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.
You are given an integer array coins of length n which represents the n coins that you own. The value of the ith coin is coins[i]. You can make some value x if you can choose some of your n coins such that their values sum up to x.
Return the maximum number of consecutive integer values that you can make with your coins starting from and including 0.
Note that you may have multiple coins of the same value.
Example 1:
Input: coins = [1,3] Output: 2 Explanation: You can make the following values: - 0: take [] - 1: take [1] You can make 2 consecutive integer values starting from 0.
Example 2:
Input: coins = [1,1,1,4] Output: 8 Explanation: You can make the following values: - 0: take [] - 1: take [1] - 2: take [1,1] - 3: take [1,1,1] - 4: take [4] - 5: take [4,1] - 6: take [4,1,1] - 7: take [4,1,1,1] You can make 8 consecutive integer values starting from 0.
Example 3:
Input: coins = [1,4,10,3,1] Output: 20
Constraints:
coins.length == n1 <= n <= 4 * 1041 <= coins[i] <= 4 * 104Problem summary: You are given an integer array coins of length n which represents the n coins that you own. The value of the ith coin is coins[i]. You can make some value x if you can choose some of your n coins such that their values sum up to x. Return the maximum number of consecutive integer values that you can make with your coins starting from and including 0. Note that you may have multiple coins of the same value.
Start with the most direct exhaustive search. That gives a correctness anchor before optimizing.
Pattern signal: Array · Greedy
[1,3]
[1,1,1,4]
[1,4,10,3,1]
patching-array)Source-backed implementations are provided below for direct study and interview prep.
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #1798: Maximum Number of Consecutive Values You Can Make
class Solution {
public int getMaximumConsecutive(int[] coins) {
Arrays.sort(coins);
int ans = 1;
for (int v : coins) {
if (v > ans) {
break;
}
ans += v;
}
return ans;
}
}
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #1798: Maximum Number of Consecutive Values You Can Make
func getMaximumConsecutive(coins []int) int {
sort.Ints(coins)
ans := 1
for _, v := range coins {
if v > ans {
break
}
ans += v
}
return ans
}
# Accepted solution for LeetCode #1798: Maximum Number of Consecutive Values You Can Make
class Solution:
def getMaximumConsecutive(self, coins: List[int]) -> int:
ans = 1
for v in sorted(coins):
if v > ans:
break
ans += v
return ans
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #1798: Maximum Number of Consecutive Values You Can Make
struct Solution;
impl Solution {
fn get_maximum_consecutive(mut coins: Vec<i32>) -> i32 {
let n = coins.len();
coins.sort_unstable();
let mut prefix = 0;
for i in 0..n {
if coins[i] > prefix + 1 {
break;
} else {
prefix += coins[i];
}
}
prefix + 1
}
}
#[test]
fn test() {
let coins = vec![1, 3];
let res = 2;
assert_eq!(Solution::get_maximum_consecutive(coins), res);
let coins = vec![1, 1, 1, 4];
let res = 8;
assert_eq!(Solution::get_maximum_consecutive(coins), res);
let coins = vec![1, 4, 10, 3, 1];
let res = 20;
assert_eq!(Solution::get_maximum_consecutive(coins), res);
}
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #1798: Maximum Number of Consecutive Values You Can Make
function getMaximumConsecutive(coins: number[]): number {
coins.sort((a, b) => a - b);
let ans = 1;
for (const v of coins) {
if (v > ans) {
break;
}
ans += v;
}
return ans;
}
Use this to step through a reusable interview workflow for this problem.
Try every possible combination of choices. With n items each having two states (include/exclude), the search space is 2ⁿ. Evaluating each combination takes O(n), giving O(n × 2ⁿ). The recursion stack or subset storage uses O(n) space.
Greedy algorithms typically sort the input (O(n log n)) then make a single pass (O(n)). The sort dominates. If the input is already sorted or the greedy choice can be computed without sorting, time drops to O(n). Proving greedy correctness (exchange argument) is harder than the implementation.
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: Locally optimal choices may fail globally.
Usually fails on: Counterexamples appear on crafted input orderings.
Fix: Verify with exchange argument or monotonic objective before committing.