I got completely comfused in the editorial of DIV2 E.↵
↵
_let it be number $y$. Then it is clear that all bits from $w$ will be included in the answer, then we make a new pair $(x'_i, y'_i)$ = $(x_i - w, y_i - w)$_↵
↵
What is $w$? Where did the $w$ come from? Are you meaning $y$ ?↵
↵
_Iterate over bit $i$ and similarly to the case $x = 0$ consider the same cases, but for the array $y'$. Also, take into account that the bit occurs in $W$._↵
↵
I think this sentence is written for people who have already known how to solve this problem. It is completely unreadable and meaningless.↵
↵
Don't write editorials for MIKE. Please, write something **understandable**.↵
↵
Please always remember, people who read your editorials **do not** know how to solve this problem, and not all readers can understand it as easily as [user:tourist,2024-03-05].↵
↵
**UPD1**: It seems that the writter has modified the editorial and the first issue has been fixed.
↵
_let it be number $y$. Then it is clear that all bits from $w$ will be included in the answer, then we make a new pair $(x'_i, y'_i)$ = $(x_i - w, y_i - w)$_↵
↵
What is $w$? Where did the $w$ come from? Are you meaning $y$ ?↵
↵
_Iterate over bit $i$ and similarly to the case $x = 0$ consider the same cases, but for the array $y'$. Also, take into account that the bit occurs in $W$._↵
↵
I think this sentence is written for people who have already known how to solve this problem. It is completely unreadable and meaningless.↵
↵
Don't write editorials for MIKE. Please, write something **understandable**.↵
↵
Please always remember, people who read your editorials **do not** know how to solve this problem, and not all readers can understand it as easily as [user:tourist,2024-03-05].↵
↵
**UPD1**: It seems that the writter has modified the editorial and the first issue has been fixed.
