Can a question which can be solved with dfs can also be solved with bfs if we use the right modifications and ideas¿
→ Pay attention
→ Top rated
| # | User | Rating |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | tourist | 4009 |
| 2 | jiangly | 3831 |
| 3 | Radewoosh | 3646 |
| 4 | jqdai0815 | 3620 |
| 4 | Benq | 3620 |
| 6 | orzdevinwang | 3529 |
| 7 | ecnerwala | 3446 |
| 8 | Um_nik | 3396 |
| 9 | gamegame | 3386 |
| 10 | ksun48 | 3373 |
→ Top contributors
| # | User | Contrib. |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | cry | 164 |
| 1 | maomao90 | 164 |
| 3 | Um_nik | 163 |
| 4 | atcoder_official | 160 |
| 5 | -is-this-fft- | 158 |
| 6 | awoo | 157 |
| 7 | adamant | 156 |
| 8 | TheScrasse | 154 |
| 8 | nor | 154 |
| 10 | Dominater069 | 153 |
→ Find user
→ Recent actions
Codeforces (c) Copyright 2010-2024 Mike Mirzayanov
The only programming contests Web 2.0 platform
Server time: Nov/05/2024 10:52:49 (k2).
Desktop version, switch to mobile version.
Supported by
No. For example, take the problem that says "Implement a DFS".
No, you can hit memory constraints. For details you can look at USACO Disruption's intended solution.
The problem involved merging two sets of subtrees at every node. Doing so with dfs can use O(n) memory by deleting/allocating as necessary, but with bfs you have to store everything.
Of course, this doesn't mean you need recursion. You can do it iteratively, it just wouldn't be bfs (because you loop bottom to top).