This is a technical problem. You should do exactly what is written in problem statement.

600B - Queries about less or equal elements

Let's sort all numbers in a. Now let's iterate over elements of *b* and for element *b*_{j} find the index of lowest number that is greater than *b*_{j}. We can do that using binary search. That index will be the answer for value *b*_{j}.

Complexity: *O*(*nlogn*).

Let's denote *cnt*_{c} — the number of occurences of symbol *c*. Let's consider odd values *cnt*_{c}. Palindrome can not contain more than one symbol *c* with odd *cnt*_{c}. Let's denote symbols with odd *cnt*_{c} as *a*_{1}, *a*_{2}...*a*_{k} (in alphabetical order). Let's replace any one of symbols *a*_{k} with symbol *a*_{1}, *a*_{k - 1} with *a*_{2} and so on until the middle of *a*. Now we have no more than one odd symbol. If we have some let's place it in the middle of the answer. First half of answer will contain occurences of symbol *c* in alphabetical order. The second half will contain the same symbols in reverse order. For example for string *s* = *aabcd* at first we will replace *d* by

Unable to parse markup [type=CF_TEX]

in the middle and after permuting the symbols we got*abcba*. Easy to see that it's the optimal solution.

Compexity: *O*(*n*).

600D - Area of Two Circles' Intersection

If the circles don't intersect than the answer is 0. We can check that case with only integer calculations (simply by comparing the square of distance between centers with square of the sum of radiuses). If one of the circles is fully in other then the answer is the square of the smaller one. We can check this case also with only integer calculations (simply by comparing the square of distance between centers with square of the difference of radiuses).

So now let's consider the general case. The answer will be equal to the sum of two circular segments. Let's consider the triangle with apexes in centers if circles and in some intersecting point of the circles. In that triangle we know all three sides so we can compute the angle of the circular segment. So we can compute the square of circular sector. And the only thing that we should do now is to subtract the square of triangle with apexes in the center of circle and in the intersecting points of circles. We can do that by computing the half of absolute value of cross product. So we have the following formulas:

,

where *d* is the distance between centers of the circles. And also we should do the same thing with second circle by replacing of indices 1 ≤ *ftrightarrow*2.

Complexity: *O*(1).

The name of this problem is anagram for ''Small to large''. There is a reason for that :-) The author solution for this problem uses the classic technique for computing sets in tree. The simple solution is the following: let's find for each vertex *v* the ''map<int, int>'' — the number of occurences for each colour, ''set<pair<int, int>>'' — pairs the number of occurences and the colour, and the number *sum* — the sum of most frequent colours in subtree of *v*. To find that firstly we should find the same thing for all childs of *v* and then merge them to one. These solution is correct but too slow (it works in *O*(*n*^{2}*logn*) time). Let's improve that solution: every time when we want to merge two *map*-s *a* and *b* let's merge the smaller one to larger simply by iterating over all elements of the smaller one (this is the ``Small to large''). Let's consider some vertex *v*: every time when vertex *v* will be moved from one *map* to another the size of the new map will be at least two times larger. So each vertex can be moved not over than *logn* times. Each moving can be done in *O*(*logn*) time. If we accumulate that values by all vertices then we get the complexity *O*(*nlog*^{2}*n*).

I saw the solutions that differs from author's but this technique can be used in a lot of other problems.

600F - Edge coloring of bipartite graph

Let's denote *d* is the maximum degree of vertex in graph. Let's prove that the answer is *d*. We will build the constructive algorithm for that (it will be the solution to problem). Let's colour the edges one by one in some order. Let (*x*, *y*) be the current edge. If there exist colour *c* that is free in vertex *x* and in vertex *y* then we can simply colour (*x*, *y*) with *c*. If there is no such colour then there are a couple of colours *c*_{1}, *c*_{2} so that *c*_{1} is in *x* and not in *y* and *c*_{2} is in *y* but not in *x*. Let's make vertex *y* free from colour *c*_{2}. Denote *z* the other end of edge from *y* with colour *c*_{2}. If *z* is free from colour *c*_{1} then we can colour *x*, *y* with *c*_{2} and recolour *y*, *z* with *c*_{1}. So me make alternation. If *z* is not free from colour *c*_{1} let's denote *w* the other end of the edge from *z* with colour *c*_{1}. If *w* is free from colour *c*_{2} then again we can do alternation. And so on. We will find an alternating chain because the graph is bipartite. To find the chain we can use depth first search. Each chain contains no more than *O*(*n*) vertices. So we have:

Сложность решения: *O*(*nm*).

Hi,

Do you have an English translated version of your blog?

Thanks.

I've done the first four problems. Working on the last two.

Fine. I am waiting for it. Eager to know the logic. Thanks. :)

Thank homo_sapiens so much for this editorial!!

