Submit | All submissions | Best solutions | Back to list |
TRANCLS - Transitive Closure |
In mathematics, a set S is transitive if whenever an element a is related to an element b, and b is in turn related to an element c, then a is also related to c. In other words, any set of pairs is transitive if and only if you have (a,b) and (b,c) then you also must have (a,c). Check this example: S = { (1,2), (2,3), (3,4), (2,4) }. Is set S is transitive relation ? No, Because you have (1,2) and (2,3) but you don’t have (1,3) If we add (1,3) will it be transitive ? ((S = { (1,2), (2,3), (3,4), (2,4), (1,3) } )) No, Because you have (1,3) and (3,4) but you don’t have (1,4) If we add (1,4) will it be transitive ? ((S = { (1,2), (2,3), (3,4), (2,4), (1,3), (1,4) } )) Yes, Now the set S is now transitive after we added 2 pairs { (1,3), (1,4) } These pairs called transitive closure (which means the minimal pairs that convert set S into a transitive set). Your task is given the set S you have to output the minimal pairs have to be added to make the set S transitive.
Input
The first line of input is the number of test cases T where (0 < T <= 100), Each test case you'll be given the number of pairs in the set N where (0 < N <= 100), followed by N pairs (a, b) where (0 <= a,b < N).
Output
For each test case print "Case_#i:_X" where "i" is the case number, "X" is the minimal number of pairs have to be added to make the set transitive and "_" is a white space. Each test case should be in a separate line.
Example
Input: 3 4 0 1 1 2 2 3 1 3 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Output: Case #1: 2 Case #2: 2 Case #3: 0
Added by: | Sharaf |
Date: | 2013-02-07 |
Time limit: | 1s |
Source limit: | 50000B |
Memory limit: | 1536MB |
Cluster: | Cube (Intel G860) |
Languages: | All |
Resource: | 2013 acmASCIS Level 1 Contest |
hide comments
|
|||||
2013-02-23 15:05:18 Aditya Bahuguna
@:D .....still in trance..hw cn sm1 solve this in 0.00s |
|||||
2013-02-17 02:58:08 (Tjandra Satria Gunawan)(曾毅昆)
@Akhil Rao: in case #2 we should add pair (0,0) [because we have (0,1) and (1,0), but we don't have (0,0)] and (1,1) [because we have (1,0) and (0,1) but we don't have (1,1)]... |
|||||
2013-02-14 18:10:48 Akhil Rao
can anyone explain me the second test case?? |
|||||
2013-02-13 20:18:08 :D
I may be a little picky, but description says sets, while input seems to have some multisets. Other than that, it's a nice easy question. Set size could be limited with N*N. Last edit: 2013-02-13 20:26:16 |
|||||
2013-02-13 15:47:48 abdelkarim
easy one... :) |