| № | Пользователь | Рейтинг |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | tourist | 3803 |
| 2 | jiangly | 3707 |
| 3 | Benq | 3627 |
| 4 | ecnerwala | 3584 |
| 5 | orzdevinwang | 3573 |
| 6 | Geothermal | 3569 |
| 6 | cnnfls_csy | 3569 |
| 8 | Radewoosh | 3542 |
| 9 | jqdai0815 | 3532 |
| 10 | gyh20 | 3447 |
| Страны | Города | Организации | Всё → |
| № | Пользователь | Вклад |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | maomao90 | 167 |
| 2 | awoo | 163 |
| 3 | adamant | 162 |
| 4 | maroonrk | 152 |
| 5 | -is-this-fft- | 151 |
| 5 | nor | 151 |
| 7 | atcoder_official | 147 |
| 8 | TheScrasse | 146 |
| 9 | Petr | 145 |
| 10 | pajenegod | 143 |
I tried solving problem magic numbers with iterative digit dp. But it runs slower than my recursive solution by more than 200ms.
iterative : link
recursive : link
I also avoided using modulo operations in my iterative code, but am surprised to see it running slower.
Any idea why this happened?
There are only $$$O(1)$$$ states which don't have the last 2 values equal to 1, meaning that the recursive solution visits about 4 times less states than the iterative solution(the recursive solution visits about $$$nm$$$ states, while the iterative solution visits about $$$4nm$$$ states).127938045 just adds an if to make sure states that are unreachable don't waste time and that speeds up the solution a lot.