I couldn't find a place to discuss this.

When will we get results? Is anyone confident with B or F?

# | User | Rating |
---|---|---|

1 | Petr | 3353 |

2 | fateice | 3306 |

3 | Syloviaely | 3274 |

4 | tourist | 3235 |

5 | OO0OOO00O0OOO0O0…O | 3181 |

6 | Um_nik | 3158 |

7 | V--o_o--V | 3148 |

8 | dotorya | 3145 |

9 | LHiC | 3115 |

10 | mnbvmar | 3096 |

# | User | Contrib. |
---|---|---|

1 | tourist | 178 |

2 | rng_58 | 168 |

3 | Petr | 158 |

3 | csacademy | 158 |

5 | lewin | 151 |

6 | Swistakk | 149 |

7 | Errichto | 141 |

8 | matthew99 | 139 |

8 | BledDest | 139 |

10 | adamant | 138 |

10 | ko_osaga | 138 |

Codeforces (c) Copyright 2010-2018 Mike Mirzayanov

The only programming contests Web 2.0 platform

Server time: May/20/2018 13:15:01 (d3).

Desktop version, switch to mobile version.

User lists

Name |
---|

I was wondering the same :).

I think my idea of B is right, but there could always be an implementation bug (especially since the sample cases were very small; I did not stress test my solution). What I did was for each subtree compute how much beacon time from the root you need and how much beacon time you have remaining if you need to traverse this entire subtree. And then do another dfs to determine final node you are going to end up in. The have/need for the parent structure is passed as a parameter to this function and have/need for the siblings can be calculated with prefixes and suffixes from the first calculation.

Hm, I have the same feeling about B (idea seems right, but could have bugs), but my solution does not have any prefixes and suffixes :)

Basically, for each vertex we compute the number of vertices a and the total power p in its subtree (we root the tree at 1). If p<a, then there's no solution. Now we look at complements: n-a and total_power-p. Let delta be n-a-(total_power-p). If delta>0, it means that the path from 1 to the final vertex must go at least delta steps towards our vertex. Now we have constraints like "the path to final vertex must go at least x steps towards vertex y", so with another dfs we can find all edges that must lie on the path to final vertex, and then we just check if they lie on one path, if yes, extend it down as much as possible, and finally check that total_power is enough for that traversal.

And that's exactly what happened: had a really tiny bug, more specifically that in the "if p < a, there's no solution" line above we should exclude the subtree corresponding to the root (full tree), since the root does not need to be entered. A one-line fix, and it passes in upsolving :)

Would've been really amazing to win after not being able to solve any problem for the first hour.

I had exactly the same bug! In addition, I also had an overflow, but with those two fixes my solution passes in upsolving.

Would not have meant a win for me (Gennady was just too fast for that), but for me a second place also counts as 'amazing' :).

Were you really not able to solve E for first hour :P?

"solve"

Solving E in one hour is pretty tough. Good thing all of us already "solved" the exact same problem about a dozen times already.

Seriously, what kind of problem-setting is this? "I made 5 problems and don't feel like making another one, just throw in Catalan numbers or something"

Well, I find the problem nice enough for the easiest problem. I've spent a couple of minutes thinking before I got the Catalan numbers idea. It seems I'm not the only one who haven't got the idea instantly, so the problem is ok.

I definitely agree, I read this problem and was like "wtf, did they just give me Catalan's number definition?" and spent more time convincing myself that there is no hidden trap here and it really is just Catalan than actually solving this problem :P. Especially after participating in dozen of Andrew Stankevich contests there shouldn't be anyone out there who doesn't know what Catalan numbers are xd. I don't know which definitions people that needed to think about it know (because Catalan's numbers have a lot), but what is described in statement is in my opinion best known one (maybe after slight change that Um_nik mentioned), so I see no point of posing that problem in a contest. At least I got a screen when I was leading, but that would be it for my today's achievements xD.

Yes. Well, I've been trying to solve D and E, since everybody was submitting them. I've briefly switched to F, implemented incorrect approach, and submitted it, but that took me probably 15 minutes or so. So the remaining ~1 hour before my first accepted run I spent on D and E, I think roughly equal — about half an hour for each. Since coding for E is trivial, all this half an hour was spent before noticing that those are Catalan numbers.

