Practice
grayCode(2)?Solution
Step 1: Compute values for i in range(4)
For i=0: 0 ^ (0>>1)=0; i=1: 1 ^ (0)=1; i=2: 2 ^ (1)=2^1=3; i=3: 3 ^ (1)=3^1=2Step 2: Collect results in list
The sequence is [0, 1, 3, 2], which matches the Gray code property.Final Answer:
Option C -> Option CQuick Check:
Manual XOR calculation confirms the sequence [0,1,3,2] [OK]
- Confusing the order of XOR and shift
- Off-by-one errors in range leading to missing or extra elements
- Misinterpreting the output as binary numbers instead of integers
remaining after processing the second byte in the input [197, 130, 1]?
def validUtf8(data):
remaining = 0
for byte in data:
if remaining == 0:
if (byte >> 5) == 0b110:
remaining = 1
elif (byte >> 4) == 0b1110:
remaining = 2
elif (byte >> 3) == 0b11110:
remaining = 3
elif (byte >> 7) == 0:
remaining = 0
else:
return False
else:
if (byte >> 6) != 0b10:
return False
remaining -= 1
return remaining == 0
Solution
Step 1: Trace first byte (197)
197 in binary is 11000101. (197 >> 5) == 0b110, so remaining is set to 1.Step 2: Trace second byte (130)
Since remaining is 1, check if (130 >> 6) == 0b10. 130 in binary is 10000010, so condition holds and remaining is decremented to 0.Final Answer:
Option C -> Option CQuick Check:
Remaining after second byte is 1 -> decremented to 0 after processing second byte [OK]
- Off-by-one decrement of remaining
- Misinterpreting bit shifts for continuation bytes
Solution
Step 1: Identify bitmask construction
Line 6 shifts bits by (ord(ch) - ord('a') + 1), which incorrectly shifts by 1 extra, causing wrong bitmask representation.Step 2: Impact of incorrect bitmask
This causes overlap checks to fail or miss common letters, leading to incorrect max product or missed pruning opportunities.Final Answer:
Option D -> Option DQuick Check:
Bitmask must shift by (ord(ch) - ord('a')) exactly [OK]
- Off-by-one bit shifting in bitmask
- Not pruning pairs after sorting
- Incorrect overlap check logic
Solution
Step 1: Analyze traversal in findMaxXor
When toggled_bit is not found, code moves to node.children[bit] without checking if bit exists, risking KeyError.Step 2: Identify missing null check
Should use node.children.get(bit) or check existence before accessing to avoid runtime error.Final Answer:
Option A -> Option AQuick Check:
Missing check causes crash on inputs missing bit child [OK]
- Assuming child always exists
- Confusing toggled_bit check
- Misplacing max_xor update
Solution
Step 1: Consider input domain
Since n can be zero or negative, these are not powers of four, so must return False immediately.Step 2: Apply logarithm check on absolute value
After filtering invalid inputs, apply logarithm on abs(n) to check power of four.Step 3: Finalize correct approach
Adding a check to return False for zero or negative inputs before log check ensures correctness and avoids math domain errors.Final Answer:
Option B -> Option BQuick Check:
Zero and negatives are filtered out before log check on abs(n) [OK]
- Removing input validation
- Applying log on negative numbers causing errors
