Hey,
For problem: Lauren And Inversions
My code pass all but two huge cases.
What is wrong with my approach ?
# | User | Rating |
---|---|---|
1 | ecnerwala | 3649 |
2 | Benq | 3581 |
3 | orzdevinwang | 3570 |
4 | Geothermal | 3569 |
4 | cnnfls_csy | 3569 |
6 | tourist | 3565 |
7 | maroonrk | 3531 |
8 | Radewoosh | 3521 |
9 | Um_nik | 3482 |
10 | jiangly | 3468 |
# | User | Contrib. |
---|---|---|
1 | maomao90 | 174 |
2 | awoo | 164 |
3 | adamant | 162 |
4 | TheScrasse | 159 |
5 | nor | 158 |
6 | maroonrk | 156 |
7 | -is-this-fft- | 151 |
8 | SecondThread | 147 |
9 | orz | 146 |
10 | pajenegod | 145 |
Hey,
For problem: Lauren And Inversions
My code pass all but two huge cases.
What is wrong with my approach ?
Name |
---|
It's interesting that your code passes all but two cases, since it's actually very wrong. We can feed it the following testcase:
The answer will be 4 5 (ideone), i.e. your suggestion is to swap the 4 and the 7, which will reduce the number of inversions by one. However, note that swapping the 1 and the 3 will actually reduce the number of inversions by three.
I didn't thougt it would pass either, is there a correct solution thats uses binary indexed tree ?
And this is why partial scoring like HackerRank does it is BS. How did this incorrect greedy get so many points?
4 1 2 3 7 6 5
What's the idea of incorrect greedy solution?