| # | User | Rating |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Benq | 3676 |
| 2 | Kevin114514 | 3657 |
| 3 | jiangly | 3638 |
| 4 | turmax | 3442 |
| 5 | tourist | 3380 |
| 6 | Um_nik | 3353 |
| 7 | strapple | 3350 |
| 8 | squareOf105 | 3346 |
| 9 | heuristica | 3322 |
| 10 | maroonrk | 3310 |
| # | User | Contrib. |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Qingyu | 158 |
| 2 | nik_exists | 151 |
| 3 | maspy | 150 |
| 4 | AmShZ | 143 |
| 4 | Um_nik | 143 |
| 6 | Errichto | 139 |
| 7 | adamant | 137 |
| 8 | BledDest | 133 |
| 8 | maroonrk | 133 |
| 10 | Proof_by_QED | 131 |
|
+22
"10-20 times slower" is definitely not about C# :) |
|
+15
It looks like the only difference in kissbuaa's and xiaodao's 2000s is the link in the beginning.. ..which is pointing to the same solution, yep. http://codeforces.me/contest/273/submission/3115085 |
|
+5
One more approach is to use a DFS which counts the number of simple loops in the graph.
Having performed it you just check that only one loop was found and that the graph is connected. However, m = n check is surely more elegant way :) |
| Name |
|---|


