You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
So, I am not actually sure what to make of this. I interpreted "unidirectional" to mean that [:a :c] and [:c :a] were the same edge. But if I disregard the two duplicate edges, it seems to me that (d c) (c a) (a d) (d b) (b a) is a valid solution to this. Is the intent that this one is necessarily false because some edges appear twice in the list, and you can't visit them all while only visiting them exactly once, or am I missing something else?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
[:a :c] and [:c :a] are two different edges between :aand :b which are each visited exactly once. Your path ends up at :a while there still are the edges [:a :b] and [:a :c]
So, I am not actually sure what to make of this. I interpreted "unidirectional" to mean that
[:a :c]
and[:c :a]
were the same edge. But if I disregard the two duplicate edges, it seems to me that (d c) (c a) (a d) (d b) (b a) is a valid solution to this. Is the intent that this one is necessarily false because some edges appear twice in the list, and you can't visit them all while only visiting them exactly once, or am I missing something else?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: