Please read the new rule regarding the restriction on the use of AI tools. ×

nishkarsh's blog

By nishkarsh, history, 28 hours ago, In English

A. Find Min Operations

By nishkarsh

Hint 1
Hint 2
Solution
Code

B. Brightness Begins

By nishkarsh

Hint 1
Hint 2
Solution
Code 1
Code 2

C. Bitwise Balancing

By P.V.Sekhar

Hint 1
Hint 2
Solution
Code

D. Connect the Dots

By P.V.Sekhar

Hint 1
Hint 2
Solution
Code

E. Expected Power

By nishkarsh

Hint 1
Hint 2
Solution
Code

F. Count Leaves

By nishkarsh

Hint 1
Solution
Code
  • Vote: I like it
  • -286
  • Vote: I do not like it

»
26 hours ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +292 Vote: I do not like it

whats the point of allowing $$$O(n \cdot 1024)$$$ solutions in E

  • »
    »
    26 hours ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it -157 Vote: I do not like it

    well, we reduced the bound on A to make sure nlog^2A passes.

    We didn't knew that these solutions existed.

    • »
      »
      »
      25 hours ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it +14 Vote: I do not like it

      know*

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

      I think $$$a_i < 2^{14}$$$ or something would've been the optimal choice if i am not mistaken $$$O(n \log^2 A)$$$ should pass as long as there is no bad constant factor and the more naive solution wouldn't have passed but i am sure it was hard to predict that such solutions would pop up + thanks for the amazing contest.

      • »
        »
        »
        »
        25 hours ago, # ^ |
          Vote: I like it +7 Vote: I do not like it

        It's not hard to expect that the dp 1024n is too easy and obvious to anyone who has solved dp+ev before

        • »
          »
          »
          »
          »
          24 hours ago, # ^ |
            Vote: I like it -23 Vote: I do not like it

          Yes it is straight forward but $$$n$$$ is still upto $$$2 \cdot 10^5$$$ so passing shouldn't seem smooth, some people even got TLE.

      • »
        »
        »
        »
        8 hours ago, # ^ |
          Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

        What is amazing about this contest?

  • »
    »
    25 hours ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +21 Vote: I do not like it

    my O(n * 1024) solution passed (4000ms), so I optimized to O(min(n, 1024) * 1024) and it passed 2500ms.

    • »
      »
      »
      24 hours ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

      This also didn't seem intended but yeah this solution also exists and it runs in $$$O(\text{max } a_i^2)$$$.

    • »
      »
      »
      8 hours ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

      can you please explain your optimized solution for problem E?

      • »
        »
        »
        »
        8 hours ago, # ^ |
        Rev. 6   Vote: I like it +4 Vote: I do not like it

        Sure. Here’s how I came up with the optimization:

        1. Notice that if n > 2^10, we have duplicates.
        2. Q: What properties does the XOR operation have that can help with duplicates? A: If we have an even number of duplicates, XOR = 0. If we have an odd number of duplicates, XOR = the number.
        3. We need to precompute two values for each unique number (less than 2^10): pdp[i][0] — the probability of getting value i an even number of times. pdp[i][1] — the probability of getting it an odd number of times.
          Dp base for each number = {1, 0} (100% chance of getting zero times).
        4. How do we calculate these values? Iterate over all values, and for value i (with prob pi), we have two transitions: pdp[i] = { pdp[i][0] * (1-pi) + pdp[i][1] * pi, pdp[i][0] * pi + pdp[i][1] * (1-pi) }. I hope these transitions are clear to understand.
        5. Then, we can reuse the previous solution O(n * 1024), but instead of iterating over all a[i], we will iterate only over unique a[i]. Instead of p[i], use previously calculated probability dp prob_dp[a[i]] for calculating the new dp. Two transitions: if we take an even number of a[i] or an odd number of a[i].

        My solution (rust): https://codeforces.me/contest/2020/submission/283652607 In my case cnt array is pdp precalculations.

