Melnik's blog

Codeforces Round #422 (Div. 2) Editorial
By Melnik, 7 years ago, In Russian
Tutorial is loading...

First accepted Div1: 00:00:58 kriii

First accepted Div2: 00:00:59 Baneling3

Author's solution
Tutorial is loading...

First accepted Div1: 00:03:30 Egor.Lifar

First accepted Div2: 00:04:43 Baneling3

Author's solution
Tutorial is loading...

First accepted Div1: 00:08:30 nuip

First accepted Div2: 00:10:19 ColdSu

Author's solution
Tutorial is loading...

First accepted Div1: 00:15:47 arsijo

First accepted Div2: 00:18:01 ColdSu

Author's solution
Tutorial is loading...

First accepted Div1: 00:43:18 Pepe.Chess

First accepted Div2: 01:05:21 CountOlaf

Author's solution
Tutorial is loading...

First accepted Div1: 00:16:33 webmaster

First accepted Div2: 01:12:52 Nisiyama_Suzune

Author's solution
  • Vote: I like it
  • +98
  • Vote: I do not like it

Comments Comments (88)
| Write comment?
»
7 years ago, # |
← Rev. 3   Vote: I like it +2 Vote: I do not like it

how do u prove that the solution to D is ?

When u are processing dp, it seems like depending on how many prime factors i has.

So i think it should be ?

→ Reply
  • »
    »
    7 years ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +2 Vote: I do not like it

    No, because you only need to choose the smallest prime factor each time.

    → Reply
  • »
    »
    7 years ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +20 Vote: I do not like it

    If you go one by one and factor every number from l to r, the running time is indeed . However, to speed this up, we instead use a Eratosthenes sieve-like approach: from l to r, look at all the multiples of 2, then all the multiples of 3, then all the multiples of 5, etc.. The running time is thus which was proven by Euler (?) to be approximated by .

    → Reply
    • »
      »
      »
      7 years ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

      Why is this solution giving tle whereas this passes.

      In first soln I am storing all the distinct primes of a no than calculating the ans whereas in second soln I am dividing by smallest prime factor each time.

      I also calculated the total no of times the loop is executed in both the solutions and the first soln has less execution.

      Can anyone help on this ?

      → Reply
»
7 years ago, # |
← Rev. 2   Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Would you mind sharing why most people got E WA'd by using dp[sprefix][xcnt][flag]? I tried to come up with a counterexample but nevertheless failed.

→ Reply
  • »
    »
    7 years ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +27 Vote: I do not like it

    Try this sample. Some of the solutions, that get WA24, fail on this test:

    10

    baaabbbcac

    5

    babbc

    2

    (The correct answer is "YES" as you can see).

    → Reply
»
7 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +3 Vote: I do not like it

Can anyone please tell me what I did wrong on problem C so I got WA on test 58 :(

28220911

→ Reply
  • »
    »
    7 years ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +12 Vote: I do not like it

    The question asks you to find the sum of cost of vouchers whose intervals don't intersect. You don't entertain that possibility. You just find the minimum cost of the required interval length whose starting point is before it, but that doesn't guarantee that they don't intersect.

    For eg, Your code fails on: 

    3 3
1 2 1
1 1 1
2 2 3

    Answer is -1 whereas your code prints 2. Your code takes two intersecting intervals which should not be the case.

    → Reply
»
7 years ago, # |
← Rev. 2   Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Can anybody help me please ? :)

C solution

→ Reply
  • »
    »
    7 years ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +2 Vote: I do not like it

    it gives 3 instead of 2 on foll test case:- 3 6 1 3 1 4 6 2 7 9 1 Mistake in ur code is that when u binary search,according to your code you should check all possible coupons for whom st>last and time==left. but say if a[mid] follows the condition it may be possible that a[mid+1] also follows these 2 conditions and furthermore may have lower cost causing the error.But u change r to mid-1 hence never searching for lower cost in indices greater than mid.

    → Reply
    • »
      »
      »
      7 years ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

      Ah, thanks a lot. :D

      Then, can I edit my approach or this solution is basically wrong?

