| № | Пользователь | Рейтинг |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | jiangly | 3640 |
| 2 | Benq | 3593 |
| 3 | tourist | 3572 |
| 4 | orzdevinwang | 3561 |
| 5 | cnnfls_csy | 3539 |
| 6 | ecnerwala | 3534 |
| 7 | Radewoosh | 3532 |
| 8 | gyh20 | 3447 |
| 9 | Rebelz | 3409 |
| 10 | Geothermal | 3408 |
| Страны | Города | Организации | Всё → |
| № | Пользователь | Вклад |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | maomao90 | 174 |
| 2 | awoo | 164 |
| 3 | adamant | 163 |
| 4 | TheScrasse | 159 |
| 5 | nor | 158 |
| 6 | maroonrk | 156 |
| 7 | -is-this-fft- | 151 |
| 8 | SecondThread | 147 |
| 9 | orz | 146 |
| 10 | pajenegod | 145 |
Doubt in Modular Arithmetic
Today in 1557C - Moamen and XOR I wanted to compute $$${(2^{k-1})}^{n}$$$. But instead of writing binpow(binpow(2, k — 1), n), I simplified it to $$$2^{(k-1)*n}$$$ and wrote binpow(2, mul(k — 1, n)) and failed to pass pretest 2.
Why are not the two equivalent?
