did anyone else notice the LONG evaluation time or am I a noob? insert inspirational quote here to make this post seem reasonable
# | User | Rating |
---|---|---|
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 |
# | User | Contrib. |
---|---|---|
1 | cry | 166 |
2 | maomao90 | 163 |
2 | Um_nik | 163 |
4 | atcoder_official | 161 |
5 | adamant | 159 |
6 | -is-this-fft- | 158 |
7 | awoo | 157 |
8 | TheScrasse | 154 |
9 | nor | 153 |
9 | Dominater069 | 153 |
did anyone else notice the LONG evaluation time or am I a noob? insert inspirational quote here to make this post seem reasonable
Name |
---|
What was your logic for solving it ?
since the cost is the sum we can think of portals as a different edge to the "portal dimension". I didn't realize this until just now, so I had the following idea: there are two options. A — just walk the entire way or B — walk from the start to a portal, and then from a portal to the end. calculating A is possible with a graph search (but block visited nodes) calculating B is possible with 2 more searches. (it is actually 2 parts — from start to portal + from portal to end.
then the minimum cost of the 2 options is the true cost. note: time needed = cost
I am bad at explaining so my best attempt is to claim that you can prove this answer correct,
Something similar was discussed in this blog. The last tests run very slowly.
sus :flushed: