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.
You are given an integer array nums (0-indexed). In one operation, you can choose an element of the array and increment it by 1.
nums = [1,2,3], you can choose to increment nums[1] to make nums = [1,3,3].Return the minimum number of operations needed to make nums strictly increasing.
An array nums is strictly increasing if nums[i] < nums[i+1] for all 0 <= i < nums.length - 1. An array of length 1 is trivially strictly increasing.
Example 1:
Input: nums = [1,1,1] Output: 3 Explanation: You can do the following operations: 1) Increment nums[2], so nums becomes [1,1,2]. 2) Increment nums[1], so nums becomes [1,2,2]. 3) Increment nums[2], so nums becomes [1,2,3].
Example 2:
Input: nums = [1,5,2,4,1] Output: 14
Example 3:
Input: nums = [8] Output: 0
Constraints:
1 <= nums.length <= 50001 <= nums[i] <= 104Problem summary: You are given an integer array nums (0-indexed). In one operation, you can choose an element of the array and increment it by 1. For example, if nums = [1,2,3], you can choose to increment nums[1] to make nums = [1,3,3]. Return the minimum number of operations needed to make nums strictly increasing. An array nums is strictly increasing if nums[i] < nums[i+1] for all 0 <= i < nums.length - 1. An array of length 1 is trivially strictly increasing.
Start with the most direct exhaustive search. That gives a correctness anchor before optimizing.
Pattern signal: Array · Greedy
[1,1,1]
[1,5,2,4,1]
[8]
minimum-increment-to-make-array-unique)make-array-non-decreasing-or-non-increasing)maximum-product-after-k-increments)minimum-replacements-to-sort-the-array)minimum-operations-to-make-columns-strictly-increasing)Source-backed implementations are provided below for direct study and interview prep.
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #1827: Minimum Operations to Make the Array Increasing
class Solution {
public int minOperations(int[] nums) {
int ans = 0, mx = 0;
for (int v : nums) {
ans += Math.max(0, mx + 1 - v);
mx = Math.max(mx + 1, v);
}
return ans;
}
}
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #1827: Minimum Operations to Make the Array Increasing
func minOperations(nums []int) (ans int) {
mx := 0
for _, v := range nums {
ans += max(0, mx+1-v)
mx = max(mx+1, v)
}
return
}
# Accepted solution for LeetCode #1827: Minimum Operations to Make the Array Increasing
class Solution:
def minOperations(self, nums: List[int]) -> int:
ans = mx = 0
for v in nums:
ans += max(0, mx + 1 - v)
mx = max(mx + 1, v)
return ans
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #1827: Minimum Operations to Make the Array Increasing
impl Solution {
pub fn min_operations(nums: Vec<i32>) -> i32 {
let mut ans = 0;
let mut max = 0;
for &v in nums.iter() {
ans += (0).max(max + 1 - v);
max = v.max(max + 1);
}
ans
}
}
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #1827: Minimum Operations to Make the Array Increasing
function minOperations(nums: number[]): number {
let ans = 0;
let max = 0;
for (const v of nums) {
ans += Math.max(0, max + 1 - v);
max = Math.max(max + 1, 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.