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

    I came up with that solution at my first look at E after solving C, but $$$O(n⋅1024)$$$ would definitely TLE, and I couldn't improve my approach. It kinda makes me feel sad to know that such were ACed now :)

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

      283614074 Brute force solution runs 0.9s. Much less than Time Limit 4s, and quite close to official solution which runs 0.7s. When I come to the problem, I get the idea same as the tutorial. But later I see $$$a_i<1024$$$, so I decide to submit $$$O(1024 \min{\{n, 1024\}})$$$ solution which saves lines of codes.

  • »
    »
    17 hours ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    I replaced 4 modulo operation with 1 in my solution. And it got passed

  • »
    »
    5 hours ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    yeah, my O(n*1024) passed in 765ms

»
26 hours ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Can anyone explain how did we get the direct formula in B??

  • »
    »
    26 hours ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +2 Vote: I do not like it

    Every number has an even number of factors, except square numbers.

    We can prove the first fact by finding a factor a of number n. Then, if n is not a square n/a is another factor of n.

    If n is a square, then we double count sqrt(n), as we count n/sqrt(n) and sqrt(n) which are the same value. This leads to an odd number of factors(every other factor + 1).

    Using this, if a switch is flipped an even number of times, it returns back to 1. If it flipped an odd number of times, it returns to 0.

    • »
      »
      »
      26 hours ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

      what is the explanation of n-sqrt(n)>=k?

      • »
        »
        »
        »
        25 hours ago, # ^ |
          Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

        sqrt(n) gives how many square numbers are there for n, since squares cant be On we need to subtract them to get total lights on and the RHS is since we need to check if ON is atleast k to get the binary search going.

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

      Check the solution discution on YT.

    • »
      »
      »
      24 hours ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

      This does not answer the question which was about how to get the direct formula: $$$n=⌊k+\sqrt{k}+0.5⌋$$$

  • »
    »
    15 hours ago, # ^ |
    Rev. 2   Vote: I like it -6 Vote: I do not like it

    I have created a video solution for Problem B and Problem A on my youtube channel, you can checkout, it's a simple and intuitive solution

    Video solution for Problem C

»
26 hours ago, # |
  Vote: I like it -72 Vote: I do not like it

This was a good round, unless I FST ofc, then it was a horrible round. I think that there should be more problems like this — problems that don't require so much IQ, but $$$do$$$ require coding. These problems are what might be called chill problems.

»
26 hours ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +1 Vote: I do not like it

Now after seeing the solution of B problem.... I just want to cry ):

»
25 hours ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

I was able to figure out that number of ON bulbs after n operations is related to sqrt(n) but was going in opposite track. Here only perfect squares are off and other are ON.

»
25 hours ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

I understood the binary search solution for problem B. But, I am not able to figure out how direct formula $$$n = \lfloor k + \sqrt{k} +0.5 \rfloor$$$ came. Can anyone please explain it?

  • »
    »
    24 hours ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    dont think abt that farmula number of number of perfect squares<=k and add to k(ie (int)sqrt(k)) now we can only cross atmost one more square in b/w [k,k+(int)sqrt(k)] which is ((int)sqrt(k)+1)^2 check for that and add 1 the farmula given directly checks it mathematically

    • »
      »
      »
      23 hours ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

      I did a similar approach but got wrong answer. Mind explaining why? This

      • »
        »
        »
        »
        16 hours ago, # ^ |
          Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

        i think it has problem with sqrt funcuntion like some times it will give root 4=1.999 so it will become 1 so it is good to check if (r+1)(r+1)=k r++;

    • »
      »
      »
      16 hours ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

      I am trying to submit binary search solution but I am receiving WA verdict. Even though it is giving correct answer for that test case in my machine. Can you please check what is the problem? https://codeforces.me/contest/2020/submission/283696903

      Thanks

      • »
        »
        »
        »
        16 hours ago, # ^ |
          Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

        i think its the same problem with you the sqrt funcuntion gives error at intigers some times

        • »
          »
          »
          »
          »
          11 hours ago, # ^ |
            Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

