Search for a command to run...
Progressive hints first, then the full explanation and implementation when you're ready to cash out.
Review status
AI-generated and still unreviewed. Double-check the details before internalizing them.
Hints
Open only as much as you need to keep the solve alive.
You do not need to predict the Collatz sequence from the missing start. You know the final value and need to move backward.
For a current final value , ask: what number could have produced it in one operation?
There may be odd predecessors sometimes, but there is always one very boring predecessor: .
If you start from , the next operation divides by , so it becomes exactly .
Apply that reverse move times. The answer always works.
The trick is that the problem asks for any possible initial value. That word “any” is doing a lot of work here.
We are given the value after Collatz operations, and we need to output some number that could have started the process.
The operation is:
So instead of trying to simulate forward from some mystery number, reverse the process.
One reverse step
Suppose the current known value is . What number could have appeared immediately before it?
The easiest answer is always:
Why? Because is even, and one Collatz operation on it gives:
So is guaranteed to be a valid predecessor of .
There might also be an odd predecessor if for some odd , but we do not care. Chasing that path is extra work for zero gain. The boring even predecessor works every single time.
Doing reverse steps
If one reverse step changes into , then doing reverse steps changes it into:
Now check it forward:
Starting from , the number is even. After one operation it becomes . After another, , and so on.
After exactly operations, it becomes:
So is always a valid initial value.
Bounds
Here , so the largest answer from this construction is:
That easily fits in a 32-bit integer, though using long long is the usual no-drama choice.
Algorithm
For each test case:
Time complexity: per test case, which is tiny.
You can also compute , but repeated multiplication is clearer and still instant.
#include <bits/stdc++.h>
using namespace std;
using ll = long long;
void setIO() {
ios::sync_with_stdio(false);
cin.tie(nullptr);
}
int main() {
setIO();
int t;
cin >> t;
while (t--) {
int k;
ll x;
cin >> k >> x;
while (k--) x *= 2;
cout << x << '\n';
}
}#include <bits/stdc++.h>
using namespace std;
using ll = long long;
void setIO() {
ios::sync_with_stdio(false);
cin.tie(nullptr);
}
int main() {
setIO();
int t;
cin >> t;
while (t--) {
int k;
ll x;
cin >> k >> x;
while (k--) x *= 2;
cout << x << '\n';
}
}