Just check if the condition for the i-th node is correct in the given order. That's it. ~8 lines or something.

Hi!

Could you please check the next test case:

```
3 2
1 2
1 3
3 1 2
```

result should be `no`, but 4 my case i have `yes`. Despite this i had AC.

Thanks in advance!

Edited by author 13.05.2020 22:47

Edited by author 13.05.2020 22:47

#include<bits/stdc++.h>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
    long long m,i,n,a[100005][2],k,b[1005];
    cin>>n>>m;
    for(i=0;i<m;i++){
        cin>>a[i][0]>>a[i][1];
    }
    for(i=0;i<n;i++){
        cin>>k;
        b[k]=i;
    }
        for(i=0;i<m;i++){
                if(b[a[i][0]]>b[a[i][1]]){
                    cout<<"NO";
                    return 0;
                }
        }
        cout<<"YES";
}

I can't belive it!
    for(i=1;i<=n;i++){
        for(j=1;j<=n;j++){
            if(can[i][j]) for(k=1;k<=n;k++) if(can[j][k]) can[i][k]=1;
        }
    }

I think the dataset for this problem is weak. I got AC without checking for cycles.

Input:
3 3
1 3
3 2
2 1
1 3 2
Correct output:
NO

But my code ( http://ideone.com/ZljGZ5 ) returns YES and it got Accepted.

Edited by author 25.07.2017 14:17

Edited by author 25.07.2017 14:18

in 1 test case we can't determine whether subject 3 should be earlier than 4 or 4 than 3, because there's isn't any edge that show which one should be sdutied ealrier, why answer is YES???? I think if we can't verify it answer should be NO

What is Test #16? Please someone help!

You don't need to calculate the topological order. If you first calculate the topological order, and then try to "verify" the study order, will complicate a simple problem.

I dont understand why i get WA # 8

It is very easy problem, i think complexity estimation 192 is overestimation.
Very simple search was accepted:

        static bool Solve(IEnumerable<Tuple<int, int>> limitations, int[] proposedOrder)
        {
            foreach (Tuple<int, int> limitation in limitations)
            {
                int less = limitation.Item1;
                int greater = limitation.Item2;
                if (less == greater)
                    return false; // wrong rule

                foreach (int currentSubj in proposedOrder)
                {
                    if (currentSubj == greater)
                        return false; // first is greater, so rule is contradicted
                    if (currentSubj == less)
                        break; // first is smaller, so rule is satisfied, go to next one
                }
            }
            return true; // all rules was satisfied
        }

Hi,

My code is here: http://play.golang.org/p/v1xMg-9ju6

I don't see how I can get this TL... If anyone can give me a little hint, I would be grateful.

Thanks!

I have isolated the trees at first, then i ran a topsort.
I dont understand why i get WA #8

Don't be trapped by the title of this problem...it would just make it more complicated

This test perhaps contain double links between vertices...

What it can be???i have TL 15 if i change code i have wa 15 it's terrible)

for example test :
2 2
1 2
2 1
1 2
the answer is NO, not YES

What is test #5. Please help!

Some limitations are identical, and when I used counter for entering edges to each vertex, I get WA15).


Edited by author 28.01.2008 12:26