Design Browser History (Forward/Back) - Watch the Algorithm Execute, Step by Step
Watching each operation step-by-step reveals how the back and forward stacks interact, clarifying the logic behind clearing forward history on visits and limiting back navigation.
Step 1/11
·Active fill★Answer cell
setup
leetcode.com
insert
leetcode.com
→
google.com
insert
leetcode.com
→
google.com
→
facebook.com
insert
leetcode.com
→
google.com
→
facebook.com
→
youtube.com
shrink
leetcode.com
→
google.com
→
facebook.com
→
youtube.com
Result: facebook.com
shrink
leetcode.com
→
google.com
→
facebook.com
→
youtube.com
Result: google.com
expand
leetcode.com
→
google.com
→
facebook.com
→
youtube.com
Result: facebook.com
insert
leetcode.com
→
google.com
→
facebook.com
→
youtube.com
→
linkedin.com
expand
leetcode.com
→
google.com
→
facebook.com
→
linkedin.com
→
youtube.com
Result: linkedin.com
shrink
leetcode.com
→
google.com
→
facebook.com
→
linkedin.com
→
youtube.com
Result: google.com
shrink
leetcode.com
→
google.com
→
facebook.com
→
linkedin.com
→
youtube.com
Result: leetcode.com
Key Takeaways
✓ The back and forward stacks represent the browsing history and future navigation paths respectively.
This is hard to see from code alone because the stacks' interaction is implicit; visualization makes it explicit.
✓ Visiting a new page clears the forward stack, preventing forward navigation beyond the new page.
Understanding this clearing behavior is crucial to grasp why forward navigation sometimes does nothing.
✓ Back navigation stops at the homepage, ensuring there is always at least one page in the back stack.
This boundary condition is subtle in code but clear when watching the stacks shrink visually.
Practice
(1/5)
1. Given the following code snippet for splitting a linked list into k=3 parts, and the input list 1->2->3->4, what is the returned list of parts (values only)?
easy
A. [[1, 2], [3, 4], []]
B. [[1, 2], [3], [4]]
C. [[1, 2], [3], [4, None]]
D. [[1], [2], [3, 4]]
Solution
Step 1: Calculate total nodes and part sizes
Total nodes = 4, k = 3, so part_size = 1, remainder = 1. First remainder parts get one extra node.
Step 2: Assign nodes to parts
Part 0 size = 2 nodes (1,2), Part 1 size = 1 node (3), Part 2 size = 1 node (4). The returned parts are [[1,2],[3],[4]].
Final Answer:
Option B -> Option B
Quick Check:
Sum of parts equals original list length and sizes differ by at most one [OK]
Hint: Remainder nodes assigned to first parts -> first part larger [OK]
Common Mistakes:
Assigning remainder nodes to last parts
Off-by-one in part sizes
Returning fewer than k parts
2. Consider the following buggy recursive code to convert a binary number in a linked list to an integer. Which line contains the subtle bug that causes incorrect output for single-node lists?
medium
A. Line X: using addition instead of bitwise OR to accumulate bits
B. Line 7: base case check for None node
C. Line 3: __init__ method of ListNode
D. Line 9: recursive call with node.next and updated acc
Solution
Step 1: Identify the accumulation operation
The code uses bitwise OR instead of addition to combine bits: acc = (acc << 1) | node.val.
Step 2: Understand impact on single-node lists
Bitwise OR correctly sets bits without carry, ensuring accurate accumulation for all list lengths.
Final Answer:
Option A -> Option A
Quick Check:
Bitwise OR correctly sets bits without carry, addition may overflow [OK]
Hint: Use bitwise OR, not addition, to accumulate bits [OK]
Common Mistakes:
Using + instead of | causes wrong bit accumulation
Misunderstanding bitwise operations vs arithmetic
Assuming addition and OR are interchangeable for bits
3. Identify the bug in the following code snippet implementing the optimal approach to copy a list with random pointers:
medium
A. Line assigning curr.next.random = curr.random.next misses null check for curr.random
B. In Step 3, copy_curr is never advanced, causing incorrect separation
C. In Step 1, new_node is linked incorrectly to curr.next
D. The function returns copy_head before fully separating the lists
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
Adding copy_curr = copy_curr.next inside the loop after updating copy_curr.next fixes the bug.
Final Answer:
Option B -> Option B
Quick Check:
Without advancing copy_curr, copied list remains partially linked [OK]
Hint: Check if both original and copy pointers advance in separation loop [OK]
Common Mistakes:
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)
4. What is the time complexity of the optimal iterative approach that reverses a linked list in groups of k nodes, and why?
medium
A. O(nk), because each group reversal takes O(k) and there are n/k groups.
B. O(n), because each node is visited and reversed exactly once.
C. O(n log k), because reversing each group involves log k steps due to pointer updates.
D. O(n + k), because the algorithm traverses the list plus reverses k nodes.
Solution
Step 1: Analyze group reversal cost
Each group of k nodes is reversed in O(k) time.
Step 2: Count total groups and total nodes processed
There are approximately n/k groups, so total time is O(k * n/k) = O(n).
Final Answer:
Option B -> Option B
Quick Check:
Each node is processed once during reversal [OK]
Hint: Total nodes processed once -> O(n) time [OK]
Common Mistakes:
Multiplying n by k incorrectly
Assuming log k factor in reversal
Ignoring that groups partition the list
5. Suppose the problem is modified so that the linked list nodes can be reused across parts (i.e., nodes can appear in multiple parts). Which of the following changes to the algorithm correctly handles this variant?
hard
A. No changes needed; the original algorithm already supports node reuse by splitting normally.
B. Modify the algorithm to skip cutting pointers and just record start nodes for each part, allowing overlap.
C. Use a hash map to track nodes already assigned and avoid duplicates during splitting.
D. Instead of cutting the list, create new nodes for each part to allow reuse without modifying the original list.
Solution
Step 1: Understand node reuse requirement
Nodes can appear in multiple parts, so original list must remain intact.
Step 2: Evaluate algorithm changes
Original algorithm cuts pointers, destroying original list structure. To allow reuse, new nodes must be created for each part.
Step 3: Discard other options
Skipping cutting pointers causes overlapping parts but does not create separate nodes. Hash map tracking is unnecessary and inefficient.
Final Answer:
Option D -> Option D
Quick Check:
Creating new nodes preserves original list and allows reuse [OK]
Hint: Node reuse requires copying nodes, not pointer cutting [OK]