pashka's blog

By pashka, history, 13 months ago, In English

1921A - Square

Idea: goncharovmike, prepared: pashka

Tutorial
Solution

1921B - Arranging Cats

Idea: pashka, prepared: ikrpprppp

Tutorial
Solution

1921C - Sending Messages

Idea: step_by_step, prepared: step_by_step, Vladosiya

Tutorial
Solution

1921D - Very Different Array

Idea: Vitaly239239, prepared: pashka

Tutorial
Solution

1921E - Eat the Chip

Idea: ikrpprppp, prepared: ikrpprppp

Tutorial
Solution

1921F - Sum of Progression

Idea: Vitaly239239, prepared: Vitaly239239

Tutorial
Solution

1921G - Mischievous Shooter

Idea: Vitaly239239, prepared: goncharovmike

Tutorial
Solution
  • Vote: I like it
  • +111
  • Vote: I do not like it

| Write comment?
»
13 months ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +12 Vote: I do not like it

The problems were nice. I solved A-E in-contest and F about 10 hours later.

For some reason I feel like E was easier to figure out than D.

Also my F submission is in-queue even though it got accepted earlier (?)

»
13 months ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +17 Vote: I do not like it

prefixsum forces

»
13 months ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Beautiful problems specially a to f Couldnt figure out g in time I misread a,b both which was abs terrible since the penalty I got from both was almost as twice as usual For A I thought that the squares aren't parallel to the Axis so I wrote a function to validate the squares, the i assumed every possible square and find the max Before I code the last part just reread the ! Question and...

»
13 months ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +3 Vote: I do not like it
  • »
    »
    13 months ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    Why D can use prefix sum without considering absolute value symbols?

»
13 months ago, # |
Rev. 8   Vote: I like it +17 Vote: I do not like it

I wonder what the intention for the strict limits for F was. The model solution 241944593 runs in approximately 1s, which is around half of the limit, and it consumes almost full memory allowed (1010600 KB).

The very same solution reaches very close at the limit just by swapping the array dimensions that leads to a worse cache hit rate: 241946807, which is what my own solution 241780298 exactly did and barely passed.

It's quite unfriendly with other slower languages, and with only a few trivially inefficient elements it's easy to exceed the time limit as well as the memory limit. It would've made more sense to set a bit more lenient TL and ML as done in problem G.

  • »
    »
    13 months ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +11 Vote: I do not like it

    It's always a tradeoff. The problem here is that the optimized naive solution, written in good C++ works about 2.5 s, so we cannot extend the TL any further.

    • »
      »
      »
      13 months ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

      That's a lot faster than I imagined. Guess you couldn't really do much about the ML as well as Polygon only allows up to 1024 MB ML.

      • »
        »
        »
        »
        13 months ago, # ^ |
          Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

        Oh, i checked again and I was wrong, we added more tests with many long sequences, and not it works more than 4s, but still pretty close.

        • »
          »
          »
          »
          »
          13 months ago, # ^ |
            Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

          indeed the time limit is too tight.
          same code after converting to c++ by gpt works in 900ms whereas it gives tle on test 3 in java

          • »
            »
            »
            »
            »
            »
            13 months ago, # ^ |
              Vote: I like it +1 Vote: I do not like it

            Yes, maps and lists are much slower in Java

          • »
            »
            »
            »
            »
            »
            13 months ago, # ^ |
              Vote: I like it +1 Vote: I do not like it

            But there are a lot of accepted submissions in Java, actually. Here is one for example https://codeforces.me/contest/1921/submission/243773379

            It's sad that you cannot use standard java containers in problems with such strict time limits, but I don't think we can do anything about it.

            I solved a lot of contests in Java, and at some point I learned how to implement anything using only simple arrays, but it's painful, I agree. That's why I moved to C++ for contests at some point.

