Is this code to detect cycle in an undirected graph correct. I have run it on a few test cases and it seems good . Can someone from the community verify it.
code:
code
# | 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 |
Is this code to detect cycle in an undirected graph correct. I have run it on a few test cases and it seems good . Can someone from the community verify it.
code:
// p is parent
// s is source
// adj is adjacency list representation of graph
// path is to store cycle and is a set
// ch is children/neighbor of s;
bool dfs(ll s,ll p)
{
visited[s]=true; for(auto ch:adj[s]) { if(ch!=p&&visited[ch]) { path.insert(ch); return true; } if(!visited[ch]) { if(dfs(ch,s)) { path.insert(ch); return true; } } } return false;
}
Name |
---|
why down-voting
Because your question is not precise. It's not a good way to ask the community to verify code for you, instead, it may be better to explain your approach in a few sentences or ask for some resources in this topic (of course after searching and not finding anything useful).