Problem Statement: this Is there a way to prove that if we are not able to connect the vertices to 1 in the greedy order that has been suggested, then there exists no other answer?
Thanks.
# | User | Rating |
---|---|---|
1 | tourist | 3985 |
2 | jiangly | 3814 |
3 | jqdai0815 | 3682 |
4 | Benq | 3529 |
5 | orzdevinwang | 3526 |
6 | ksun48 | 3517 |
7 | Radewoosh | 3410 |
8 | hos.lyric | 3399 |
9 | ecnerwala | 3392 |
9 | Um_nik | 3392 |
# | User | Contrib. |
---|---|---|
1 | cry | 169 |
2 | maomao90 | 162 |
2 | Um_nik | 162 |
4 | atcoder_official | 161 |
5 | djm03178 | 158 |
6 | -is-this-fft- | 157 |
7 | adamant | 155 |
8 | awoo | 154 |
8 | Dominater069 | 154 |
10 | luogu_official | 150 |
Problem Statement: this Is there a way to prove that if we are not able to connect the vertices to 1 in the greedy order that has been suggested, then there exists no other answer?
Thanks.
Name |
---|
Auto comment: topic has been updated by Flvx (previous revision, new revision, compare).
Let's call sum of Ak as Sk
If we can connect (i,j) (i,j != 1), it means Si + Sj >= i * j * c
If Si > Sj, then Si + Si >= i * j * c, Si >= i * (j/2) * c
j/2 >= 1, so Si >= i * 1 * c, We can connect (i, 1) and (1, j).
Aah, got it. Thanks