          Oh I see, these type of arithmetic errors are really difficult to catch unless you know them beforehand. Thanks a lot Veda_2005

  • »
    »
    13 hours ago, # ^ |
    Rev. 2   Vote: I like it +1 Vote: I do not like it

    Suppose $$$\lfloor \sqrt n \rfloor = m$$$, $$$m^2 < n < (m+1)^2$$$ (note that n wouldn't be a square, as the square lightbulb itself is closed)

    So, $$$m^2-m < k < m^2+m+1, m-0.5 < \sqrt k < m+0.5$$$ (inequality is true as k is an integer)

    $$$\lfloor \sqrt k +0.5 \rfloor = m = \lfloor \sqrt n \rfloor$$$, $$$ n = k + \lfloor \sqrt k +0.5 \rfloor$$$

    • »
      »
      »
      11 hours ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

      Ok, no I understood this formula completely. But, I am not able to understand only this fact that if $$$m^2 - m < k < m^2 + m + 1$$$, then how inequality $$$m - 0.5 < \sqrt{k} < m + 0.5$$$ is true when $$$k$$$ is an integer.

      And, I suppose that there is a typo. It should be $$$\lfloor \sqrt{k} + 0.5 \rfloor = m = \lfloor \sqrt{n} \rfloor$$$, instead of $$$\lfloor \sqrt{k} + 0.5 \rfloor = m = \lfloor n \rfloor$$$

      • »
        »
        »
        »
        9 hours ago, # ^ |
          Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

        Yes the last one is a typo, fixed. $$$m^2-m < (m^2-m+1/4) = (m-0.5)^2 < k < (m+0.5)^2 = m^2+m+1/4 < m^2+m+1$$$

        As you can see, 1/4 is added for lower bound, 3/4 is removed for upper bound, so the inequality only works because k is a positive integer.

        • »
          »
          »
          »
          »
          6 hours ago, # ^ |
            Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

          Ok, now I understood this formula. I as just getting confused why only 0.5 constant is used and not any other number. Thanks a lot TanJWcode

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

    first, few keypoints to keep in mind are: 1) sqrt(1)->1,sqrt(4)->2,sqrt(9)->3,sqrt(6)->2.44.....square root of numbers tells you that how many perfect square where there before that number. for example sqrt(9)=3, so there are total 3 perfect square <=9 which are(1,2,3).similarly sqrt(6)=2.44..round of to 2 perfet squares before 6 which are (1,2).

    2)now , according to question we need k ones, so why not lets take n=k(for k ones), now we can say there are total sqrt(k) perfect squares. which means if we take n=k there will be total sqrt(k) which will be zero and rest will be 1. hence to make total number of ones =k we have to add sqrt(k) to n so that we get k ones.

    3)example- given k=6. now sqrt(k)=round(2.44)=2. that means total perfect squares before 6 will be 2. that means if we take n=6 then we will get two zeroes and 4 ones i.e 011011 . but according to question we need k=6 ones, hence to add extra 2 ones we do n= k+sqrt(k) i.e n=8 which will give total numbers of one=6 i.e 01101111.

    4) note the 0.5 factor is there to compensate for next perfect square we can get as a zero. in case of 8. therefor n=k+sqrt(k)+0.5.

»
25 hours ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +18 Vote: I do not like it

In problem B, how do we derive the formula $$$( n = \left\lfloor k + \sqrt{k} + 0.5 \right\rfloor )$$$ from the equation $$$( n - \left\lfloor \sqrt{n} \right\rfloor = k )$$$?