      → Reply
      • »
        »
        »
        »
        7 years ago, # ^ |
          Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

        Well it seems to me that ur soln is wrong and atleast it is not the best approach. You may see my solution if needed - http://codeforces.me/contest/822/submission/28246016

        → Reply
        • »
          »
          »
          »
          »
          7 years ago, # ^ |
            Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

          I saw your solution, but I was able t understand your logic, plz example it to me. I tried by using map but getting tle.

          → Reply
          • »
            »
            »
            »
            »
            »
            7 years ago, # ^ |
            ← Rev. 2   Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

            Maybe bcoz map is slower u may be getting tle. What i am doing is for each i, for each cupoun that ends on day i we will check for best matching cupoun that starts after i and of duration x — duration of given coupon which is stored in ans array

            → Reply
»
7 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Can anyone please tell me what I did wrong on problem C so I got WA on test 58 :(

28220911

→ Reply
»
7 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +1 Vote: I do not like it

It's embarrassing although my solution for D passed I couldn't prove it before reading the editorial. Thanks!

→ Reply
»
7 years ago, # |
← Rev. 2   Vote: I like it +3 Vote: I do not like it

I dont know why i got E wa on test 172,which is the last case. Can any one help me？？？ My submission

→ Reply
»
7 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +4 Vote: I do not like it

For people who are still struggling or trying to understand problem c solution and not able to understand editorial (like me :p ), i want to explain it since i solved it now.

Brute force solution is O(n^2) which i think everyone can get. We want O(n) or O(nlogn).

Approach:
1)store interval {l,{r,cost}} in vector<pair<int,pair<int,ll>>>a
2) First sort the intervals vector<pair<int,pair<int,ll>>>a wrt left point.
3) Iterate over vector a and store duration in another vector vector<pair<int,int>>min_value[N] (It contains left point and cost). This vector will contain information about all intervals with a specific duration.Good thing is min_value[d] will contain interval information in sorted wrt left point (isn't it ?)
4) Now we will find our answer similar to our bruteforce approach. Bruteforce is to iterate over all intervals , and for each interval we will take O(n) to find min_cost. We are trying to reduce this O(n) to O(logn) to make our solution O(n logn).
5) So start iterating , choose first interval , we know it's duration d , our need = x - d; we have intervals in our vector min_value[need] which is sorted wrt to left point , we want to find that index in min_value[need] which has it's left point greater than current interval's right point.
we can find that using binary search and obtain minimum cost. There will be many possible interval satisfying our interval condition , we can choose any with min_cost , so we also need to precompute min_cost in all intervals ahead of that index (similar to prefix sum)
Here is my solution , see this everything will make sense.

→ Reply
  • »
    »
    7 years ago, # ^ |
    ← Rev. 2   Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    your explanation helped :) But one thing is not clear to me. Can you explain this to me?

    There will be many possible interval satisfying our interval condition , we can choose any with min_cost , so we also need to precompute min_cost in all intervals ahead of that index (similar to prefix sum)

    how and why does this work? thanks :)

    EDIT: I got it now. :D

    → Reply
»
7 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

For Problem D, this code, gives TLE on test 18, I think it has the same time complexity as intended. Could anyone help me with this. Thanks.

→ Reply
  • »
    »
    7 years ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    Your code's complexity is R.log(R) whereas the intended complexity is R.log(log(R))

    No need to divide x by all its factor to find dp[x]. Just divide it by its smallest prime factor.

    dp[x] = dp[x/sp[x]] + (sp[x]*(sp[x]-1))/2 will work, sp[x]: smallest prime factor of x.

    Preprocessing the sp array is O(R.log(log(R)) and the calculation of dp will be O(R).

    → Reply
»
7 years ago, # |
← Rev. 5   Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Melnik, What if for C we consider the following solution:-

1) We sort the vouchers in increasing order of the cost. O(nlogn)

2) Then for each voucher Vi we find a Vj (j>i) such that the intervals don't intersect, and such that duration of the Vi+Vj is x. We return the first Vj we find satisfies this conditions.Time complexity — O(n^2)

Is the above solution conceptually correct?(Other than having poor efficiency)

→ Reply
  • »
    »
    7 years ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    Yes

    → Reply
    • »
      »
      »
      7 years ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

      But it is giving wrong answer on pretest 4. You can check my submission — 28227628

      → Reply
      • »
        »
        »
        »
        7 years ago, # ^ |
          Vote: I like it +1 Vote: I do not like it

        You are not checking further for any Vi as soon as you find Vi+Vj==x. It can be possible that for next Vi you will find appropriate Vj such that total cost is less compared to previous.

