| # | User | Rating |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | tourist | 3993 |
| 2 | jiangly | 3743 |
| 3 | orzdevinwang | 3707 |
| 4 | Radewoosh | 3627 |
| 5 | jqdai0815 | 3620 |
| 6 | Benq | 3564 |
| 7 | Kevin114514 | 3443 |
| 8 | ksun48 | 3434 |
| 9 | Rewinding | 3397 |
| 10 | Um_nik | 3396 |
| # | User | Contrib. |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | cry | 167 |
| 2 | Um_nik | 163 |
| 3 | maomao90 | 162 |
| 3 | atcoder_official | 162 |
| 5 | adamant | 159 |
| 6 | -is-this-fft- | 158 |
| 7 | awoo | 155 |
| 8 | TheScrasse | 154 |
| 9 | Dominater069 | 153 |
| 10 | djm03178 | 152 |
UVA 11762
UVA 11762
Suppose we want to calculate E(N) where N is a number,k is the number of it’s distinct prime factors and p is the number of primes < n
Normal rule, E(N)=(1/p)*(1 + E(N/a1) + E(N/a2) + E(N/a3) … + E(N/ak)) + ((p-k)/p)*(1 + E(N))
What is the wrong about this logic?
| Rev. | Lang. | By | When | Δ | Comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| en4 |
|
Upgrading..... | 2019-02-05 11:10:29 | 2 | Tiny change: 'imes < n\nNormal ' -> 'imes < n\n\nNormal ' | |
| en3 |
|
Upgrading..... | 2019-02-05 11:10:12 | 225 | ||
| en2 |
|
Upgrading..... | 2019-02-05 11:03:58 | 4 | Tiny change: 'N)=(1/p)*(E(N/a1) + ' -> 'N)=(1/p)*(1 + E(N/a1) + ' | |
| en1 |
|
Upgrading..... | 2019-02-05 03:52:11 | 594 | Initial revision (published) |