  • »
    »
    13 hours ago, # ^ |
    Rev. 2   Vote: I like it +1 Vote: I do not like it

    Derivation:

    Suppose $$$\lfloor \sqrt n \rfloor = m$$$, $$$m^2 < n < (m+1)^2$$$ (note that n wouldn't be a square, as the square lightbulb itself is closed)

    So, $$$m^2-m < k < m^2+m+1, m-0.5 < \sqrt k < m+0.5$$$ (inequality is true as k is an integer)

    $$$\lfloor \sqrt k +0.5 \rfloor = m = \lfloor \sqrt n \rfloor$$$, $$$ n = k + \lfloor \sqrt k +0.5 \rfloor$$$

    Intuition:

    Suppose $$$l^2 \leq k < (l+1)^2$$$, we have $$$n = k+l$$$, if $$$n \geq (l+1)^2$$$, we have to add 1 to compensate for that new square. So $$$n=k+l$$$ or $$$n=k+l+1$$$

    $$$n \geq (l+1)^2 , k \geq l^2+l+1 > l^2+l+0.25, \sqrt k > l+0.5$$$

    The formula follows.

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

      I understand the derivation, but I am unsure how $$$m - 0.5 < \sqrt{k} < m + 0.5$$$ follows from the condition $$$m^2 - m < k < m^2 + m + 1$$$.

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

        $$$m^2-m < (m^2-m+1/4) = (m-0.5)^2 < k < (m+0.5)^2 = m^2+m+1/4 < m^2+m+1$$$

        As you can see, 1/4 is added for lower bound, 3/4 is removed for upper bound, so the inequality only works because k is a positive integer.

»
25 hours ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +3 Vote: I do not like it

If maxa is sth like 2^20, E will be a good problem. What a pity.

»
25 hours ago, # |
Rev. 2   Vote: I like it +53 Vote: I do not like it

A O(1) solution for C exists: if some solution exists both b ^ d and c ^ d will be solutions. This comes from simplifying the truth table.

  • »
    »
    25 hours ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    O(1) solution for B exists toocout << k + (int)sqrtl(k + (int)sqrtl(k)) << endl;

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

      I don't think this is O(1) since sqrt is log(n) time complexity

      • »
        »
        »
        »
        25 hours ago, # ^ |
          Vote: I like it +8 Vote: I do not like it

        It's considered to be constant in bit complexity, just as how we consider other arithmetic operations to have constant complexity.

  • »
    »
    24 hours ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    Amazing

»
25 hours ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +16 Vote: I do not like it

In problem C simply set a to b xor d and check if it works

»
25 hours ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +1 Vote: I do not like it

You put image of editorial C to editorial D. By accident I suppose

»
25 hours ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +4 Vote: I do not like it

I got the idea of problem B fast because of 1909E - Multiple Lamps.

The idea
»
25 hours ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

How was I supposed to solve that B problem, I literally had 0 idea that I will have to build a formulae for that, plus the observation required for the problem isn't normal at all.

  • »
    »
    24 hours ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    Binary search is an alternative solution

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

    Here is how I approached it. First I assumed it to be a dumb problem. And from my past experience and noticing that n and k are not far apart in the samples, and by thinking about prime factorization and number of factors (however I didn't dive into that because I was lazy) I suspect maybe only the first few bulbs are not on. And I printed a table of the first 100 n and k, and quickly realized that k=n-(int)sqrtl(n). Obviously then you may construct some weird formula to do it backwards, but I suddenly came up with binary search and solved it.

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

    I didn't think of establishing a formula when solving this problem, but I found the following pattern by observing the case of n=24: 0110111101111110111111110 Using this rule, the problem is transformed into how many zeros need to be inserted into k ones

»
25 hours ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +11 Vote: I do not like it

contest is too math

»
25 hours ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +5 Vote: I do not like it

In B no need for a formula, you can just binary search for the answer, it only needs that observation

  • »
    »
    25 hours ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    That observation is too much for me, tell me how much more I need to practice in order to get that B always right.

    • »
      »
      »
      25 hours ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

      I saw that observation before in blogs but usually you just need practice to get observations fast, if you aren't sure how to practice correctly I think there's lots of cf blogs on it

  • »
    »
    24 hours ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    I personally guess that formula was a trap for chatgpt cheaters

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

Can someone help me with my code for E. I am finding probability for each bit to be active or not then for all number adding it's contribution to expectation.