        → Reply
  • »
    »
    7 years ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    I used the same logic as you described and it gives timeout in 4th test case. Here is the link -> 28221981

    → Reply
  • »
    »
    7 years ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    No, it's wrong. Try this case:

    4 5

    1 3 4

    1 2 5

    3 5 6

    4 5 8

    Your answer = 12

    Actual answer = 11

    → Reply
»
7 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +1 Vote: I do not like it

In D, "So, we proved that all di should be prime", how is it proved bcz spliting a composite number into 2 gives less comparisons?? can someone explain this

→ Reply
  • »
    »
    7 years ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +1 Vote: I do not like it

    "how is it proved bcz spliting a composite number into 2 gives less comparisons"

    You said it yourself: splitting is cheaper. So we should split, as much as we can -> we have split it into primes.

    → Reply
    • »
      »
      »
      7 years ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

      thanks, got it!!

      → Reply
    • »
      »
      »
      7 years ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

      Hi johnLate, Dont you think then even must be split in only pair of twos and odd with a triplet and all other into pair. This should result in minimum cost . However I am not getting same answer. Thanks

      → Reply
      • »
        »
        »
        »
        7 years ago, # ^ |
        ← Rev. 2   Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

        Each group of a stage must have the same size. For example, you can split 15 into 3,3,3,3,3 or 5,5,5. But you can not split it into 2,2,2,2,2,2,3 or something like that.

        Example for n=15: In the first stage split into 5 groups of x=3 girls, do x(x-1)/2 comparisons for each group, then solve the problem for the resulting 5 girls. f(15) = 5 * 3(3-1)/2 + f(5) [Note: It is f(n) = n/x * x(x-1)/2 + f(n/x), it is NOT f(n) = n/x * f(x) + f(n/x)]

        → Reply
»
7 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

O (n) solution for C 28236057

→ Reply
»
7 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Can anybody please help me find out what's wrong with my solution for problem C?

28233171

→ Reply
  • »
    »
    7 years ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    For each value of i, we may have many possible values of ind but we need to find one for which cost is minimum. You are just checking the first possible value of ind only!

    → Reply
    • »
      »
      »
      7 years ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

      Thanks for the reply! However, I first sort all the vouchers according to the cost in ascending order and then I pick the first voucher. So, the first one has minimum cost.

      → Reply
      • »
        »
        »
        »
        7 years ago, # ^ |
        ← Rev. 4   Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

        Say if m does not satisfies the condition, you take l = m+1 ( rembeber that if duration of coupon is greater than or equal to x than we can simply ignore them right from the start hence second condition really never makes sense as we can assume all coupon have duration less than x!) . But it may be possible that m-1 may satisfy the condition or similarly any value less than m even though m may not satisfy the condition! In your soln, You need to find out smallest index between l and r that satisfies the 2 condition!

        → Reply
»
7 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Can someone explain author's solution in C. Why 2 types of queries {-1,1} and why updating bestcost online like this works.

→ Reply
  • »
    »
    7 years ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +4 Vote: I do not like it

    Firstly notice that we are adding both 'l' and 'r' to queries vector as this will help us refrain from intersecting intervals. Then on the other hand we have to also keep track of whether the value is the start of interval or end of the interval, so {-1,1} are used.

    The main thing to see is that bestCost is updated when 'r' is found and ans is updated when 'l' is found.This thing makes sure that an interval doesn't uses bestCost from any other intersecting interval before "ans" is updated on 'l'.

    → Reply
»
7 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +8 Vote: I do not like it

HELP!!! How to FORGIVE!!

→ Reply
  • »
    »
    7 years ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +17 Vote: I do not like it

    Haha, funny bug :D

    I'll fix it soon.

    → Reply
»
7 years ago, # |
← Rev. 3   Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Can somebody help regarding my solution for D. It's giving runtime error on test 1. I think there is a problem with my sieve because after commenting that program runs correctly on test 1. But my sieve function looks good to me. 28250621

→ Reply
  • »
    »
    7 years ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    Runtime error cause you are using too much memory! And even if you decrease the memory complexity, you'll still get tle anyway.

