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.
Build confidence with an intuition-first walkthrough focused on array fundamentals.
Given an array nums, return true if the array was originally sorted in non-decreasing order, then rotated some number of positions (including zero). Otherwise, return false.
There may be duplicates in the original array.
Note: An array A rotated by x positions results in an array B of the same length such that B[i] == A[(i+x) % A.length] for every valid index i.
Example 1:
Input: nums = [3,4,5,1,2] Output: true Explanation: [1,2,3,4,5] is the original sorted array. You can rotate the array by x = 2 positions to begin on the element of value 3: [3,4,5,1,2].
Example 2:
Input: nums = [2,1,3,4] Output: false Explanation: There is no sorted array once rotated that can make nums.
Example 3:
Input: nums = [1,2,3] Output: true Explanation: [1,2,3] is the original sorted array. You can rotate the array by x = 0 positions (i.e. no rotation) to make nums.
Constraints:
1 <= nums.length <= 1001 <= nums[i] <= 100Problem summary: Given an array nums, return true if the array was originally sorted in non-decreasing order, then rotated some number of positions (including zero). Otherwise, return false. There may be duplicates in the original array. Note: An array A rotated by x positions results in an array B of the same length such that B[i] == A[(i+x) % A.length] for every valid index i.
Start with the most direct exhaustive search. That gives a correctness anchor before optimizing.
Pattern signal: Array
[3,4,5,1,2]
[2,1,3,4]
[1,2,3]
check-if-all-as-appears-before-all-bs)Source-backed implementations are provided below for direct study and interview prep.
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #1752: Check if Array Is Sorted and Rotated
class Solution {
public boolean check(int[] nums) {
int cnt = 0;
for (int i = 0, n = nums.length; i < n; ++i) {
if (nums[i] > nums[(i + 1) % n]) {
++cnt;
}
}
return cnt <= 1;
}
}
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #1752: Check if Array Is Sorted and Rotated
func check(nums []int) bool {
cnt := 0
for i, v := range nums {
if v > nums[(i+1)%len(nums)] {
cnt++
}
}
return cnt <= 1
}
# Accepted solution for LeetCode #1752: Check if Array Is Sorted and Rotated
class Solution:
def check(self, nums: List[int]) -> bool:
return sum(nums[i - 1] > v for i, v in enumerate(nums)) <= 1
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #1752: Check if Array Is Sorted and Rotated
impl Solution {
pub fn check(nums: Vec<i32>) -> bool {
let n = nums.len();
let mut count = 0;
for i in 0..n {
if nums[i] > nums[(i + 1) % n] {
count += 1;
}
}
count <= 1
}
}
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #1752: Check if Array Is Sorted and Rotated
function check(nums: number[]): boolean {
const n = nums.length;
return nums.reduce((r, v, i) => r + (v > nums[(i + 1) % n] ? 1 : 0), 0) <= 1;
}
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.