Code

z[i][0][j] represent prob in first i element our subset's xor will have j'th bit set

z[i][1][j] represent prob in first i element our subset's xor will not have j'th bit set

then for each number(0-1023) i add contribution number 5's contribution would be simply (z[n-1][0][0]*z[n-1][1][1]*z[n-1][2][0])*5*5

  • »
    »
    25 hours ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    Squaring is not linear so you can't handle bit by bit without doing the editorial's trick, what works is z[i][j] represents probability in first i element that the xor is equal to j

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

      i do understand editorial's way but can't find mistake in my own approch. can you may be give me little example

      • »
        »
        »
        »
        25 hours ago, # ^ |
          Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

        Oh I didn't understand your solution, it looks like it should work, there might be an implementation mistake somewhere

  • »
    »
    25 hours ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +8 Vote: I do not like it

    At first I thought of something similar for this problem. The issue is that the probability of getting a 1 on the ith bit is not independent to the probability of getting a 1 on the jth bit. An example of this may be that given the case:

    1

    3

    5000

    I can either take the 2^0 bit and the 2^1 bit or I can take neither, yet your implementation may give some probability to 2's contribution.

  • »
    »
    23 hours ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +5 Vote: I do not like it

    I had the same idea when implementing at first, but the bit-by-bit approach doesn't work because you're trying to use linearity of expectation on a non-linear operation (squaring). If you're given $$$A=[101_2]$$$ and $$$P=[0.5]$$$, then you should have a 50% chance of obtaining $$$0^2=0$$$ and a 50% chance of obtaining $$$(101_2)^2 = 25$$$. However, if you solve bit-by-bit, your solution will conclude that you have a 25% chance of obtaining $$$(000_2)^2=0$$$, a 25% for $$$(001_2)^2=1$$$, 25% for $$$(100_2)^2=16$$$, and 25% for $$$(101_2)^2=25$$$, which should be impossible since you can only xor by full numbers, not just their individual bits.

»
25 hours ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +32 Vote: I do not like it

The editorial solution for E is too complicated. There is a much easier O(1024 * n) dynamic programming solution which comfortably fits within time limit.

»
25 hours ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +16 Vote: I do not like it

Why is Carrot not working !?

»
25 hours ago, # |
  Vote: I like it -7 Vote: I do not like it

E can (accidentally) be solved with FWT: https://codeforces.me/contest/2020/submission/283601247

»
25 hours ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +3 Vote: I do not like it

Seems like you didnt consider two much easier solutions in D and E

  • »
    »
    22 hours ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    I have solved D using different approach.I won't say it is easy but if someone wants to see here it it 283680740

»
25 hours ago, # |
Rev. 2   Vote: I like it +9 Vote: I do not like it

Problem D has a much easier $$$O(nd^2 + m)$$$ solution.

»
25 hours ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Hello can anyone help me why B submission is getting WA on Test case 8?

»
24 hours ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Can anyone tell me what I am doing wrong looking at my profile, I am unable to reach pupil

»
24 hours ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +1 Vote: I do not like it

$$$O(nd+m)$$$ solution to D: 283633809 We can brute force all edges and run dfs for connected components, since there are at most $$$2*d$$$ edges per node.

  • »
    »
    4 hours ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    can u explain how can a node have at most 2*d edges only

»
24 hours ago, # |
Rev. 4   Vote: I like it +2 Vote: I do not like it

Can anyone help me debug my code, It failed test case 8. I tried so hard today but not enough :(

Submission:283668245

  • »
    »
    23 hours ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    use sqrtl, because sqrt looses precision with big numbers (i didn't solve B because of that)

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

      I struggled with this as well, until I finally decided to google for "c++ square root of int64" and was able to solve the problem just in time. Then I looked at the tutorial and discovered sqrtl.

