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.
№ | Пользователь | Рейтинг |
---|---|---|
1 | tourist | 3993 |
2 | jiangly | 3743 |
3 | orzdevinwang | 3707 |
4 | Radewoosh | 3627 |
5 | jqdai0815 | 3620 |
6 | Benq | 3564 |
7 | Kevin114514 | 3443 |
8 | ksun48 | 3434 |
9 | Rewinding | 3397 |
10 | Um_nik | 3396 |
Страны | Города | Организации | Всё → |
№ | Пользователь | Вклад |
---|---|---|
1 | cry | 167 |
2 | Um_nik | 163 |
3 | maomao90 | 162 |
3 | atcoder_official | 162 |
5 | adamant | 159 |
6 | -is-this-fft- | 158 |
7 | awoo | 157 |
8 | TheScrasse | 154 |
9 | Dominater069 | 153 |
9 | nor | 153 |
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.
Название |
---|
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