    → Reply
  • »
    »
    7 years ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    See I submitted 2 solutions. With sieve 28250621 and without sieve 28250581. They both almost use same amount of memory but sieve one is giving RTE.

    → Reply
    • »
      »
      »
      7 years ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it +1 Vote: I do not like it

      Fix rep(i,2,NMAX) to rep(i, 2, NMAX — 1) and for(j=2;i*j<=NMAX;j++) to for (j=2;i*j<NMAX;j++)

      → Reply
»
7 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Div 2 C wrong ans test case 25. Any help?

http://codeforces.me/contest/822/submission/28250623

→ Reply
»
7 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

DIV2 wrong answer on test 13, but I really think it is right(binary search for len of every voucher). Anyone help? http://codeforces.me/contest/822/problem/C

→ Reply
»
7 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

For C what I did was made a array of vectors of duration. Then while traversing the queries I know that the required duration is x-(r[i]-l[i]+1) and in duration vector I find the starting position with binary search and apply RMQ. I got runtime error on test 3. Is there anything wrong with this approach?

→ Reply
»
7 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Can anyone help me with hashing to find lcp in problem E? Do we precalculate hash values and then in every DP state find it in O(logN) — only binary search? Please help.

→ Reply
»
7 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +1 Vote: I do not like it

"But if we divide this stage into two new stages, then number of comparisons is " .
how do we get this equation ?

→ Reply
  • »
    »
    7 years ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +1 Vote: I do not like it

    In first stage: There are "n/a" groups of a elements each. So comparisons are (n/a)*(a)*(a-1)/2 = n*(a-1)/2

    For Second stage: There are "(n/a)/b" groups because from first stage "n/a" elements go ahead. So comparisons are (n/(a*b))*(b)*(b-1)/2 = n*(b-1)/(2*a)

    → Reply
»
7 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Can somebody help in finding why my Div2 C is giving wrong answer.. I know my solution will give TLE but why is it giving WA.. I need to know,what's wrong with the approach,I already know it's not efficient,but I cant figure out why WA in testcase 12..

SOLUTION

My approach : I created a vector that contains duration of vacation,start time,end time and cost in that order.. Next,I sorted it... Next,starting with i = 0 , from the beginning of this vector,I find the required duration (x — duration[i]) I use lower_bound to search for this value compare all such elements having the same duration (x — duration[i]) I understand it will yeild TLE,but WA,I can't understand..Please help!!

→ Reply
»
7 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Could someone help me with my solution on problem C? Why is it failing on test 3?

I sort segments (l, r) by left bound, then while being in segment i, I update mincost with all segments with r_k < l_i which have not been used for updating yet.

Submission: http://codeforces.me/contest/822/submission/28257988

→ Reply
  • »
    »
    7 years ago, # ^ |
    ← Rev. 3   Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    UPD: found failing test case:)

    3 6
1 9 1
2 5 1
6 7 1

    my solution: -1 correct answer: 2

    → Reply
»
7 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Can anyone help me with my code? I got Runtime error on problem C but I don't know why. Thank you very much! http://codeforces.me/contest/822/submission/28261279

→ Reply
»
7 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

In Problem C, I'm really amazed no one mentioned the O(Max(li, ri)) for i = 1 → n greedy solution!

The solution is only possible due to the low range of li, ri which is less than 2·105

We simply use this fact to store the vector of pairs of {ri, costi} at index li in an array called left , and do the complement of this in another array (i.e. store the vector of pairs of {li, costi} at index ri in an array called right)

Then we loop for every i = 1 → Max(li, ri) and fix our index i to be the left bound and check for every pair j at left[i] to see if we have encountered a non intersecting segment before it that has the length X - (left[i][j].r - i + 1) in an array called best for example and minimize our cost by the current which is the cost of the current pair left[i][j].cost and whatever was saved in the complementary segment length in our array best[X - (left[i][j].r - i + 1)]

After we have processed the fixed left index, let's see if there's a segment has its right index at this same index i, if so we need to minupdate the value of its length in our array best to use it in the future at further indices, and this way we're sure we can never have intersecting segments, because we query first and then update.

I hope I haven't made it much worse than the obvious O(n·log(n)) which could be due to binary searching or using a map/set to store higher ranges.

