在这个网页里:http://www.careercup.com/question?id=266699 He gave me an array of Integers, each integer allows me to make at max its value jumps. If i am at zero, i'm stuck i cannot move forword. He asked me to find the least selection to reach end of the array. ex: 1 3 5 8 9 2 6 7 6 8 9 initially at one i have only make one jump to 3, from 3 i can jump either 1 step 0r 2 steps 0r 3 steps. my solution is 1 to 3 to 8, 3 selection and i am done. Device an algo for this 有一个答案用到动态规划: It's a dynamic program
h*n
3 楼
有Cindy在,就有笑点,乐死了
w*g
4 楼
先说几个哥本哈根诠释的背景: 哥本哈根诠释到现在为止也没有一个明确的定义,人们只是大致列举出来大概那些内容 是属于哥本哈根诠释,就像量子化学家普利马斯的总结一样。 哥本哈根诠释是在20世纪20-30年代,由多人从物理学和哲学的角度提出的,即使波尔 和海森堡他们本人也并未对量子力学的数学形式达成完全一致。而且他们自己也从未用 过“哥本哈根诠释”这个词。 哥本哈根诠释并非物理定律,而是对量子力学的最小语义学解释。虽然物理定律与解释 直间的界限可能比较模糊。 哥本哈根诠释只是对量子力学的一种解释之一,1986年由John Cramer提出的交易诠释 “避免掉哥本哈根诠释以及观察者角色所带来的哲学问题,并解决数个量子悖论。”还 有其他解释,都各有其有缺点。 再看对von Weizsacker对哥本哈根诠释的理解: von Weizsacker是德国物理学家和哲学家,他曾在海森堡领导下做核研究。在1988年, Th. Gornitz与von Weizsacker在International Journal of Theoretical Physics, vol27,No2上发表的题为“Copenhagen and Transactional Interpretations”的文章 ,其中提到哥本哈根诠释时说: He (Niels Bohr)always insisted on never using mathematical concepts or linguistic phrases in physics without the deepest possible scrutiny of their pragmatic meaning in a actual experience.This atitude is very far from " positivism" in the pejorative (and, frankly said, stupid) sense of "what cannot be observed, does not exist" or, even worse, "what has not been observed, does not exist." (波尔总是坚持认为,如果没有在实际经验中对他们切实含义的最深层细致体察,绝不 要在物理学当中使用数学概念或语言表述 。他的这一态度与实证主义的描述相去甚远 ,他们贬义的(直率地说,愚蠢的)描述“无法被观察的,就不存在”,甚至更糟地说 ,“没有被观察的,就不存在。”)
请给你的参议员写信,, 反对国会削减NIH NSF 经费 『国会共和党多数提议消减$1.6 billion NIH 和 $826 million NSF经费】 Urge Your Senators to Oppose $2.4 Billion in Proposed Cuts to NIH and NSF Please contact your Senators TODAY to support NIH and NSF funding. On February 19, the House Republican majority passed legislation to reduce FY2011 funding for science, including a $1.6 billion cut for NIH and an $826 million cut for NSF - reducing the NIH and NSF budgets to FY2008 levels. Debate about the future of funding now shifts to the Senate. Contact your Senators NOW through the SfN Legislative Action Center and ask them to oppose cuts that will delay treatments, eliminate jobs, and jeopardize America's standing as a global leader in scientific discovery. The Senate is the research community's last hope to restore the $2.4 billion cuts to the NIH and NSF for the remainder of the FY2011 budget cycle. Even if you contacted House members last week, we need your voice again. Senate debate and votes begin on Monday - contact your Senators TODAY! And please urge five colleagues to add their voices in opposition to cuts that will hurt science and hurt America. Thank you! http://capwiz.com/sfn/issues/alert/?alertid=28350501
l*l
7 楼
都recommended了,早晚会到手吧,淡定点。今年政府预算这么不明朗
k*k
8 楼
this should work... O(n * (n k)) where k is the range of elements. if we only check k from 1 to s such as that s + i <= n then, the complexity becomes n^3..... not sure this is the most efficient.... #include int jump(int* arr, int n){ int idx[n]; int edge[n]; int i = 0; int j = 0;
idx[0] = 0; for(i=1; iint min = i; int minidx = -1; for(j=i-1; j>=0; j--){ int k = 0; for(k=1; k<=arr[j]; k++){ if (arr[j]!=-1 && k+j==i){ if (idx
s*n
9 楼
风一样的女子……笑翻了
d*e
10 楼
He (Niels Bohr)always insisted on never using mathematical concepts or linguistic phrases in physics without the deepest possible scrutiny of their pragmatic meaning in a actual experience.This atitude is very far from " positivism" in the pejorative (and, frankly said, stupid) sense of "what cannot be observed, does not exist" or, even worse, "what has not been observed, does not exist." 这就是说,波尔其实是被扣上了个大帽子. 就是RUNSUN道听途说的那些人把这个观点加在波儿头上了. 早就说RUNSUN随便给人扣帽子,断章取义,自我发挥.
