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 two integer arrays nums and target, each of length n, where nums[i] is the current value at index i and target[i] is the desired value at index i.
You may perform the following operation any number of times (including zero):
xnums[i] == x (a segment is maximal if it cannot be extended to the left or right while keeping all values equal to x)[l, r], update simultaneously:
nums[l] = target[l], nums[l + 1] = target[l + 1], ..., nums[r] = target[r]Return the minimum number of operations required to make nums equal to target.
Example 1:
Input: nums = [1,2,3], target = [2,1,3]
Output: 2
Explanation:
x = 1: maximal segment [0, 0] updated -> nums becomes [2, 2, 3]x = 2: maximal segment [0, 1] updated (nums[0] stays 2, nums[1] becomes 1) -> nums becomes [2, 1, 3]nums to target.Example 2:
Input: nums = [4,1,4], target = [5,1,4]
Output: 1
Explanation:
x = 4: maximal segments [0, 0] and [2, 2] updated (nums[2] stays 4) -> nums becomes [5, 1, 4]nums to target.Example 3:
Input: nums = [7,3,7], target = [5,5,9]
Output: 2
Explanation:
x = 7: maximal segments [0, 0] and [2, 2] updated -> nums becomes [5, 3, 9]x = 3: maximal segment [1, 1] updated -> nums becomes [5, 5, 9]nums to target.Constraints:
1 <= n == nums.length == target.length <= 1051 <= nums[i], target[i] <= 105Problem summary: You are given two integer arrays nums and target, each of length n, where nums[i] is the current value at index i and target[i] is the desired value at index i. You may perform the following operation any number of times (including zero): Choose an integer value x Find all maximal contiguous segments where nums[i] == x (a segment is maximal if it cannot be extended to the left or right while keeping all values equal to x) For each such segment [l, r], update simultaneously: nums[l] = target[l], nums[l + 1] = target[l + 1], ..., nums[r] = target[r] Return the minimum number of operations required to make nums equal to target.
Start with the most direct exhaustive search. That gives a correctness anchor before optimizing.
Pattern signal: Array · Hash Map · Greedy
[1,2,3] [2,1,3]
[4,1,4] [5,1,4]
[7,3,7] [5,5,9]
Source-backed implementations are provided below for direct study and interview prep.
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #3810: Minimum Operations to Reach Target Array
class Solution {
public int minOperations(int[] nums, int[] target) {
Set<Integer> s = new HashSet<>();
for (int i = 0; i < nums.length; ++i) {
if (nums[i] != target[i]) {
s.add(nums[i]);
}
}
return s.size();
}
}
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #3810: Minimum Operations to Reach Target Array
func minOperations(nums []int, target []int) int {
s := make(map[int]struct{})
for i := 0; i < len(nums); i++ {
if nums[i] != target[i] {
s[nums[i]] = struct{}{}
}
}
return len(s)
}
# Accepted solution for LeetCode #3810: Minimum Operations to Reach Target Array
class Solution:
def minOperations(self, nums: List[int], target: List[int]) -> int:
s = {x for x, y in zip(nums, target) if x != y}
return len(s)
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #3810: Minimum Operations to Reach Target Array
// Rust example auto-generated from java reference.
// Replace the signature and local types with the exact LeetCode harness for this problem.
impl Solution {
pub fn rust_example() {
// Port the logic from the reference block below.
}
}
// Reference (java):
// // Accepted solution for LeetCode #3810: Minimum Operations to Reach Target Array
// class Solution {
// public int minOperations(int[] nums, int[] target) {
// Set<Integer> s = new HashSet<>();
// for (int i = 0; i < nums.length; ++i) {
// if (nums[i] != target[i]) {
// s.add(nums[i]);
// }
// }
// return s.size();
// }
// }
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #3810: Minimum Operations to Reach Target Array
function minOperations(nums: number[], target: number[]): number {
const s = new Set<number>();
for (let i = 0; i < nums.length; i++) {
if (nums[i] !== target[i]) {
s.add(nums[i]);
}
}
return s.size;
}
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: 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.
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.