I guess I did not implement the slow solution and notice the pattern because of the logic that W4yneb0t alludes to: this is Yandex.Algorithm finals, they won't give a sequence that is OEISable :)

Ehm... Isn't it like the definition of Catalan numbers? Just assume that each player can take only one stone in one move but they don't have to alternate moves.

Yes, rub it in :)

I don't know what else to say. Yes, in hindsight it's obvious. But I still spent 30 minutes before seeing it.

Approximately in 2 hours from now there will be an award ceremony, after that the results will be unfrozen.

Btw, since there are also a number of people competing onsite, I think they will be announcing the results in some kind of award ceremony, which might take a while.

I also asked a question (using the messages) about when the results will become available a while a go, but haven't received an answer yet. I am afraid that whoever is answering the messages is now also busy with the award ceremony.

Formulas for calculating bonus penalty work awful at contests like this. I think getting -13, -6 or -0 (lol) minutes for blind submit is a joke. Maybe you should set a lower bound -20 or -40 minutes next time?

The choice between submitting open and blind shouldn't be obvious. Since almost everyone solved those 3 problems, you should be almost certain that your solution is correct, so you will have some incentive to submit blind even if the bonus is very low. Predicting whether a task will have -0 or -20 for a blind submission could also be considered a skill.

Is there a way for non-contestants to see (and try) the problems?

Yea, guys, how to see problems?

Maybe you can try here: https://contest.yandex.com/algorithm2017/contest/4737/enter/

So, does anyone have any ideas on how to solve F? Even solutions that timed out, but are still runing in reasonable time will be welcomed.

What is reasonable time for you? I think that obvious

O(6^{n}) can be sqeezed through TL with some hacks.If the dimension of linear space is big (close to

n) then for each number there are few corresponding subsets and for many branches it is obvious that Bob wins because he forbade all good subsets.If the dimension is small then:

1. The amount of numbers to check is not so big

2. If Alice already has some set of numbers

Xthenaand are essentially the same. If two numbers are the same then Alice only need one of them and she can guarantee that she will get one (after Bob take one, Alice take another). When the dimension is small we can significantly (or not) reduce search space.Also I have a hypothesis that in every state Alice can win for numbers in some linear space. If it is true then we can solve the problem in

O(3^{n}polynom(n)).For a faster solution, after making this observation, the problem becomes much easier:

observationLet span(X) denote the set of xors of a subset of X.

Suppose Alice currently has set A, and she wants to get k. Alice can win if and only if there exists two disjoint subsets B1 and B2 such that span(A+B1) = span(A+B2) and k is in span(A+B1).

We can use this fact with A = {} to get a simple winning condition for Alice.

After making that observation, there is a straightforward

O(3^{n}*n) solution. It's possible to speed up toO(2^{n}*poly(n)), but I didn't think it was easy to squeeze aO(6^{n}) solution, so that's why the bounds are so low.Can you prove the "only if" part of that observation? It sounds like some theorem about augmenting paths in matroids, but I can't get it to work.

Maybe I should also ask why no editorial has been posted...

Yeah, I have a proof (it's a bit long). Basically, the idea is to use induction.

Anyways, I think there are written editorials somewhere that were given to finalists, but I'm not sure why they haven't been published.

ifThe first direction is there exists two disjoint subsets

B_{1},B_{2}such thatspan(A+B_{1}) =span(A+B_{2}) and => Alice wins.Let's prove this by induction on

rank(A+B_{1}) -rank(A). This is true for 0, k is already in the span ofA. In addition, this is true for a rank 1, since if there are two different positionsx,ysuch thatA+ {a_{x}} andA+ {a_{y}} have the same span that includek, Alice can just choose whatever element that Bob doesn't choose.For the inductive step, suppose we have two disjoint subsets

B_{1},B_{2}. If Bob doesn't take away anything fromB_{1}orB_{2}, Alice can just do anything on her move. Otherwise, suppose Bob takes away the numberpfromB_{1}. Furthermore, let's assume thatpis not in the span ofA, so in particularrank(A+ {p}) >rank(A). There is an elementqinB_{2}such thatspan(A+B_{2}- {q} + {p}) =span(A+B_{2}) (by a basis exchange argument). So, we can induct onB_{1}-q,B_{2}-p.only ifWe'll show that if Alice currently has the subset A and has a winning strategy, then there exist disjoint subsets

