( see this link the expected input in first subtask is either 0 or 1
what i change is that if the input is 0 keep it as 0 else if it should be 1
but i am explicitly assigning it as 1 (see input section of code ).
It means that there is problem in any of the input files(there is something else other
0 or 1 in input of first subtask).
Similar happened with me. Seems like there is some problem in the dataset for 1st Subtask. Have a look at my 2 solutions:
The only difference is - I replaced the input with a hardcoded 1 and 0 and that is what is mentioned for 1st subtask. But only one of them succeeded and other didn’t.
Yes, there is a bug (surely) for first subtask i have implemented all possible cases
for 10 points just to know that what is wrong in my code but none of them passed …
i just made a solution which is not depending on the input(considering the input correct as [0 or 1 only])
@vijju123,@admin plz look into the matter…
Thanks in advance .
Yes! I made a mistake for the first subtask. I’m sory for that :(.
Let’s see admin’s decision!
@chemthan noting serious, and thanks for this great problem on (DSU,DFS,MIN_CUT MAX_FLOW).
@vijju123 is there any update from @admin side ??
Request : Atleast correct the input files in practice section if possible .
The question is corrected for practice. Regarding rejudge, we estimated the number of affected people, and it turns out to be few people getting minorly affected. Hence, @admins said that rejudge is not a good/optimal solution as many days have passed by and it will unnecessarily complicate things. She apologized for that and said that she will make sure such instances dont occur by proper training of setter and testers in this regard.
She, however, said that if anyone is critically affected, he can always mail them at firstname.lastname@example.org and they will see how they can relieve them.
Yes,Let’s wait for admin’s decision
@admin plz look into the matter
Yes, but tell me one thing, whats the use of you editing your Q to seem as if you discovered the issue? I saw the question, saw answers which hinted at the issue, checked verified and got the setter and @admin to respond. Your edit makes it seem as if you found the issue while its false, the credit must be given to answers. You ought to have appended this edit to answer, not modify it like this. Or atleast give credits to the concerned guys. This approach can be mistaken for “trying to loot credit” by people which can put you in trouble- I dont want that
@vijju I am not taking any credit,initially i was in doubt about wrong input but on the basis of answers i got,i edited my Q.
I know that. But I have one year experience of getting into 100 sorts of trouble. Give credit in this case by explicitly mentioning the user. I just want good will promoted in forums, and welfare of everybody, thats all
@jastiger,@dk30390,@chemthan thanks for raising the issue
@admin plz correct the input file