970619abc0673's honest review, 10-Week Completion C++ Coding Test | Algorithm Coding Test course

<1st inquiry> I can't listen at all, so I'm requesting a refund. This lecture is said to be based on the basics, but like other people's reviews, it seems like a lecture that someone who is already familiar with algorithms takes to review. For example, let's look at what the instructor said at 23:40 in the BFS lecture. "BFS is only possible with the same distance (weight). For example, the distance from (1) to (5) in this graph is 3 or 101. So the correct answer is 3~ So it's impossible if the weights are different." Does this explanation sufficiently explain why BFS is only possible with graphs with different weights? From the student's perspective, it seems like they just deciphered the graph... I felt this way in every lecture, so even though I was listening to the concept lecture part, I learned the concept from somewhere else. Do I have to pay for this? I can't listen to it anymore. I'm requesting a refund. ㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡ <2nd Inquiry> I think you don't understand the point of what I said after seeing your reply, so I'll say it again. First, I wrote Q1 wrong. 'Do you think it's sufficiently explained why BFS is only possible in graphs with the same weights?'. The dialogue in double quotation marks below is written exactly as it is in the BFS lecture. "It only takes 2 spaces in a graph with the same weights. But let's think about it as if the weights are different. From '1' to '2', the weight is 1, and from '1' to '3', the weight is 100. Then, if we search with BFS, it will be 101 squares. Right? But the correct answer is 3. So, BFS uses the characteristic of searching by level to be used as a shortest path algorithm in graphs with the same weights, but it doesn't work in graphs with different weights." Here, 'If we search with BFS, it will be 101 squares' -> It seems to the students that the conclusion was suddenly reached. I saw the lecture that explained the two BFS pseudocodes above. Assuming that you are using the capital code 2 (1) When visiting from 1 to 2 '1'.visited = 1 In the while loop, '2'.visited = '1'.visited + 1 = 1+1 = 2 (2) When visiting from 1 to 3 '1'.visited = 1 In the while loop, '3'.visited = '1'.visited + 1 = 1+1 = 2 I think it is interpreted as the same distance whether there is weight or not? Why do I think this way? There must be a logical leap in the lecture. Oh, did you explain the difference between weight and distance (from 'shortest distance' to 'distance')? There's a logical hole here too. There's another one. In the BFS lecture, there was no explanation as to why there could be two pseudo codes, or why the second pseudo code should be used, and the conclusion was simply that 'pseudo code 1 is more theoretical and should be solved like pseudo code 2 when solving problems' (and it felt like I just read the blog post), and there was no convincing reason. Let's look at it more. In the explanation of 'connected components' at 6:50 in the same lecture, 'connected components' = explained as a 'set' of vertices and edges, but then, in the diagram, does 'set' of vertices and edges mean 1 / 1 / 1? If we consider 'set' = lump. But the instructor says, 'There are 2, 3, and 2 connected components.', and there is no explanation as to why there are 2, 3, and 2. The instructor just states the conclusion as if it were obvious and moves on from a concept that he takes for granted. Don't you usually think that 'set' = 'lump'? Then, the 'connected components' in the picture are not '2, 3, 2' as the instructor said, but when viewed as a lump (set), they are '1, 1, 1'. That means there are many leaps between logic and logic, making it difficult to understand. I keep saying that if it is a basic lecture, additional explanations, reasons, and backgrounds are needed to fill in the leaps between logic and logic. Can you fully listen to the lecture when there are such logical leaps in just 10 seconds? I am confused because there are so many logical leaps even without listening to a single lecture. I kept feeling that it was difficult to find backgrounds or reasons for the lecture, which is supposed to be a lecture that even beginners can listen to, and for basic algorithms. Just like other people say. Do you think the instructor sufficiently explained the 'logical leaps' that I mentioned above in the lecture? If so, please tell me where they are. But then I wouldn't have asked this... ㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡㅡ [3rd inquiry] 1. I apologize for making it sound sarcastic when you said that you never did that to my first question (it doesn't seem like it's for beginners, but the lecture introduction says it's for beginners). But why do you say that you never did that when other students say that it doesn't feel like it's for beginners? 2. Regarding the second answer. I didn't ask about the shortest distance taking fewer cells. I asked about the difference between weights and the shortest distance because the lecture mentioned that weights are related to calculating the shortest distance. If you don't understand it as a student, you should give an answer. Please answer. 3. Also, regarding the second answer You said that the lecture explained it like this: 'BFS explanation: Search by level: Graph with different weights'. => I don't understand why the result is not the correct answer based on this content. Please explain that part in detail again. 4. This is also related to the second answer. 'You said that you didn't listen to a single lecture, but in your previous statement, you said that you felt that way even though you listened to all the lectures. It doesn't make sense' => Instructor, I feel like you are picking on all my answers. I told you that I felt that the lectures I've taken so far (recursive functions, time complexity, dfs bfs) were logically insufficient, and you used the bfs lecture as an example and said, "I didn't listen to the bfs lecture, but I made this logical leap in 10 seconds"..... I think you are picking on what I said. 5. This time, it's related to the second question. I haven't heard an answer yet regarding the connection component. Please answer so that the student can understand. Overall, it seems that you did not understand the main point of all my questions. Please explain from the perspective of a beginner. Let me say it again. If you are asking about something that you do not understand, and you repeat your lecture saying, “I have never done that before,” will the student understand? Please try to understand the question from the perspective of the student, and I am asking you to answer the part that I do not understand. Please do not deny it and just repeat the content of your lecture. Since you said that the instructor was being sarcastic, I explained only the parts that I did not understand this time. So please answer. It is the responsibility of the instructor who refused the refund and received the money to answer the student’s question. I earnestly ask you to answer from the perspective of the student. If there is no answer to the question, I will post it again on the community or Q&A board. If that does not work, I will request a refund through Infraon for not answering the question. So this time, I would appreciate it if you could explain in detail the parts that "I" "don't understand" so that I can fully understand them.

15