| # | User | Rating |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Benq | 3676 |
| 2 | Kevin114514 | 3659 |
| 3 | jiangly | 3640 |
| 4 | turmax | 3450 |
| 5 | tourist | 3382 |
| 6 | strapple | 3360 |
| 7 | Um_nik | 3354 |
| 8 | squareOf105 | 3348 |
| 9 | maroonrk | 3312 |
| 10 | idontwannadothis…e | 3191 |
| # | User | Contrib. |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Qingyu | 155 |
| 2 | nik_exists | 151 |
| 3 | maspy | 149 |
| 4 | AmShZ | 145 |
| 5 | Um_nik | 143 |
| 6 | Errichto | 139 |
| 7 | BledDest | 136 |
| 8 | adamant | 134 |
| 9 | maroonrk | 132 |
| 10 | cry | 130 |
| Name |
|---|



Your HLD looks wrong. You have
and later
So if the
adj[v][0] = pfor every node, the complexity blows up. Adding the following code fixes it:You implemented it slightly differently in the other submission, so it doesn't have the same problem, but it still looks a bit wrong. The
totvariable indfs_totlooks like is supposed to be the size of the subtree, but then you dotot = cr;which makes no sense.But I have also done ~~~~~ if(u == p) continue; ~~~~~
So, If any node has atleast 1 child and
adj[v][0] = p, then it will surely be swapped with adj[v][1], and then loop continues, and hence adj[v][0] will never be p except for leaves. So, Can you please elaborate more?And Sorry for the confusion, But in the second submission I used a different idea for forming the heavy paths, which is I am using length of heavy path down the node instead of subtree size of that node.
Thank you very much, I used what you told and it worked.
Ignore my above comment understand the mistake now. Again thank you!!!
Auto comment: topic has been updated by shashankagrawal (previous revision, new revision, compare).