»
24 hours ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +5 Vote: I do not like it

For C, can someone explain why it is bit independent? I am unable to wrap my head around it

  • »
    »
    24 hours ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +5 Vote: I do not like it

    Assume it is not bit independent. Then there must be some i, for which (a|b)'s i-th bit is not set and (a&c)'s i-th bit is set. If (a&c)'s i-th bit is set, then a's i-th bit must also be set. But if a's i-th bit is set, then (a|b)'s i-th set must also be set, which is a contradiction. Therefore it is bit independent.

  • »
    »
    23 hours ago, # ^ |
    Rev. 2   Vote: I like it +1 Vote: I do not like it

    Subtraction in kth bit place in p - q = r affect other places only if pk is 0 and qk is 1.

    All other cases

    For this case to happen, (ak | bk) = 0 which means ak = 0
    but (ak & ck) = 1 which means ak = 1 which is a contradiction
    Hope the explanation is clear!

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

An alternative solution to the problem D in $$$O(max_d * n + m)$$$

Consider the point $$$x$$$, note that it can only be connected to the $$$max_d$$$ points that go in front of it. We will support $$$dp[x][d] = k$$$, where $$$x$$$ is the coordinate of a point on a numeric line, $$$d$$$ is the length of the reverse step, $$$k$$$ is the maximum number of steps that will be taken from point $$$x$$$ with step $$$d$$$. Then note that we can move from point $$$x - d$$$ to point $$$d$$$ only if $$$dp[x - d][d] > 0$$$. In this case, we will draw an undirected edge between the points $$$x - d$$$ and $$$d$$$. Recalculate the dynamics for point $$$x$$$ as follows $$$dp[x][d] = max(dp[x][d], dp[x - d][d] - 1)$$$

Dynamics base, initially for all $$$x$$$ and $$$d$$$, $$$dp[x][d] = 0$$$. Now for all m triples $$$a_i, d_i, k_i$$$ we get $$$dp[a_i][d_i] = max(dp[a_i][d_i], k_i)$$$

At the end, using dfs, we will find the number of connectivity components

Code of this solution: 283668708

»
24 hours ago, # |
Rev. 2   Vote: I like it +5 Vote: I do not like it

In the editorial of F, I think it should be $$$f(p^{ik},d)$$$ instead of $$$f(p^{i}k,d)$$$

»
24 hours ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

https://codeforces.me/contest/2020/submission/283572788

can anyone help me why above is wrong

  • »
    »
    24 hours ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    might be a rounding issue. generally a good idea to avoid non-integer types unless absolutely necessary

»
24 hours ago, # |
Rev. 3   Vote: I like it +18 Vote: I do not like it

Where's the originality?

Problem Codeforces 976 Div2 $$$F$$$ be directly copied from AtCoder Beginner Contest 370 G link: https://atcoder.jp/contests/abc370/editorial/10906

The core idea of both problems is absolutely identical, including the approach of solving them with a convolution technique. The only noticeable difference between the two problems lies in how the function $$$f(prime)$$$ and $$$f(prime^{ki}, b)$$$ is computed. Other than that, the rest of the structure, including the logic and solution techniques, are the same. This raises concerns about originality and fair practice in problem setting across competitive programming platforms.

Problem Codeforces 976 Div2 $$$E$$$ has solution with the most basic dp idea with $$$O(n \cdot 1024)$$$.

As someone who placed officially 12-th in Div 2, I’m absolutely disappointed with how Codeforces 976 Div2 F turned out.

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

..

»
24 hours ago, # |
Rev. 6   Vote: I like it +1 Vote: I do not like it

An alternate solution to D which doesn't use DP:

Similar to the solution in the editorial I used a DSU to keep track of components, but to check whether elements $$$i$$$ and $$$i+d_i$$$ are connected, I simply need to check among operations $$$j$$$ where $$$d_j = d_i$$$, and $$$a_j \% d_j = i\%d_i$$$. I used a map to store sets of operations together based on $$$d_j$$$ and $$$a_j\%d_j$$$, and I stored each operation as a pair $$$[ a_j, a_j + k_j \cdot d_j ]$$$.

