# | User | Rating |
---|---|---|
1 | jiangly | 3898 |
2 | tourist | 3840 |
3 | orzdevinwang | 3706 |
4 | ksun48 | 3691 |
5 | jqdai0815 | 3682 |
6 | ecnerwala | 3525 |
7 | gamegame | 3477 |
8 | Benq | 3468 |
9 | Ormlis | 3381 |
10 | maroonrk | 3379 |
# | User | Contrib. |
---|---|---|
1 | cry | 168 |
2 | -is-this-fft- | 165 |
3 | Dominater069 | 161 |
4 | Um_nik | 160 |
5 | atcoder_official | 159 |
6 | djm03178 | 157 |
7 | adamant | 153 |
8 | luogu_official | 150 |
9 | awoo | 149 |
10 | TheScrasse | 146 |
Name |
---|
I'm really skeptical that this problem has a polynomial solution, so it's probably just about optimizing and pruning some type of backtracking.
Your solution is ok, but you have to change your dynamic programming by a backtrack to lose the constants of access to std::map, but you have to make some pruning to speed it up.
You know, the word backtrack probably comes from the action of "tracing back" (the last few moves; note that it's 'cing', not 'cking'), not "backing track" :D
but it's backtracking, isn't it? :D
Where I live, we have many words deformed by more comfortable pronounciation (you wouldn't guess what Bluetooth is sometimes called :D). I could be wrong, of course, it's just about what makes more sense to me.