【在 b*******s 的大作中提到】 : 请给你的参议员写信,, 反对国会削减NIH NSF 经费 : 『国会共和党多数提议消减$1.6 billion NIH 和 $826 million NSF经费】 : Urge Your Senators to Oppose $2.4 Billion in Proposed Cuts to NIH : and NSF : Please contact your Senators TODAY : to support NIH and NSF funding. On February 19, the House : Republican majority passed legislation to reduce FY2011 funding : for science, including a $1.6 billion cut for NIH and an $826 : million cut for NSF - reducing the NIH and NSF budgets to FY2008 : levels. Debate about the future of funding now shifts to the
G*2
13 楼
不是说是4周到6周吗。快了
b*e
14 楼
这个为什么要DP? 直接贪心不就行了? 每次找范围内下次可以跳的最远的. 复杂度是O(n).
its asked me either 1
【在 r********t 的大作中提到】 : 在这个网页里:http://www.careercup.com/question?id=266699 : He gave me an array of Integers, each integer allows me to make at max its : value jumps. If i am at zero, i'm stuck i cannot move forword. He asked me : to find the least selection to reach end of the array. : ex: 1 3 5 8 9 2 6 7 6 8 9 : initially at one i have only make one jump to 3, from 3 i can jump either 1 : step 0r 2 steps 0r 3 steps. : my solution is 1 to 3 to 8, 3 selection and i am done. : Device an algo for this : 有一个答案用到动态规划:
【在 d******e 的大作中提到】 : He (Niels Bohr)always insisted on never using mathematical concepts or : linguistic phrases in physics without the deepest possible scrutiny of their : pragmatic meaning in a actual experience.This atitude is very far from " : positivism" in the pejorative (and, frankly said, stupid) sense of "what : cannot be observed, does not exist" or, even worse, "what has not been : observed, does not exist." : 这就是说,波尔其实是被扣上了个大帽子. : 就是RUNSUN道听途说的那些人把这个观点加在波儿头上了. : 早就说RUNSUN随便给人扣帽子,断章取义,自我发挥.
L*r
17 楼
那怎样在网上researve? 另外,问apple店的小二,能否保持现在的plan(unlimited data plan),小二说apple店 不保证att的plan。很迷惑
this is right greedy will work, just compute another array b[i] = i+a[i]; code如下: int jump_count=0; int low=0,high=0; while(highjump_count++; int max=0; for(int i=low;i<=high;i++) max = (b[i]>max)?b[i]:max; if(max==high) throw runtime_error("unreachable"); low=high+1; high=max; } return jump_count;
O(n).
【在 b***e 的大作中提到】 : 这个为什么要DP? 直接贪心不就行了? 每次找范围内下次可以跳的最远的. 复杂度是O(n). : : its : asked me : either 1
【在 g*******y 的大作中提到】 : this is right : greedy will work, just compute another array : b[i] = i+a[i]; : code如下: : int jump_count=0; : int low=0,high=0; : while(high: jump_count++; : int max=0; : for(int i=low;i<=high;i++) max = (b[i]>max)?b[i]:max;
r*n
26 楼
容是属于哥本哈根诠释,就像你说的量子化学家普利马斯的总结一样。 尔和海森堡他们本人也并未对量子力学的数学形式达成完全一致。而且他们自己也从未 用过“哥本哈根诠释”这个词。 当时根本就没有这个词,这个词是后期形成的。尤其出现其他更多解释以后。 释之间的界限可能比较模糊。 它显然不是物理定律。 释“避免掉哥本哈根诠释以及观察者角色所带来的哲学问题,并解决数个量子悖论。” 还有其他解释,都各有其优缺点。 每个除哥本哈根解释以外的解释,都声称解决了若干问题,可实际却漏洞多多,至今还 没有出现一个比哥本哈根解释完备的,哥本哈根解释仍然是量子力学的正统解释。 ,Th. Gornitz与von Weizsacker在International Journal of Theoretical Physics, vol27,No2上发表的题为“Copenhagen and Transactional Interpretations”的文章 ,其中提到哥本哈根诠释时说: linguistic phrases in physics without the deepest possible scrutiny of their pragmatic meaning in a actual experience.This atitude is very far from " positivism" in the pejorative (and, frankly said, stupid) sense of "what cannot be observed, does not exist" or, even worse, "what has not been observed, does not exist." 不要在物理学当中使用数学概念或语言表述 。他的这一态度与实证主义的描述相去甚 远,他们贬义的(直率地说,愚蠢的)描述“无法被观察的,就不存在”,甚至更糟地 说,“没有被观察的,就不存在。”) 我也可以说,“没有被观察的,就不存在”,也可以说,“没有被观察的,仍然是存在 ”。问题在于,到底是否搞清楚存在的定义是什么,指的是什么,而很多人不明白。应 该反对的是这种。 量子化学家普利马斯说“纯量子态是客观的,但是不真实的”,不真实意思就是不存在 ,纯量子态,指的就是没有被观察的。这句话意思同样可以被理解成"没有被观察的, 就是不存在“但是,是彻底的不存在,完全的不存在吗?显然不是。
【在 b*******s 的大作中提到】 : 请给你的参议员写信,, 反对国会削减NIH NSF 经费 : 『国会共和党多数提议消减$1.6 billion NIH 和 $826 million NSF经费】 : Urge Your Senators to Oppose $2.4 Billion in Proposed Cuts to NIH : and NSF : Please contact your Senators TODAY : to support NIH and NSF funding. On February 19, the House : Republican majority passed legislation to reduce FY2011 funding : for science, including a $1.6 billion cut for NIH and an $826 : million cut for NSF - reducing the NIH and NSF budgets to FY2008 : levels. Debate about the future of funding now shifts to the