Off-by-one on range boundaries
Wrong move: Loop endpoints miss first/last candidate.
Usually fails on: Fails on minimal arrays and exact-boundary answers.
Fix: Re-derive loops from inclusive/exclusive ranges before coding.
Move from brute-force thinking to an efficient approach using array strategy.
Given an array of integers arr of even length n and an integer k.
We want to divide the array into exactly n / 2 pairs such that the sum of each pair is divisible by k.
Return true If you can find a way to do that or false otherwise.
Example 1:
Input: arr = [1,2,3,4,5,10,6,7,8,9], k = 5 Output: true Explanation: Pairs are (1,9),(2,8),(3,7),(4,6) and (5,10).
Example 2:
Input: arr = [1,2,3,4,5,6], k = 7 Output: true Explanation: Pairs are (1,6),(2,5) and(3,4).
Example 3:
Input: arr = [1,2,3,4,5,6], k = 10 Output: false Explanation: You can try all possible pairs to see that there is no way to divide arr into 3 pairs each with sum divisible by 10.
Constraints:
arr.length == n1 <= n <= 105n is even.-109 <= arr[i] <= 1091 <= k <= 105Problem summary: Given an array of integers arr of even length n and an integer k. We want to divide the array into exactly n / 2 pairs such that the sum of each pair is divisible by k. Return true If you can find a way to do that or false otherwise.
Start with the most direct exhaustive search. That gives a correctness anchor before optimizing.
Pattern signal: Array · Hash Map
[1,2,3,4,5,10,6,7,8,9] 5
[1,2,3,4,5,6] 7
[1,2,3,4,5,6] 10
count-array-pairs-divisible-by-k)minimum-deletions-to-make-array-divisible)count-pairs-that-form-a-complete-day-ii)count-pairs-that-form-a-complete-day-i)Source-backed implementations are provided below for direct study and interview prep.
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #1497: Check If Array Pairs Are Divisible by k
class Solution {
public boolean canArrange(int[] arr, int k) {
int[] cnt = new int[k];
for (int x : arr) {
++cnt[(x % k + k) % k];
}
for (int i = 1; i < k; ++i) {
if (cnt[i] != cnt[k - i]) {
return false;
}
}
return cnt[0] % 2 == 0;
}
}
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #1497: Check If Array Pairs Are Divisible by k
func canArrange(arr []int, k int) bool {
cnt := make([]int, k)
for _, x := range arr {
cnt[(x%k+k)%k]++
}
for i := 1; i < k; i++ {
if cnt[i] != cnt[k-i] {
return false
}
}
return cnt[0]%2 == 0
}
# Accepted solution for LeetCode #1497: Check If Array Pairs Are Divisible by k
class Solution:
def canArrange(self, arr: List[int], k: int) -> bool:
cnt = Counter(x % k for x in arr)
return cnt[0] % 2 == 0 and all(cnt[i] == cnt[k - i] for i in range(1, k))
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #1497: Check If Array Pairs Are Divisible by k
impl Solution {
pub fn can_arrange(arr: Vec<i32>, k: i32) -> bool {
let k = k as usize;
let mut cnt = vec![0; k];
for &x in &arr {
cnt[((x % k as i32 + k as i32) % k as i32) as usize] += 1;
}
for i in 1..k {
if cnt[i] != cnt[k - i] {
return false;
}
}
cnt[0] % 2 == 0
}
}
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #1497: Check If Array Pairs Are Divisible by k
function canArrange(arr: number[], k: number): boolean {
const cnt: number[] = Array(k).fill(0);
for (const x of arr) {
++cnt[((x % k) + k) % k];
}
for (let i = 1; i < k; ++i) {
if (cnt[i] !== cnt[k - i]) {
return false;
}
}
return cnt[0] % 2 === 0;
}
Use this to step through a reusable interview workflow for this problem.
Two nested loops check every pair or subarray. The outer loop fixes a starting point, the inner loop extends or searches. For n elements this gives up to n²/2 operations. No extra space, but the quadratic time is prohibitive for large inputs.
Most array problems have an O(n²) brute force (nested loops) and an O(n) optimal (single pass with clever state tracking). The key is identifying what information to maintain as you scan: a running max, a prefix sum, a hash map of seen values, or two pointers.
Review these before coding to avoid predictable interview regressions.
Wrong move: Loop endpoints miss first/last candidate.
Usually fails on: Fails on minimal arrays and exact-boundary answers.
Fix: Re-derive loops from inclusive/exclusive ranges before coding.
Wrong move: Zero-count keys stay in map and break distinct/count constraints.
Usually fails on: Window/map size checks are consistently off by one.
Fix: Delete keys when count reaches zero.