Comments
0

Yeah, I posted a blog about this a while ago and I now understand why I was wrong about it. I partially misunderstood the problem statement. Thank you for pointing this out tho XD
+6

I see. I completely forgot that I can include the same index in both sets. I thought it wasn't allowed since it says

Two subsequences are considered different if the sets of indexes of their elements in the original sequence are different, that is, the values of the elements are not considered when comparing the subsequences.`

I assumed here that this must mean that all indices must be different (indices cannot be reused).

Thank you for the clarification!
0

Auto comment: topic has been updated by super_4004 (previous revision, new revision, compare).
0

Too late to notice I believe (it has already been 3 years), and very aware there could be a possibility I am wrong (but would still like to make the statement).

I believe Problem B Gardener And the Array's tutorial is incorrect and that test cases might lacking.

Through simple observation, I noticed that the case

1
3
2 1 2
2 1 4
3 1 2 3

should return a NO not a YES (the tutorial solution returns YES). That is since although all bits in the third number exist at least twice in numbers in the rest of the array, the sub-sequence cannot be formed as 2 other numbers have exclusive bits. In other words, trying to OR them will result an extra bit that is not in the third number. Other configurations can also be proven to not work.
-7

As the someone else just said; security by obscurity is non-secure. If someone wants to cheat, there are plenty of ways to, and they don't need this post. You would be surprised at how good current LLMs are at problems rated below 2000 (unfortunately).