It should be yes… At least that’s what I assumed, and I got AC 
The answer should be yes , may be they are having weak test cases for such values .
answer is yes only , may be weak test cases .
^ I think I said that too early… 
Points went down to 20 from 100… :’(
1 Like
I think they should’ve mentioned it…
A “sanskar with 0 intensity” and “no sanskar” are not the same things!
since N and K have very low value the problem is solvable
Answer should be NO Just corrected
Does every sanskar have to be given to one follower?
Or can some sanskars remain undistributed?
eg. 1 1 1 2 are the sanskars to be distributed among 3 followers
can we give each follower sanksar of value 1, and leave the 2-sanskar undistributed?
thanks
No, you can’t do that
1 Like
Admins please stop adding trivial test cases. We are testing peoples algorithmic skills here. You just added test cases to differentiate no sanskar from sanskars with zero intensity. One could start a philosophical arguement on whether these two are indeed equal, but are we really achieving anything by adding those test cases? Does it really differentiate good programmers from bad ones?
2 Likes
Agreed
0 ≤ intensity of sanskar ≤ 10^5
this constraint clearly state sanskar can have intensity 0 with a valid count.
I am getting WA in 2 testcase one in each subtask. Can someone please tell be any corner testcase?
An important point deduced from problem constraints.
A "sanskar with 0 intensity" and "no sanskar" are not the same things!
Mentioned in the Problem constraint as => ( 0 ≤ intensity of sanskar ≤ 10^5 )
you know it’s against the rules.
Weak test cases for SANSKAR… We can get AC by using two different approaches for two subtasks even if one out this solution will give WA if the test cases are improved…and the other will give TLE…
1 Like
Abe bol mat, firse update kar denge wo
1 Like
Karne de…ab mene modify kar liya hai…solution…;)…
1 Like
Hehe…
1 Like
points went down to 20 
Reason for closing this post is ppl are sharing test cases and then asking for answers!!!
1 Like