In today's E problem, my submission used exactly n-1 queries for each n to give out the answer. Can this be proven to be the least number of queries needed or is a better bound achievable?
# | User | Rating |
---|---|---|
1 | tourist | 4009 |
2 | jiangly | 3823 |
3 | Benq | 3738 |
4 | Radewoosh | 3633 |
5 | jqdai0815 | 3620 |
6 | orzdevinwang | 3529 |
7 | ecnerwala | 3446 |
8 | Um_nik | 3396 |
9 | ksun48 | 3390 |
10 | gamegame | 3386 |
# | User | Contrib. |
---|---|---|
1 | cry | 166 |
2 | maomao90 | 163 |
2 | Um_nik | 163 |
4 | atcoder_official | 161 |
5 | adamant | 160 |
6 | -is-this-fft- | 158 |
7 | awoo | 157 |
8 | TheScrasse | 154 |
9 | nor | 153 |
9 | Dominater069 | 153 |
In today's E problem, my submission used exactly n-1 queries for each n to give out the answer. Can this be proven to be the least number of queries needed or is a better bound achievable?
Name |
---|
E was one of all time CRINGE problems.
Obviously, you can binary search for the first $$$i$$$ such that $$$f(1, i) > 0$$$, but it's still $$$O(n)$$$ queries in the worst case.