Yes, i read the problem again. My interpretation was incorrect. Generally one tends to interpret a problem in a way it's a bit easier to understand :D. That happened with me on this occasion.
It's a pretty complex problem from where i see it. and time limit:10 seconds!!! Seems rather too less... Can you throw some more light on the logic how one should proceed solving this problem? On 3/30/07, Muntasir Azam Khan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >Are you really sure that your assumption is correct? > > Yes, I'm sure. I solved this problem during the actual online contest at > UVa. > > >I am not sure about the fact that you can take sub strings from the word > by > >removing characters from between them... > >AAM is certainly not valid sub string for this case as far as my > >understanding of the problem stands. > > Here's what the problem says, > > "From any non-palindromic string, you can always take away some letters, > and > get a palindromic subsequence." > > It does not mention the word 'substring' anywhere in the problem > statement, > but it does talk about subsequences. > And it does not say anywhere that the letters we are taking away have to > be > from the end or the beginning. > Think about the differenrence between substrings and subsequences. If you > only check the substrings, > you are bound to get a wrong answer. Your understanding of the word > 'substring' is correct, > but the question asks that we check all subsequences. > > Muntasir > > > > > -- Thanks & Regards, Dhruva Sagar. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Algorithm Geeks" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/algogeeks -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