            • »
              »
              »
              »
              »
              »
              »
              13 months ago, # ^ |
                Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

              Thanks for the reply
              Instead of map and arraylists, I used 2d array and the case which was giving TLE now passes in 450ms

»
13 months ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +3 Vote: I do not like it

Solution for G without prefix sums: 241838352.

The idea is very similar to the author's solution with prefix sums over $$$O(nm)$$$, but in this solution the recalculation is done over $$$O(\text{min}(n, m))$$$. In this solution, I go through all the red squares (from the parsing) and subtract them, and I also go through and add all the green squares.

The total time complexity of this solution is $$$O(nm\ \text{min}(n, m))$$$.

»
13 months ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

E was doable

  • »
    »
    13 months ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +4 Vote: I do not like it

    Fr but never thought E would be just if elses lol

»
13 months ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +2 Vote: I do not like it

i also had same intution for D as editorial ,but so much less confidence in contest .can anyone please justify why the greedy approach(same as editorial) will work.

@authors

  • »
    »
    13 months ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    Always, the difference between minimum and maximum is the max possible to get... Wym

    • »
      »
      »
      13 months ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it +1 Vote: I do not like it

      it is maximum diff now ,but by taking out maximum such element,we might be reducing maximum difference for second smallest element. you are saying local optimum decision will lead to global optimum(that is exactly greedy),i am asking why it will always result in optimum answer

  • »
    »
    13 months ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    Usually proving that swapping any two elements doesn't improve the answer is enough.

  • »
    »
    13 months ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +3 Vote: I do not like it

    See my submission first before reading the proof.

    The greedy approach can be neatly summarized as choosing the pair that gives the largest absolute difference and then we can pop the two corresponding elements and then we can continue doing the greedy.

    We need to prove two things:

    (1) That the largest distance is either abs(a.front() - b.back()) or abs(a.back() - b.front()).

    Proof. Note that any selected pair a[i] and b[j] have an associated direction from a[i] to b[j] in the number line (either right or left). If the direction is right, we can make the difference larger if we change a[i] to a.front() and b[j] to b.back(). The case is similar to if the direction is left.

    (2) Choosing the largest difference is optimal.

    Proof. Without loss of generality, assume that abs(a.front() - b.back()) gives the largest difference. Assume that the two pairs are (a.front(), b[j]) and (a[i], b.back()) (other cases like when a.front() or b.back() is not paired is trivial). Then by swapping, it's easy to visualize that (a.front(), b.back()) and (a[i], b[j]) is not worse.

    • »
      »
      »
      13 months ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

      can u pls elaborate (2) choosing largest difference is optimal "Assume that the two pairs are (a.front(), b[j]) and (a[i], b.back())" what are we assuming

      Then by swapping, it's easy to visualize that (a.front(), b.back()) and (a[i], b[j]) is not worse. After swapping what is not worse than what?

      • »
        »
        »
        »
        10 months ago, # ^ |
          Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

        In the second part, he's saying 'let's assume that we pair up a.front() with some other element in b that is not b.back(), and pair b.back() with something else in a'. Then if we swap b[j] with b.back() to get the pairs (a.front(), b.back()) and (a[i], b[j]), the sum of the absolute differences in this case won't be worse than the previous one.

»
13 months ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

The Solution Code of D may meet some display problem?

On my view, there are some — in the brackets of abs(), they look like:

c[i] = b[m — n + i];
s += abs(c[i] — a[i]);

I don't know if it's an issue with my browser.

»
13 months ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +10 Vote: I do not like it

Can someone explain why are we taking d=sqrt(q) ?

  • »
    »
    13 months ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +23 Vote: I do not like it

    We want to minimize $$$nd + qn/d$$$, When we increase $$$d$$$, the first part will increase, and the second part will decrease, and the minimal point will be when they become equal: $$$nd = qn/d$$$, from that we can get $$$d=\sqrt{q}$$$.

