| # | User | Rating |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Benq | 3857 |
| 2 | jiangly | 3810 |
| 3 | maroonrk | 3534 |
| 4 | tourist | 3528 |
| 5 | Kevin114514 | 3510 |
| 6 | turmax | 3411 |
| 7 | Um_nik | 3387 |
| 8 | Radewoosh | 3367 |
| 9 | heuristica | 3322 |
| 10 | strapple | 3317 |
| # | User | Contrib. |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Qingyu | 158 |
| 2 | maspy | 150 |
| 3 | Um_nik | 146 |
| 4 | Errichto | 139 |
| 5 | adamant | 136 |
| 6 | maroonrk | 134 |
| 7 | DNR | 133 |
| 8 | nik_exists | 132 |
| 9 | Dominater069 | 131 |
| 10 | Proof_by_QED | 130 |
| Name |
|---|



This type of diagnostic error (the one in your submission) usually happens in my case whenever I try to access a non-allocated memory space (like trying to access an element not in an array), I can see a lower_bound in your code, have you checked for it's edge cases, like when it throws last?
PS — I am only a noob so take this with a grain of salt
Seems fine to me....have used the same thing many times.....but am not much of an expert myself.....
You do binary search on a not sorted array.
Thanks......I just assumed that input was ordered.....
Still getting WA for this, would really appreciate if someone could point out what is wrong?