Now each set of operations can now simply be represented as sets of intervals, and I used a datastructure which I called an IntervalSet which internally uses an std::set to efficiently a insert intervals in amortized $$$O(\text{log n})$$$ and store them efficiently by combining overlapping intervals and query whether an interval is completely included in the set in $$$O(\text{log n})$$$ where $$$n$$$ is the number of intervals in the set. This allows me to simply query whether $$$[i,i+d_i]$$$ is included in the among the operations with $$$d_j = d_i$$$, and $$$a_j \% d_j = i\%d_i$$$ which makes the code very simple.

void solve(){
  int n,m; cin>>n>>m;
  
  DSU dsu(n);
  
  map<pii, IntervalSet2<int>> mp;
  for_(i,0,m) {
    int a,d,k; cin>>a>>d>>k;
    a--;
    mp[{d,a%d}].insert({a, a+k*d}); 
  }
  
  for_(i,0,n){
    for_(di,1,11){
      if (i+di >= n) break;
      if (mp[{di,i%di}].contains({i,i+di})) dsu.merge(i,i+di);
    }
  }
  
  auto groups = dsu.groups();
  cout<<sz(groups)<<nl;
}

My submission: 283669482

PS: I used ChatGPT to help in implementing the IntervalSet class so its not in a great state rn;) and I haven't seen any implementations of such an IntervalSet class, so I would love to learn about any other implementations you guys know about.

»
22 hours ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

problem B solution without Binary search : solution

»
20 hours ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

problem a can be solved by take log?

  • »
    »
    19 hours ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    I also have the same question!

  • »
    »
    15 hours ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    Yep it can be.

    int log(int n, int o) {
        int c = 0;
        int p = 1;
        for (;p <= n; p*=o, c++) {}
        return c-1;
    }
    
    
    void solve()
    {
        int n, o;
        cin>>n>>o;
        int r=0;
        if(o==1){
            cout<<n<<endl;
            return;
        }
        for(;n>0;){
            int t =llround(pow(o, log(n, o)));
            r+=n/t;
            n=n%t;
        }
        cout<<r<<endl;
    }
    
    • »
      »
      »
      9 hours ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

      I try your solution but it got tle on testcase 3

      • »
        »
        »
        »
        6 hours ago, # ^ |
          Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

        Hey, did you get the answer? I have been racking my brain around this for a day:

        Check my comment: Comment-1203949

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

        hmm really?

        check out this submission, my submission didn't get tle:

        283695273

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

          I saw your submission. I used #define endl '\n',endl flushes the output making it slower. and you should also use ios_base::sync_with_stdio(false); cin.tie(nullptr);

          • »
            »
            »
            »
            »
            »
            45 minutes ago, # ^ |
              Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

            Hi, I've used #define endl "\n" as well...

              ios::sync_with_stdio(false);
              cin.tie(nullptr);
              cout.tie(nullptr);
            

            Also used these in my main function, please check again :) Highly unlikely that these have anything to do with the WA though!

        • »
          »
          »
          »
          »
          40 minutes ago, # ^ |
            Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

          Just want to point out: You are not actually using the log function to find out the highest power of k, instead you have used an iterator to find it out. So not really applicable to my doubt. I have found a similar solution which got AC but the entire point is that why is log() not working

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

Although I know $$$O(1204\cdot n)$$$ is not the standard solution to E, I have encountered a strange TLE in this solution by just moving $$$M = 10^9 + 7$$$ to the inside of the $$$solve()$$$. 283686661 283686119 Could anyone tell me what's going on?

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

    if you put it outside pypy compiles it as constant, which is way faster.

»
18 hours ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Could someone please explain what is wrong here?

During the contest, I took limits of 1 to 1e18 (wrong, I later realised why), tried upsolving with 1 to LONGMAX, 1 to 2e18. all wrong. ~~~~~ void solve() { ll k; cin >> k;

ll low = k, high = 2e18, res = -1;

while (low <= high) {
    ll mid = low + (high - low) / 2;
    ll sqcnt = floor(sqrt(mid));
    ll ON = mid - sqcnt;

    if (ON == k) {
        res = mid;
        high = mid - 1; 
    } 
    else if (ON < k)low = mid + 1; 
    else high = mid - 1;
}

cout << res << "\n";

} ~~~~~ Sorry if the code is bad/unreadable. Thank you for your time.

