| № | Пользователь | Рейтинг |
|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| Страны | Города | Организации | Всё → |
| № | Пользователь | Вклад |
|---|---|---|
| 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 |
The test case
1 4 1 2 1 2
is accepted as a valid hack for problem A, but it clearly violates the constraints (It is guaranteed that all the numbers except one in the a array are the same). Could the problemsetters please fix this and rejudge A submissions?
The same for G now. It doesn't check $$$1 \leq c \leq 10^7$$$, so a number like $$$2 \cdot 10^7$$$ is valid and can cause runtime errors galore.
Problem G already exists.Original G. Don't know how the Authors didn't notice it.