B_{1},B_{2}such thatspan(A+B_{1}) =span(A+B_{2}) and .Let's define a "round" to be one of Bob's turn and one of Alice's turn. We will induct on the number of rounds that Alice needs to guarantee a win (i.e. her current subset's span includes

k). This is similar to inducting onrank(A+B_{1}) -rank(A), but we don't know whatB_{1}is.First, let's assume that (otherwise, Alice has already won). If Alice can win in one round, the only possibility is that there exists two distinct positions

x,ysuch thatA+ {a_{x}} andA+ {a_{y}} such that and . Since the span of A doesn't include k, we can verify thatspan(A+ {k}) =span(A+ {a_{x}}) =span(A+ {a_{y}}), so this proves the base case.For the inductive step, let's suppose Bob removes some arbitrary number on his first turn and Alice can win by taking

q. By induction, there are two disjoint subsetsX_{1}andX_{2}such thatspan(A+X_{1}+ {q}) =span(A+X_{2}+ {q}) and . In addition, we may assume that (since otherwise, we would already thatX_{1},X_{2}is a pair of good disjoint subsets).Now, let's assume Bob instead chose

q, and Alice can respond by by takingrand win. Then, there must be two disjoint subsetsY_{1}andY_{2}such thatspan(A+Y_{1}+ {r}) =span(A+Y_{2}+ {r}) and (and again, we can assume ).We know that

qis not in any of the setsX_{1},X_{2},Y_{1},Y_{2}.Now, let's consider

Z_{1}=Y_{2}+X_{2}+ {r}, andZ_{2}=Y_{1}+X_{1}+ {r}.We can verify that and and . In addition, we can check

span(A+Z_{1}) =span(A+Y_{2}+X_{2}+ {r}) =span(A+Y_{2}+X_{2}+ {k}) =span(A+Y_{1}+X_{1}+ {k}) =span(A+Z_{2}).Let

Z_{1}' =Z_{1}-Y_{1}andZ_{2}' =Z_{2}-Y_{2}. Now note that . In addition, we can check thatrank(A+Z_{1}') =rank(A+Z_{1}) since any is inspan(A+Y_{2}+ {r}), so, in particularspan(A+Z_{1}') =span(A+Z_{2}').We can check that the two sets

Z_{1}' + {q} - {r} andZ_{2}' are a pair of good disjoint subsets. To verify this, we can check that , whileApologies if I'm missing obvious things here, but I need clarifications:

Why is ? Couldn't it be the case that instead,

span(A+X_{1}) ≠span(A+X_{2}), which would also preventX_{1},X_{2}from being a good pair?? Is

Athere a typo?Why is

span(A+Y_{2}+X_{2}+ {r}) =span(A+Y_{2}+X_{2}+ {k}? I see whykis in the left set, but why isrin the right set?Why is ? Can't something be in both

X_{1}andY_{2}?qto win (otherwise, Alice could have just passed her turn instead). You can take this as part of the induction hypothesis instead, since we can assume Alice can't win if she passes her turn.Z_{2}' doesn't contain elements fromY_{2}(look at how it is defined).Still not clear. I replied in http://codeforces.com/blog/entry/53354?#comment-384145 so Codeforces doesn't squish the comments.

How to prove the solution of problem C? I know the solution is sort

x_{i}and add points start from largestx_{i}. But I cannot prove it.Let . Say, the input weights are sorted non-increasingly (

x_{1}≥x_{2}≥ ... ≥x_{n}). We want to show the existence of such that λ(y_{1}, ...,y_{n}) ≥ λ(x_{1}, ...,x_{n}) for . Then, λ(y_{1}, ...,y_{n}) is equal to the density of the subgraph containingkheaviest vertices.We'll take the input sequence of weights (

x_{1}, ...,x_{n}) and transform it into (y_{1}, ...,y_{n}). If already someklargest elements of (x_{i}) is equal to , we're done. In the opposite case, take two largest weightsx_{1},x_{a + 1}and say thatx_{1}=x_{2}= ... =x_{a}>x_{a + 1}=x_{a + 2}= ... =x_{a + b}>x_{a + b + 1}(assumex_{n + 1}= 0).Now, we want to transform (

