@lwmarsh06 The generator defined is for generating a 1-based indexed array. Since the index is part of the generator, if you want to generate the same array with 0-based indexing, you were required to modify the generator accordingly which you didn’t.
@abhra73 The arrays coming out are almost the same(just in 1 indexing the 0th element is irrelevant),
i tried some test cases, some of my own too, and i found the arrays coming out to be the same, i shifted the variable x from 2 to 1 and x<=n to x<n. Can you please point out the correction and by any chance a test case for which my 0 indexing solution is failing so that i can figure out the difficulty.
I am getting identical answers for both solution on the test cases which i can think of 
How much efficient is the sparse table algorithm … can it be used for this case ?
I solved the problem during the contest but TLE in the third subtask,Solution which part of the solution need improvement? can someone help me with that?
@Sabari You can optimise your solution by using just using the following things::
- While generating the array A[] don’t use power() function. since every time t is taken to the power of x which is also equal to the iteration of loop, so simply make a variable and in every iteration of loop multiply it by t.
- Use % (modulo) only if a number becomes greater or equal to modulo … ie. if(A[x] >= m ) then take modulo.
Rest is all fine…I was also doing same mistake…and i’ve done about 60 submissions
For referance you can see my submission here link text
link text
I used Sparse Table Algorithm and i am not getting why it gives SIGSEGV for subtask 3 (after running for 2 secs). Please help and guide me. Here is my solution : CodeChef: Practical coding for everyone
I used Sparse Table Algorithm and i am not getting why it gives SIGSEGV for subtask 3 (after running for 2 secs). Please help and guide me. Here is my solution : CodeChef: Practical coding for everyone
I used Sparse Table to solve this problem. Can someone please tell me why I am getting TLE in last test case of third subtask.Here is my solution : CodeChef: Practical coding for everyone
I am applying second method still getting TLE for one test case out of 6 solution link rkAgT2 - Online C++ Compiler & Debugging Tool - Ideone.com please help
@nil96 remove modulo while you are generating array use only once when number exceeds m.i was doing same mistake after 4 days i got this…
Why my code become accepted instead of TLE/WA ? I just change the portion
A[x]=(a*pm(A[x-1],m) + b*(A[x-1]%m)+c)%m;
/// where pm is a function which make the operation : { b=A[x-1]%m; return (b*b)%m; }
TO
A[x]=(a*A[x-1]*A[x-1] + b*A[x-1]+c)%m;
I think the second one should get WA instead of ACC .
Because (10^9*10^9 *10^9 +10^9*10^9+10^9)% 10^9 will overflow the long long integer’s range.
Am I wrong?
http://www.codechef.com/viewsolution/6980480
The last two comments in the code
// Remove the first element of the window,
// and from the list P as well, if it belongs there.
Somebody Please explain that part to me?
How am I supposed to solve the problem if I cannot even generate array A and Q queries in the given time for python? http://www.codechef.com/viewsolution/6989977
Time Limit was too strict. My solution with correct approach gave TLE in just 1 Task because of using too many mod operations. Wasted 4 days and lost 70 pts 
Another possible way to solve this problem is by using queue with O(1) min. query for sliding window - implementing it with two stacks is a well-known trick: https://www.codechef.com/viewsolution/7645078.
I did not understand the question as to how is range min query applicable in this.
Could someone please explain
Yes. Sparse Table Algorithm will give you 100 points, but after so many optimizations & that too will bring the runtime just inside the specified limits…
Here’s my solution if you want some reference: CodeChef: Practical coding for everyone
Title spelling wrong