Practice
Solution
Step 1: Understand the problem constraints
The linked list represents a binary number with the head as the most significant bit, so the decimal value can be built by processing bits from left to right.Step 2: Identify the optimal approach
Iteratively shifting the accumulated value left by 1 and OR-ing with the current bit correctly builds the decimal value in O(n) time and O(1) space, without extra string conversions or complex DP.Final Answer:
Option A -> Option AQuick Check:
Bitwise accumulation matches binary to decimal conversion [OK]
- Using string concatenation then parsing wastes time and space
- Greedy approaches don't apply to binary number conversion
- Dynamic programming is unnecessary overhead here
x. The task is to reorder the list so that all nodes with values less than x come before nodes with values greater than or equal to x, while preserving the original relative order within each partition. Which approach guarantees an optimal solution with O(n) time and O(1) space complexity?Solution
Step 1: Understand the problem constraints
The problem requires partitioning the list around value x while preserving relative order and achieving O(n) time and O(1) space.Step 2: Evaluate approaches
Approach A uses extra arrays, so space is O(n). Approach B uses extra lists, so space is O(n). Approach D sorts the list, which is O(n log n) time. Only approach C rearranges nodes in-place in one pass with constant space.Final Answer:
Option D -> Option DQuick Check:
In-place rearrangement achieves O(n) time and O(1) space [OK]
- Assuming sorting is needed to partition
- Using extra arrays or lists increases space
- Believing two separate lists always use constant space
Solution
Step 1: Analyze time per node
Each node is processed once, performing a constant number of bit operations (shift and OR).Step 2: Consider recursion overhead
Recursion depth is n, but no repeated computations occur; each call does O(1) work.Final Answer:
Option C -> Option CQuick Check:
Linear traversal with constant work per node [OK]
- Assuming bit shifts cost O(log n)
- Confusing recursion stack space with time complexity
- Thinking recursion causes repeated work
Solution
Step 1: Analyze Step 3 separation loop
copy_curr is initialized but never advanced inside the loop, so copied list links are not updated correctly.Step 2: Identify fix
Addingcopy_curr = copy_curr.nextinside the loop after updating copy_curr.next fixes the bug.Final Answer:
Option B -> Option BQuick Check:
Without advancing copy_curr, copied list remains partially linked [OK]
- Forgetting to advance copy_curr in separation
- Assuming random pointer null checks are missing (they are present)
- Mislinking new_node in Step 1 (correct here)
def reorderList(head):
def helper(front, back):
if not back:
return True
if not helper(front, back.next):
return False
if front[0] == back or front[0].next == back:
# Missing termination here
return False
tmp = front[0].next
front[0].next = back
back.next = tmp
front[0] = tmp
return True
helper([head], head)
Solution
Step 1: Identify termination condition
The condition checking if front meets back must terminate the list by setting back.next = None.Step 2: Locate missing termination
Line with 'if front[0] == back or front[0].next == back:' lacks 'back.next = None', causing cycles.Final Answer:
Option B -> Option BQuick Check:
Missing null termination leads to infinite traversal [OK]
- Forgetting to null-terminate reordered list
- Misplacing pointer updates
- Incorrect base case handling
