| # | User | Rating |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | jiangly | 3810 |
| 2 | Benq | 3676 |
| 3 | Kevin114514 | 3655 |
| 4 | maroonrk | 3463 |
| 5 | strapple | 3390 |
| 6 | Um_nik | 3387 |
| 7 | tourist | 3384 |
| 8 | heuristica | 3322 |
| 9 | turmax | 3319 |
| 10 | jiangbowen | 3291 |
| # | User | Contrib. |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Qingyu | 157 |
| 2 | nik_exists | 150 |
| 2 | maspy | 150 |
| 4 | AmShZ | 143 |
| 5 | Um_nik | 142 |
| 6 | Errichto | 139 |
| 7 | adamant | 137 |
| 8 | maroonrk | 133 |
| 9 | BledDest | 132 |
| 10 | qwexd | 129 |
|
+1
I have an alternate solution for D2. Sort the array, place the first half on odd indices and second half on even indices. For example if the sorted array is 2,4,6,8,10; then make the array as 6,2,8,4,10. After this, count the number of elements which are less than their neighbours. If there are repeated elements, it would still be a valid arrangement to find maximal no. of cheap spheres. This is in a way similar to your solution, where I am using the same concept that if we can find x cheap, we can definitely find x-1 cheap spheres too. By this method, you can directly get the maximum amount of cheap spheres possible. |
|
+1
problems aren't visible.. lol |
| Name |
|---|