How do you ensure that your formulas are precise enough? It is pretty easy to come up with those formulas, however it is much harder to convince yourself (and guys preparing tests) that it will be sufficiently precise on tests like:

As one particular example, the formula found here (equation 13) is not precise enough, at least without BigDecimals, while the editorial's formula works with long double (and some double mixed in).

The only difference between my two submissions 14517685 — WA28 and 14533916 — AC is that the second uses the formula from the editorial, while the first is from the above link.

The two formulas are almost the same, but differ in one part that is subtracted. I think the reason is that the imprecise formula involves taking the square root of a product of four terms, which might compound the error or something. Could someone shed some light on this?

The way to ensure this is to avoid at all costs substration or addition of floating point numbers. If we are adding floating point numbers we'd better ensure they are of the same sign. In other words, stick with ints as long as you can. I saw two problems (not sure if they equally serious):

1) the acos(x) function is flat for x near to 1. So in these cases it would be preferable to determine the angle though asin. It is possible to calculate a precise length of the perpendicular from the circle crossing onto the line connecting the centers. I did it using Heron's formula for area of a triangle. Therefore we can use asin instead of acos.

2) calculating asin(x)-x for small x. I did it using Taylor series around x=0.

Solution: http://pastebin.com/LV5qaK1Q

I try to solve this problem by finding the two points of intersection of the circles, and then calculate the area of intersection by Circular Segment Area.

Clearly my solution will get Wrong Answer in this case:

Example:

I have an idea of how to fix my solution, but anyone can explain why the solution of the tutorial works? Because from what I understand the solution of the tutorial has a similar idea with my solution

Did you find an explanation for this case? I'm looking for an explanation because I think I did what the editorial says but, in my mind, I don't understand how that works on cases like this.

Auto comment: topic has been updated by homo_sapiens (previous revision, new revision, compare).Could someone, please, provide a readable piece of code for problem E?

Thanks a lot.

E is such a nice task. It can be solved in n sqrt n (with MO alg), n log^2, n log n with centroids,n log n and even n * DSU :P

I'd like to learn all of these methods. Could you provide some good links for learning?

Thanks!

How do you solve it in nlogn and n*DSU?

= solution from editorial with unordered_map.

N log N with no stl cheats is as follows: We'll use smaller to larger technique, but provide merging with no additional log. We'll maintain a vector for each component (it's like find & union) and support O(1) merging for each element in it. (therefore overall merge for 2 components will bo O(smaller)). Well known fact, subtree query could be changed into some preorder array contiguous segment query. This is not important at all, but we can come up with the idea of faster merging — a vertex of a colour X will always be merged first with the nearest vertex of colour X in preorder array. (Left or right, two cases). So we could preprocess for each colour all occurences of it and merge in O(1). Some additional arrays might be needed, but it's the main idea.

Do you happen to have code for this?

how to solve it with centroid Miyukine ?

Any Updates on how to solve with centroids?

On task E, if our tree is a line of 10^5 nodes and value is different for each node. For every node we store all different colors in subtree of v in map, and in this case we should use N^2 memory, shouldnt we?

No, parent uses map of biggest son.

Is the memory complexity O(n*log(n)) ?

Did you get the answer?

Can anyone please explain the statement Let's replace any one of symbols ak with symbol a1, ak - 1 with a2 and so on until the middle of a. Now we have no more than one odd symbol. with sample string bbbcccddd

Why does my solution for 600A get TLE? http://codeforces.com/submissions/r4huln/

600B**

your solution is O(n square) and the input is too big for n square

So how should I solve this more efficiently?

use binary search as written in editorial

Can any one tell me what's the difference between __mingw_printf("%Lf") and cout when printing long double?

Here's my solution:

14537257 __mingw_printf

14536996 cout

which first one got Wrong Answer, and the second one got Accepted.

I'm totally confused.

Thanks a lot.

Hello, I have a question about Problem D. I fail to hack the solution with the Data like this:

The result should be pi*r^2 = pi*1e18 = 3141592653589793238.46264338. The answer should be at least in this interval:

on condition that the absolute error of area doesn't exceed 1e-6. ("The answer will be considered correct if the absolute or relative error doesn't exceed 10 - 6")

That is to say, we should not store pi in 80 or 96 bits long-double variable because we need at least first 24 digits of pi to get correct result for this data. I have checked the output of the code based on long double and confirmed that the absolute error of that solution > 1e-6, but I still got "Unsuccessful hacking attempt". Would you like to tell me the reason?

On the other hand, acosl(-1) = 3.141592653589793238512... here. Only first 19 digits of pi are correct and the absolute error will be about 1 (pi*1e18).

Thanks.

Solution can return result with relative error of 1e-6 rather than absolute error of 1e-6.

Thanks.

will you add codes for problems?

in problem F ..can we extend this solution to general graphs ?

