ORTHODOX - Editorial

editorial
, , , ,
107

What did you try in the attempt in which you got WA? Were you thinking of an efficient approach? I checked the submissions and most of the people have submitted the O(n^2) approach.

2 Likes
108

im submitting this now , yesterday i didnā€™t take part only.
can you check if it is correct?.
for all test cases.
I heard this problem has very weak test cases.

109

Hey. Fine Iā€™ll try to understand your logic.

110

Yess I was thinking of an effiecient approachā€¦

111

This code got accepted just now.but i want to know if there is some test case for which it doesnā€™t,as there is more learning in that.

112

Fine, should have tried to submit the brute force one once lol. Anyways, the n>62 thing is too much for a 2nd question in a cook-off, didnā€™t expect that kind of complexity. I feel that the O(n^2) approach should have been valid officially from the beginning.

1 Like
113

try this one -
1
3
1 50 99

Answer - NO

114

in my approach , i just sorted the array in decreasing order.
then,
im taking a variable called ans=a[0];

everytime im checking if ans==ans|a[i];

reason:consider 1 2 7

sort in in decreasing order 7 2 1
now ans=7;

7==7|2
hence break.

otherwise make ans=ans|a[i];

but my doubt is does it work for all cases?.

115

yes i got answer as NO.

116

Not sure about that. My approach was different.

117

Very Poorly designed Test cases :-1: , NĀ³ passed :expressionless:

6 Likes
118

can you share your approach?.

119

@hellaweird even I do now think that I should have tried brute force approachā€¦ but the thing is that the hefty penalty in cookoff kept me away from such inefficient brute force approachā€¦

2 Likes
120

Check the editorial, Iā€™ve used the same approach, iterating through the sub-arrays.

1 Like
122

okay thank you.

123

I donā€™t have that much deep knowledge :crazy_face:. But donā€™t you think those two bit will be same for every Ai.

124

Can anyone please explain how if there are more than 62 elements, we can always find 2 numbers such that the bits set in one number can be found in another number? If there are exactly 62 elements, is the only case where the answer exists the case where the numbers 1,2,8,16,32,64ā€¦2^(61) are the numbers given?

126

Could anyone suggest me where i am wrong?? Please ā€¦
https://www.codechef.com/viewsolution/35812215

127

Yes, it should CodeChef: Practical coding for everyone
see thisā€¦as we know OR is a commutative operator so u can take any array elements and just do or operation u will get distinct values if that result is not present in array

128

i am bad at solving these bits problem

can anyone plzz tell me any resources to study or how to approach these questions

1 Like