# | User | Rating |
---|---|---|
1 | ecnerwala | 3648 |
2 | Benq | 3580 |
3 | orzdevinwang | 3570 |
4 | cnnfls_csy | 3569 |
5 | Geothermal | 3568 |
6 | tourist | 3565 |
7 | maroonrk | 3530 |
8 | Radewoosh | 3520 |
9 | Um_nik | 3481 |
10 | jiangly | 3467 |
# | User | Contrib. |
---|---|---|
1 | maomao90 | 174 |
2 | awoo | 164 |
2 | adamant | 164 |
4 | TheScrasse | 159 |
4 | nor | 159 |
6 | maroonrk | 156 |
7 | -is-this-fft- | 150 |
8 | SecondThread | 147 |
9 | orz | 146 |
10 | pajenegod | 145 |
Name |
---|
I'm really skeptical that this problem has a polynomial solution, so it's probably just about optimizing and pruning some type of backtracking.
Your solution is ok, but you have to change your dynamic programming by a backtrack to lose the constants of access to std::map, but you have to make some pruning to speed it up.
You know, the word backtrack probably comes from the action of "tracing back" (the last few moves; note that it's 'cing', not 'cking'), not "backing track" :D
but it's backtracking, isn't it? :D
Where I live, we have many words deformed by more comfortable pronounciation (you wouldn't guess what Bluetooth is sometimes called :D). I could be wrong, of course, it's just about what makes more sense to me.