x_{1}, ...,x_{n}) into (x_{1}', ...,x_{a + b}',x_{a + b + 1}, ...,x_{n}) so thatx_{1}' =x_{2}' = ... =x_{a}' ≥x_{a + 1}' =x_{a + 2}' = ... =x_{a + b}' ≥x_{a + b + 1}, the sum of weights is equal to 1, at least one of the inequalities is an equality, and λ((x_{i}')) ≥ λ((x_{i})). Now, the choice ofx_{1}' determines uniquely the new sequence of weights. Moreover, it's not hard to see that λ is a linear function onx_{1}'. It means it suffices either to minimizex_{1}' (in this casex_{a}' becomes equal tox_{a + 1}') or to maximizex_{1}' (in this casex_{a + b}' becomes equal tox_{a + b + 1}).A single step increased the value of λ and reduced the number of distinct non-zero weights in the sequence. We apply this step until a single such non-zero weight is left and in this way we arrive at the sought sequence (

y_{1}, ...,y_{n}).Thank you! I got the idea!

Somewhat more elementary proof. For simplicity consider the case

n= 4. Suppose thatx_{1}≥x_{2}≥x_{3}≥x_{4}, and λ =ax_{2}+bx_{3}+cx_{4}.When

x_{1}≥x_{2}≥x_{3}≥x_{4}andx_{1}+x_{2}+x_{3}+x_{4}= 1, it is natural to replace them with non-negativep,q,r,ssuch that . Then,This is a weighted harmonic mean of {(

a+b+c) / 4, (a+b) / 3,a/ 2, 0}. We can find subgraphs with density {(a+b+c) / 4, (a+b) / 3,a/ 2, 0} as you described.Here is a proof which seems most natural. We would like to find a subset

Asuch that , or equivalently |E(A)| ≥ λ |A|. LetA_{p}= {x_{i}|x_{i}≥p}. Then .Therefore we can find some

pfor which this quantity is nonnegative. (WhenA_{p}is empty, it contributes 0 to the sum so we can find some nonempty set.)WOW only red coders commented here. Let me be one of them.

(Continued from http://codeforces.com/blog/entry/53354?#comment-383895)

But can't the progress come from the fact that

span(A+X_{1}) ≠span(A+X_{2}) butspan(A+X_{1}+ {q}) =span(A+X_{2}+ {q})? That still means that she can't simply skipq. When you say "since otherwise, we would already thatX_{1},X_{2}is a pair of good disjoint subsets", you are saying "if and then we proved what we needed to prove". But you actually didn't, you needed to prove there are two disjoint sets where spans containkand the spans are equal, but what you actually proved is there are two disjoint sets where spans containk. You proved something weaker than your induction hypothesis, so induction doesn't work.Yes I think you're right that the sentence is not correct (i.e. "In addition, we may assume..."). I think this relates to your third point, why does

rlie in the span of the right hand set? So, I think it should instead be that (since this means Alice makes no progress by choosingq). You can use this to show thatspan(A+X_{1}+ {q}) =span(A+X_{1}+ {k}), and similarlyspan(A+Y_{1}+ {r}) =span(A+Y_{1}+ {k}).If and , I don't think

span(A+X_{1}+ {q}) =span(A+X_{1}+ {k}) can hold.I'm not trying to be a dick and point out typos, I just don't have any intuitive understanding of the proof idea starting at the 4th paragraph, so I have no idea what you are trying to say...

No worries. About intuition, we are just showing that a pair of good subsets exist using induction and the fact that Alice can win, which are two really strong assumptions. The basic proof idea is adding together these sets that I can magically get from these two assumptions to get a good pair of subsets, but the details are kind of complicated as you can see.

For your point in particular, I think we do need . To show this, I think we can show if and , we can find two subsets and that are a good pair of subsets, or Alice can find another

q' withX_{1}',X_{2}', such that and .More specifically, we want elements of

P_{1}to be the ones necessary to formk. In addition, we want elements ofP_{2}to be the ones necessary to formP_{1}and vice versa (this is mutually recursive). If we relax it to and , then since they have the same span, we are guaranteed that all steps are valid, and this process will terminate. The psuedocode might look something as follows:So there are two cases,

qis never included inP_{1}orP_{2}, orqis added at some point to one of the sets. For the first case leads to theP_{1},P_{2}being a good pair of subsets, and the second case lets us do induction on the number of steps needed to includeqin one of the subsets (in particular, we have for someiandq', and we can induct withq').the information is very less to understand.

Kinex Media