№ | Пользователь | Рейтинг |
---|---|---|
1 | tourist | 4009 |
2 | jiangly | 3839 |
3 | Radewoosh | 3646 |
4 | jqdai0815 | 3620 |
4 | Benq | 3620 |
6 | orzdevinwang | 3612 |
7 | Geothermal | 3569 |
7 | cnnfls_csy | 3569 |
9 | ecnerwala | 3494 |
10 | Um_nik | 3396 |
Страны | Города | Организации | Всё → |
№ | Пользователь | Вклад |
---|---|---|
1 | Um_nik | 164 |
2 | maomao90 | 160 |
3 | -is-this-fft- | 159 |
4 | atcoder_official | 158 |
4 | cry | 158 |
4 | awoo | 158 |
7 | adamant | 155 |
8 | nor | 154 |
9 | TheScrasse | 153 |
10 | maroonrk | 152 |
Название |
---|
I'm really skeptical that this problem has a polynomial solution, so it's probably just about optimizing and pruning some type of backtracking.
Your solution is ok, but you have to change your dynamic programming by a backtrack to lose the constants of access to std::map, but you have to make some pruning to speed it up.
You know, the word backtrack probably comes from the action of "tracing back" (the last few moves; note that it's 'cing', not 'cking'), not "backing track" :D
but it's backtracking, isn't it? :D
Where I live, we have many words deformed by more comfortable pronounciation (you wouldn't guess what Bluetooth is sometimes called :D). I could be wrong, of course, it's just about what makes more sense to me.