    • »
      »
      »
      13 months ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

      We can also sort queries by $$$ (d,s \mod d) $$$, and for all queries with same $$$ (d,s \mod d) $$$, we preare the prefix sum using items : $$$ a_{s \mod d}, a_{d+s \mod d},a_{2 \cdot d+s \mod d}, \cdots $$$, which are $$$ \frac{n}{d} $$$ items in total. For some fixed $$$d$$$, $$$d$$$ queries would be needed to make prefix sum calculation cover the whole $$$n$$$ array. Worst case is when $$$ 1+2+3+ \cdots + x=q$$$, get $$$x \approx \sqrt q $$$ , so the total time complexity of prefix sum preparing is $$$n \sqrt q $$$.

»
13 months ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +4 Vote: I do not like it

Can Problem D be solved with dynamic programming approach? dp[i][j] = maximum diff when a[i] is paired with b[j].

transition: dp[i][j] = abs(a[i]-b[j])+max value from dp[i-1] (other than dp[i-1][j] as jth element is paired with current element.)

return max value from dp[n-1];

is this approach correct?

»
13 months ago, # |
Rev. 3   Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Editorial is not attached as "Tutorial" in problem statement page yet. May it would be fixed.. UPD: Fixed Now..

»
13 months ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Can someone help my find out why my submission to E gives WA?: expected: 'DRAW', found: 'BOB'

  • »
    »
    13 months ago, # ^ |
    Rev. 2   Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    why you are doing wins==true in if(w — ya — 1 <= dh /2) and in else aslo ? in else there will be draw

    • »
      »
      »
      13 months ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

      Thank you!

      What a silly mistake...

»
13 months ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +19 Vote: I do not like it

who setted this problem G and why

  • »
    »
    13 months ago, # ^ |
    Rev. 2   Vote: I like it +19 Vote: I do not like it

    Sirs teaching Englishs. 😂

    So spreading the awareness xD
»
13 months ago, # |
Rev. 2   Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

After 18 contests, I've finally reached specialist, and so far, the only active specialist in Seattle! :)

»
13 months ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

I have an alt. sol for F that uses memoization.

Suppose we split the array into $$$d$$$ subsequences of increment $$$d$$$ for every $$$d$$$ from $$$1$$$ to $$$n$$$.

Ex: Original array is $$$[1,2,3,4,5]$$$

$$$d = 1: [1,2,3,4,5]$$$

$$$d = 2: [1,3,5],[2,4]$$$

$$$d = 3: [1,4], [2,5], [3]$$$ (You get the idea)

If we can generate both the prefix sums and the partial sums of the values multiplied by their index (eg $$$[1,3,5]$$$ becomes $$$[1\cdot1, 1\cdot1 + 3\cdot2,1\cdot1 + 3\cdot2 + 5\cdot3] = [1,7,22]$$$.

We can use these two precomputed arrays to evaluate the queries efficiently. However, precomputing all of these will be too slow, instead, we can create them and store them as we process queries since we don't need to precompute every subsequence.

To store them, we would just need something like a map, the key would be a pair $$$(d,s\%d)$$$ where $$$d$$$ is the increment and $$$s\%d$$$ represents the first element's index of the subsequence.

The worst case is that for every query, we have to create both types of prefix sum arrays for the largest, not-yet-computed sequence. It should be clear that given array of size $$$n$$$ and $$$n$$$ queries, the total iterations should be around $$$O(n\sqrt{n})$$$ (or plus a log factor depending on which map).

My code: 241999941 (which uses custom hash + unordered map)

»
13 months ago, # |
Rev. 2   Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

In problem c, doesn't the phone lose charge at 0 moment and also will the phone lose charge after it sends a message or before?

could someone explain?

»
13 months ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Can please tell me why is this submission giving a TLE for Problem F? (Time complexity: $$$O((N + Q) * sqrt(N))$$$)

  • »
    »
    13 months ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    Don't declare vectors(prefix sum) for every test case, make them of fixed size [10^5+1][320]

»
13 months ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

I have a nice greedy solution to D which just selects the largest possible distance at every iteration until all elements in $$$a$$$ have been paired, but I don't have a proof.

