Oh I think i wasn't thinking straight...

I think the problem can be solved by simply removing 'i' letters from the
string and check if that is a palendrome. where i would go from 1 to lenght.

But when i > 1...will i need to select all possible 2 length strings from
the word and remove them one by one and check the remaining if it's a
palendrom? That sounds like a pretty complex task...

and what about i>2..i>3...what would you say the complexity of the solution
be?

On 3/30/07, Dhruva Sagar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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.




-- 
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to