| № | Пользователь | Рейтинг |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | tourist | 4009 |
| 2 | jiangly | 3823 |
| 3 | Benq | 3738 |
| 4 | Radewoosh | 3633 |
| 5 | jqdai0815 | 3620 |
| 6 | orzdevinwang | 3529 |
| 7 | ecnerwala | 3446 |
| 8 | Um_nik | 3396 |
| 9 | ksun48 | 3390 |
| 10 | gamegame | 3386 |
| Страны | Города | Организации | Всё → |
| № | Пользователь | Вклад |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | cry | 165 |
| 2 | maomao90 | 164 |
| 3 | Um_nik | 163 |
| 4 | atcoder_official | 160 |
| 4 | adamant | 160 |
| 6 | -is-this-fft- | 158 |
| 7 | awoo | 157 |
| 8 | TheScrasse | 154 |
| 8 | Dominater069 | 154 |
| 8 | nor | 154 |
I tried solving problem magic numbers with iterative digit dp. But it runs slower than my recursive solution by more than 200ms.
iterative : link
recursive : link
I also avoided using modulo operations in my iterative code, but am surprised to see it running slower.
Any idea why this happened?
There are only $$$O(1)$$$ states which don't have the last 2 values equal to 1, meaning that the recursive solution visits about 4 times less states than the iterative solution(the recursive solution visits about $$$nm$$$ states, while the iterative solution visits about $$$4nm$$$ states).127938045 just adds an if to make sure states that are unreachable don't waste time and that speeds up the solution a lot.