuT, After this step, it should be like a[]=[2,2,3] and total number of tables=3 Then,sort the a[] in accending order. Followed by filling in the rest of the people, we match the index with a for-loop. For each for-loop, if the number is 0, simply ignore it.
if the number >= (r/2+1), we break the loop and check the number of indexes with is not equal to 0 and output(number oF table+number of indexes)
iF the number,say x, > 0 but < (r/2+1), we find the minimum matching index, say y, so that (x+y)<=r and y is not equal to 0.
if y does not exist, we break the loop and output as mentioned above.
if y exists, we set y=0, and set x=x+y, and find out more minimum matching indexes y' so that (x+y')<=r. If we find more y', set all y' to 0 and add it to x. If we cannot find more, we continue the for-loop.
if the for-loop runs til the end,output as mentioned above
Complexity: O(n^2)
But I think that the algorithm is not correct. Anyway at least for some cases it works ;)
Thanks a lot for replying. Interesting idea you have there, but I think it will fail for this case:
6 4 6 4 4 4
The correct output is 3, but I think your algorithm would produce 4 (please correct me if I'm wrong).
I tried n^2 dp with a greedy heuristic, but found some cases for which my code fails after getting Wrong Answer.
I see it. More spliting can be done so to reduce the size.
maybe we split all numbers to 2 and 3 first?
Hmm..that's a nice idea :). I haven't thought of that before. Splitting all the numbers to 2 and 3 and recording their frequency. I think if we can split the numbers appropriately a greedy algorithm would work. But the question is how do you split the numbers appropriately. Say in one group there are 6 people. So do you split them in 3 2's or 2 3's? One would produce optimal result and the other may not.
I think the only method for solving this is greedy, but can't figure out a proper greedy algorithm which passes all the cases I thought of. I tried to solve this with dp, but it seems impossible.
If the number is odd, we express it as 2n+3, where n>=0, and split the number into n 2s and one 3.
If the number is even, we express it as 2n, where n>=1, and split the number into n 2s
then combination
Doesn't work if we split like that. For example 1 3 6
You would get 2,2,2 after splitting and this would require 3 tables. But this can be done in 2 (3, 3)
emm we can do reduction first followed by spliting
What do you mean? Reduction doesn't always work. Can you simulate this test case?
4 6
6 3 3 3
3 tables?
Yes, but will your algorithm output 3? I think it will output 4.
4 6
Reduction
0 3 3 3
Spliting
0 3 3 3 (3=0*2+3)
Combination
0 6 3 0