All in all, here's the link to my submission for further detail -> 28237414

→ Reply
»
7 years ago, # |
← Rev. 2   Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Update: Never mind! My brain did not work until I wrote the comment!

I was going through the submission 28257135 for problem E. I was wondering what is the time complexity of below two statements.

1.

	sort(u1, u1 + L, [](int a, int b) {
		return str[a] < str[b];
	});

2.

	for (i = 0, j = 0; i < L; i++) {
		if (i == 0 || str[u1[i]] != str[u1[i - 1]]) j++;
		sa[0][u1[i]] = j;
	}
→ Reply
»
7 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

regarding problem D in the point of all di should be prime:

it can also be thought of as: suppose number d with n1*n2 = d (where n1 and n2 >= 2 and are prime), without splitting, comparisons made are: n1n2(n1n2 — 1) / 2. with splitting, comparisons made are: n2n1(n1 — 1)/2 + n2(n2 — 1)/2 (supposing that d is splitted to n2 groups with n1 participants in each group), now subtract the second equation from the first one : 0.5((n1n2)^2 — n2(n1^2) — n2^2 + n2), rewriting the expression: 0.5n2((n1^2) * (n2 — 1) — (n2 — 1)), rewriting again: 0.5n2(n2 — 1)(n1^2 — 1), which is clearly greater than 0, so the number of comparisons made in the first equation is larger than those made in the second equation.

→ Reply
»
7 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

I understood the problem D. However, how can we come up with the idea "all di should be prime" ? Thanks you.

→ Reply
  • »
    »
    7 years ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    Observing.Try to calculate f(16), f(20)...If u had experience in olympiad maths it would be easier, because in maths many times you need to observe something, to see a pattern. So, just calculate few f-values and you will see that optimal is to choose di as smallest possible, but since they need to divide total number of people in current stage, they must be primes.

    Its important to mention that i solved a problem without this observation, only bottom up DP. Thats why solution passed in 1450 ms while 1500 ms was limit, so i was lucky.

    → Reply
»
7 years ago, # |
← Rev. 2   Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Can anyone teach me how to prove "you can prove the fact that we should split the girls into groups by prime numbers in the order of their increasing" in problem D.Thanks a lot :)

→ Reply
  • »
    »
    7 years ago, # ^ |
    ← Rev. 2   Vote: I like it +3 Vote: I do not like it

    just suppose a and b are two distinct prime factors of n. The number of comparisions that you want to minimize is given by the recursion formula:

    By this you can imagine the expansion for all the factors of n. For two different prime factors a and b you get to choose if a is bigger or smaller than b. will be the same no matter the choice. So just analise the first part of the expression, the . Imagine all pairwise choices for a and b among all prime factors of n, by proving that choosing a<b is better (that is, between the two options choose, for a, the smaller one), you can notice that among all pairwise choices only the smallest avaible factor won't lose to any other factor, so, since there must be a choice that minimizes (or at least equals the minimum), it must be the current smallest factor avaible.

    So what is left is to prove that for a set of two numbers, choosing for a the smaller one minimizes the expression:

    That is the same as, given two prime numbers a and b such that a<b prove that . You can rearrenge the last inequality to get ab(b - a) + (a - b)(a + b) + b - a > 0 which is true because b>a and both a and b are bigger than 1 because they are primes so, for sure |ab(b - a)| > |(a - b)(a + b)| because ab > (a + b) which concludes the proof.

    → Reply
    • »
      »
      »
      7 years ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

      Thank you. Maybe I fail to get the point... I thought you only prove that if the pair a,b is given (a<b), then it's wiser to divide people into n/a groups. But what if there are four prime factors of n, a,b,c,d(a<b<c<d), and it's better to choose b,c as the pair first instead of a,b or a,c or a,d? Can you prove that this situation is impossible? Sorry for my poor English...

      → Reply
      • »
        »
        »
        »
        7 years ago, # ^ |
          Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

        You are right. I did not prove why the solution must be greedy and, in fact, I do not know how to do that. An ideia to why this works is, since the next values will be divided by ab (the part) what is most important to minimize is the current value not divided.

        → Reply
»
7 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

can someone please post a noob's solution for problem E? really couldn't understand a thing...