Code: 242031960

Can anyone prove it?

  • »
    »
    13 months ago, # ^ |
    Rev. 2   Vote: I like it +3 Vote: I do not like it

    I have also used this method during the contest.

    In sorted $$$ a_1, a_2, \cdots a_n $$$ and sorted $$$b_1,b_2, \cdots b_m$$$ , WLOG, let us assume max diff value is $$$ | a_1 - b_i |$$$. Obviously $$$i$$$ could only be $$$1$$$ or $$$m$$$ .

    If $$$i=1$$$,

    • when $$$b_1 < a_1, |a_1-b_1|<|a_n-b_1|$$$ ,
    • when $$$b_1 > a_1, |a_1-b_1|<|a_1-b_m|$$$ ,
    • so $$$i \neq 1$$$.

    If $$$i=m$$$,

    • when $$$b_m<a_1, |a_1-b_m|<|a_1-b_1|$$$,
    • so it must be $$$b_m>a_1$$$ .

    Assume in optimal solution, $$$b_j$$$ paired with $$$a_1$$$ ,

    • if $$$b_m$$$ is not paired with any value in $$$a$$$, we can move $$$a_1$$$ from pair with $$$b_j$$$ to $$$b_m$$$ to get a better solution.

    • If $$$b_m$$$ is paired with some $$$a_k$$$ , since $$$a_1<a_k , b_j<b_m , a_1<b_m , |a_1-b_j|<|a_1-b_m|$$$ , it can be shown that $$$|a_1-b_j|+|a_k-b_m| \leq |a_1-b_m|+|a_k-b_j|$$$.

    So, pair $$$a_1$$$ with $$$b_m$$$ must be in some optimal solution.

»
13 months ago, # |
Rev. 3   Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Don't understand the equations in F at all. Feels like editorial has been written for someone who already understands the solution.

"The key idea is that we know how to calculate the sum (i−l+1)⋅ai for l≤i≤r fast – we need to calculate all prefix sums i⋅ai and ai for 1≤i≤k, then take the difference between the r-th and (l−1)-th of i⋅ai and subtract the difference between the r-th and (l−1)-th multiplied by l−1"

This certainly could have been explained in a better way.

»
13 months ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Hello everyone. I am having trouble with problem F. I understand that its a standard problem but the part where we need to hop by d steps is making it hard for me to understand.

I have a scenario can someone please explain on this. d = 5, k=6, s=3

Here the sequence required is: a3 + 2a8 + 3a13 ... 6a28

I have 2 series which can be computed in O(1): S1 = a1 + a2 + a3 ... an S2 = a1 + 2*a2 + 3*a3 ... n*an

How can I get the required sum if someone is available to dry run it.

  • »
    »
    13 months ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    Precomputed prefix sums starting from index 3 with step size 5:

    ps1 = a3 + 2a8 + 3a13 + 4a18 + 5a23 + ...

    ps2 = a3 + a8 + a13 + a18 + a23 + ...

    Let's say you want to compute the sum for 3 elements starting from index 13:

    a13 + 2a18 + 3a23 = (3a13 + 4a18 + 5a23) -2*(a13 + a18 + a23)

    You can get get these two parts from prefix sums ps1 and ps2.

  • »
    »
    13 months ago, # ^ |
    Rev. 2   Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    Maybe putting summed indexes this way helps:

    1 2 3 4 5 6
      2 3 4 5 6
        3 4 5 6
          4 5 6
            5 6
              6
    

    If you need sum from 4 to 6 then you have to subtract triangle 1..3 and rectangle of top 3 lines which is (4+5+6)*3 = (sum without multiplication) * (s/d)

    After some optimisations you get answers quite fast.

»
11 months ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Problem F can be solved with the idea of Square Decomposition.

»
11 months ago, # |
Rev. 4   Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

there is and issue in G testcases

my O(n*n*m) solution did pass without TL 255464766

»
7 months ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Shit problem G