Just in case, if link to submission is needed. https://codeforces.me/contest/2020/submission/283589596

Thank you!

  • »
    »
    15 hours ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    Good Day ,

    Please replace sqrt with `sqrtl' to avoid precision error.

»
16 hours ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Please help for question B :

why this submission: https://codeforces.me/contest/2020/submission/283695028

Gives wrong answer on test 6.

I tried locally with generated test cases my answer is exactly same as the editorial code. No diff.

»
16 hours ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Why this code is failing at test 8.

void execute_test(){
	long long n;
	cin>>n;
	long long ans=n;
	long long s=n,e=2e18;
	while(s<=e){
		long long m=(s+e)>>1LL;
		long long val=sqrt(m);
		if(m-val>=n){
			ans=m;
			e=m-1;
		}else s=m+1;
	}
	cout<<ans<<endl;
}

why binary search in editorial works perfectly, i mean both are doing the same things.

»
15 hours ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

I have created a video solution for Problem B and Problem A on my youtube channel, please check it out, it's a simple and intuitive solution

»
14 hours ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

For E I used the dumb O(1024*n) solution but idk why I'm TLEing. For this submission 283708821 it TLE test 12 since I did dp%MOD. But for the previous submission 283708742 it passes, but I all did was changing the MOD so that it MODs the whole thing instead of the dp itself. How in the world is this not the same thing???

Pls help if anyone know the issue thx <3

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

Can someone plz explain the problem A solution why we use % and / and how it is related to powers (k^x)

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

    take example of n=6492 and k=10 to make it 0 we will first apply 6 operation of 1000(10^3) 4 operations of 100(10^2) 9 operations of 10 (10^1) and 2 operations of 1 (10^0) thereby total operations are 6+4+9+2 =21 but here base is 10 now if we generalise this for kth base ans is sum of digits in kth base . This is because each non-zero digit corresponds to an operation that subtracts some multiple of a power of k now we can extract digits in base k similar to how we do in decimal base .but instead to 10 we mod by k

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

      Thank you so much it really helps me to understand the problem.

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

F can also be solved using standard min_25 sieve trick: https://codeforces.me/contest/2020/submission/283749226

»
6 hours ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Can someone help me understand why: 283765681 gives WA But: 283765681 gives AC

In the AC solution I just decrease the number of while iterations by subtracting from n multiples of maximum allowable k^x.

Whereas in the WA solution, I decrease the maximum allowable k^x one at a time.

»
4 hours ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

For problem C why is it giving WA on test-11?

283777193

»
4 hours ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Binary search for Problem-B gives WA on test-8. 283788662

»
3 hours ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Can someone pls explain E, how DP is being applied?

»
3 hours ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

in problem d can't we just make a graph with the help of dsu with the help of given nodes that we receive during input and then calculate the number of connected components?

My solution:https://codeforces.me/contest/2020/submission/283746432

»
3 hours ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

In problem A, i do

$$$n - k^{log_{k}{n}}$$$

till n is bigger than zero and count the operations Can anyone explain why it is wrong? It passes the provided test cases but fails on pretests

»
8 minutes ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Looking at the tutorial of problem E, it isn't clear why the contribution of pairs of bits from both operands can be added. When we think about the multiplication, we observe that multiple pairs $$$(i,j)$$$ can affect the same bit of the result and yield a carry over. Thus, we don't know a priori if that bit will be set or not, but the contribution should only count when the bit is set.

However, after some consideration, I've concluded that it doesn't matter whether the bit will be set. What matters is that the contribution of all pairs will add up (in terms of expected value), just as they would in the multiplication. Please correct me if I'm wrong in this reasoning.