→ Reply
  • »
    »
    7 years ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    You can refer to my submission here. Tried to make it as clear as possible. (:

    http://codeforces.me/contest/822/submission/28289280

    → Reply
    • »
      »
      »
      7 years ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

      by noob's solution I meant, noob's explanation :P... can you help with that? really having a hard time to figure out how to proceed...

      → Reply
      • »
        »
        »
        »
        7 years ago, # ^ |
          Vote: I like it +6 Vote: I do not like it

        Okay so you need to find if string S of length l1 can be broken by maximum x cuts into pieces that can be joined together to form string T of length l2. Assume that the strings are 1-indexed. dp[i][j] stores the maximum prefix of T that can be obtained from length j of string S after i cuts. So obviously, we need to see if there exists a value of i that is less than or equal to x such that dp[i][l1]=l2. Now assume that you have dp[i][j]=t1. That means after i cuts and length of j from string S, we can obtain the first t1 characters of string T. Now, two transitions are possible. Either the j+1'th character of string S matches with t1+1'th character of string T, resulting some length of their prefixes matching, or those characters are not equal.

        If the characters are equal, we can binary search + hashing to find the LCP (Longest Common Prefix) of string S from j+1...l1, and string T from t+1...l2. Suppose the LCP is t2. Then, the transition dp[i+1][j+t2]=max(dp[i+1][j+t2],dp[i][j]+t2). (i+1, j+t2 must lie within bounds)

        If the characters aren't equal, then dp[i][j]=max(dp[i][j],dp[i][j+1]) because the first j+1 characters of string S can give the same answer as the first j characters.

        Hope this explains it. (:

        → Reply
»
7 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +26 Vote: I do not like it

I notice that some of the current AC solutions for Problem E use greedy strategy and I think it is wrong. For example, 28272853. I was wondering if there is a chance to open hack and rejudge. Hope the solutions won't mislead future coders. I got a test case to turn these solutions into WA.

19
xmmmabcdmmmabcdbmmm
7
xabcdbc
3

The answer should be YES but these solutions output NO. Thanks.

→ Reply
»
7 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

guys can someone gives me a simplified test case according to test case 7 in Div2 C problem :( my code fails and has got WA on test case 7 :/ this is my code here

→ Reply
  • »
    »
    7 years ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    On codeforces we do not have access to the full test case, but what you can do is when you detect the problematic test case (that is, in your case when n == 200000 and x == 114451) you print whatever parameter you need to debug. Your code is outputing a value smaller then the answer from the jury, so your two choices for the 2 vouchers shoud be invalid, that is, they intersect or something like this, just print it to check.

    → Reply
»
7 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

In the author's solution for 822C - Хакер, собирай чемоданы!, why do we have to add two types of queries? Isn't the first type enough to handle all cases?

→ Reply
»
7 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

For those who use hash for E and got wrong answer in test case 172

unsigned long long is hacked, u have to modulo something else.

→ Reply
»
7 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

I use an O(r*log(r)) algorithm and get Accepted as well. Instead of enumerating all primes, I use all factors to update the answer.

→ Reply
»
7 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

i am getting runtime error for case 2 but when i am running my code on my pc for case 2, i am getting correct answer. Here is the link to my submission: http://codeforces.me/contest/822/submission/28796938

→ Reply
»
7 years ago, # |
← Rev. 2   Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Very strange TL in div2 D, I wrote solution with the same idea as in editorial, but it got TLE with 1.8 sec in worst case (l = 2, r = 5·106). I replace some long long variables with int (it always helps a bit), but got 1.575 sec in worst case.

So it would be smarter just to make TL = 2 sec and not to make people find small extra optimizations for their code (main solution idea is enough, isn't it?).

→ Reply
»
7 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

http://codeforces.me/contest/822/submission/34284404 can anyone tell me why i am getting WA on test case 19? it seems okay to me

→ Reply
»
7 years ago, # |
← Rev. 2   Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Can anyone explain the dp states along with transitions of problem E div2, unable to get it from editorial.

→ Reply
»
6 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

In Div2 C problem, Why we can't sort the vouchers by their right borders?

→ Reply
»
4 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

I think there exists a greedy approach to solve Div2 D. Instead of using dp to compute f(n), we can split n people into groups each containing spf(n) people, where spf(n) denotes the smallest prime factor of n. https://codeforces.me/contest/822/submission/90345138

→ Reply