If I am not wrong there is an algorithm to paint in

d+ 1 colours.can you provide a link please ?

Sorry, I was thinking about vertex coloring, whereas in this problem you must color edges.

yes i think that should work ! thanks a lot ..but do you have a link for such problem on any online judge ?

Can someone explain Make Palindrome using editorial for the case bbbcccddd

cnt[b] = 3 , cnt[c] = 3 , cnt[d] = 3

all of them are odd so a1=b , a2=c , a3=d

replace one of a3 characters with a1 so cnt[b] = 4 , cnt[d] = 2

cnt[c] will remain odd but it is no matter. we can use one c at middle of palindrome.

so palindrome will be : bbcdcdcbb

My code is giving correct output for all the small test cases yet giving wrong answer on test 7 id: http://codeforces.com/contest/600/submission/14548282 can someone tell me where i am missing. I have tried to implement STL.

Please someone provide me cases .

your code gives wrong answer on these cases:

bluespeck

isan

assholewhofindsitmorerespectful

tolive

likeadofog

somefunnyredcoderslike

xellbutos

tsadhe

truthis

xellosdont

feelenough

futon

giveashitto

thismotherfuckerbitchandgetsangry

whenthisbluesmakeshit

jokesfor

hisdearmxellossaster

if you want the correct answers for them see here: http://pastebin.com/ZmaE4npq

Thanks man there was bug in the case where i was handling the even length case. I had always looked at odd cases thinking even case to be perfectly fine but it just came the opposite.

you are welcome! if you need any help in future you can ask me, I'll make test cases for you, with pleasure :)

btw, please give some upvotes to make it visible so that others can read my funny test cases.

Can anyone explain more clearly why the "Small to large" trick reduce the solution complexity to O(n log n) in problem E? Thanks in advance.

Hello there! I'm having the same question as you. Have you managed to figured it out ? Can you please elaborate ?

Maybe this comment will help.

Thanks for replying. I've just read the comment on the link you provided, and it turns out my question is the same with ed1d1a8d's question on that discussion. If we are merging two maps, then the size of the resulting map isn't always at least twice the size of the small map because of duplicates, which will change the order of merging the subtrees. Can you please explain further ?

Where to find theory or some examples related to the small to large technique used in Problem E — Lomsat gelral ?

Read the proof of Union by Rank algorithm: [here](http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Proof_of_O(log*n)_time_complexity_of_union%E2%80%93find)

I'm using binary search (http://ideone.com/P63MMj ) in 600B but still get TLE. Any ideas why?

The problem is in Arrays.sort. It uses quicksort and there are anti-quicksort tests in this problem now.

Wow! Didn't expect so much thorough test cases. Thank you!

Please help...I can't understand the difference between the submissions 15884260 and 15884343.

They seem identical to me and both should have the same complexity? Why one overrun and the other passed???

For Problem E, can anyone explain "Let's consider some vertex v: every time when vertex v will be moved from one map to another the size of the new map will be at least two times larger." ?

In problem E, I understood the technique of Small to Large. But I have one doubt, if all nodes have different colors, won't all the maps take O(n^2) memory?

I guess I just thought of its logn complexity as a black-box. Now on further thinking, I guess when 2 sets of size

s_{1}ands_{2}are merged to get a new set of sizes_{3}, total memory spaced neededalong with the space needed for new setiss_{3}+min(s_{1},s_{2}). Moreover,s_{3}< = (s1 +s2).I didnt get the same thing...

I cannot see the test cases for the problem 600B. Also i cannot see other people solutions for seeign also the test cases.. Can someone send them to me? Thanks,

why solutions are not visible of this round?

https://codeforces.com/contest/600/submission/59420840 Plz explain what's wrong?

You have a 2D array which size is N*N, but MAXN = 1e5 => N*N=1e10, but it's too much

Could anyone show me a detailed proof or explaination for the reduction of time complexity in problem E.Lomsat gelral when using smaller to larger technique?

Really appreciate for your help <3. I have been contemplating this for nearly a week and still haven't figured stuff out :<.

You need to consider Heavy Light Decomposition of the tree. Number of ancestors of u that traverse u is equal to number of light edges on path from u to the root which is O(log n). Thus, each node is traversed O(log n) times.

Why this https://www.xarg.org/2016/07/calculate-the-intersection-area-of-two-circles/

formula giving WA on TC 9?

In problem 4, I am getting wrong ans at test case no. 34 and my ans is off by (.02). But I guess that my way evaluating area kite which is (p*q)/2 where (p is diagonal 1 and q is diagonal 2) is more accurate as it involves less rounded off values. Can it happen that my solution is more accurate than a given solution or please correct me if I am doing anything wrong? Below is the link to my submission:- https://codeforces.com/contest/600/submission/79322952

I am also facing the same issue.