| # | User | Rating |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Benq | 3676 |
| 2 | jiangly | 3670 |
| 3 | Kevin114514 | 3657 |
| 4 | maroonrk | 3355 |
| 5 | Um_nik | 3353 |
| 6 | squareOf105 | 3346 |
| 7 | tourist | 3343 |
| 8 | strapple | 3324 |
| 9 | heuristica | 3322 |
| 10 | jiangbowen | 3291 |
| # | User | Contrib. |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Qingyu | 158 |
| 2 | nik_exists | 150 |
| 2 | maspy | 150 |
| 4 | AmShZ | 143 |
| 5 | Um_nik | 141 |
| 6 | Errichto | 139 |
| 7 | adamant | 137 |
| 8 | BledDest | 133 |
| 8 | maroonrk | 133 |
| 10 | qwexd | 130 |
|
0
Yes, seeing many of submissions use greedy. Why this greedy approach can work? Any proof or idea can help me better understanding on this? Thanks! |
|
0
Another O(n) solution for Div1A/Div2D. 50724905 Consider some station i. The front array to store maximum steps when ending with station (1~i-1). The back array to store maximum steps when ending with station (i~n). |
|
0
You can check this testcase: |
|
0
Yes, I think time complexity is O(n). We build the output of size n. |
|
0
Me too. |
| Name |
|---|


