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.
nums1, nums2, and nums3, return a distinct array containing all the values that are present in at least two out of the three arrays. You may return the values in any order.
Example 1:
Input: nums1 = [1,1,3,2], nums2 = [2,3], nums3 = [3] Output: [3,2] Explanation: The values that are present in at least two arrays are: - 3, in all three arrays. - 2, in nums1 and nums2.
Example 2:
Input: nums1 = [3,1], nums2 = [2,3], nums3 = [1,2] Output: [2,3,1] Explanation: The values that are present in at least two arrays are: - 2, in nums2 and nums3. - 3, in nums1 and nums2. - 1, in nums1 and nums3.
Example 3:
Input: nums1 = [1,2,2], nums2 = [4,3,3], nums3 = [5] Output: [] Explanation: No value is present in at least two arrays.
Constraints:
1 <= nums1.length, nums2.length, nums3.length <= 1001 <= nums1[i], nums2[j], nums3[k] <= 100Problem summary: Given three integer arrays nums1, nums2, and nums3, return a distinct array containing all the values that are present in at least two out of the three arrays. You may return the values in any order.
Start with the most direct exhaustive search. That gives a correctness anchor before optimizing.
Pattern signal: Array · Hash Map · Bit Manipulation
[1,1,3,2] [2,3] [3]
[3,1] [2,3] [1,2]
[1,2,2] [4,3,3] [5]
Source-backed implementations are provided below for direct study and interview prep.
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #2032: Two Out of Three
class Solution {
public List<Integer> twoOutOfThree(int[] nums1, int[] nums2, int[] nums3) {
int[] s1 = get(nums1), s2 = get(nums2), s3 = get(nums3);
List<Integer> ans = new ArrayList<>();
for (int i = 1; i <= 100; ++i) {
if (s1[i] + s2[i] + s3[i] > 1) {
ans.add(i);
}
}
return ans;
}
private int[] get(int[] nums) {
int[] s = new int[101];
for (int num : nums) {
s[num] = 1;
}
return s;
}
}
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #2032: Two Out of Three
func twoOutOfThree(nums1 []int, nums2 []int, nums3 []int) (ans []int) {
get := func(nums []int) (s [101]int) {
for _, v := range nums {
s[v] = 1
}
return
}
s1, s2, s3 := get(nums1), get(nums2), get(nums3)
for i := 1; i <= 100; i++ {
if s1[i]+s2[i]+s3[i] > 1 {
ans = append(ans, i)
}
}
return
}
# Accepted solution for LeetCode #2032: Two Out of Three
class Solution:
def twoOutOfThree(
self, nums1: List[int], nums2: List[int], nums3: List[int]
) -> List[int]:
s1, s2, s3 = set(nums1), set(nums2), set(nums3)
return [i for i in range(1, 101) if (i in s1) + (i in s2) + (i in s3) > 1]
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #2032: Two Out of Three
use std::collections::HashSet;
impl Solution {
pub fn two_out_of_three(nums1: Vec<i32>, nums2: Vec<i32>, nums3: Vec<i32>) -> Vec<i32> {
let mut count = vec![0; 101];
nums1
.into_iter()
.collect::<HashSet<i32>>()
.iter()
.for_each(|&v| {
count[v as usize] += 1;
});
nums2
.into_iter()
.collect::<HashSet<i32>>()
.iter()
.for_each(|&v| {
count[v as usize] += 1;
});
nums3
.into_iter()
.collect::<HashSet<i32>>()
.iter()
.for_each(|&v| {
count[v as usize] += 1;
});
let mut ans = Vec::new();
count.iter().enumerate().for_each(|(i, v)| {
if *v >= 2 {
ans.push(i as i32);
}
});
ans
}
}
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #2032: Two Out of Three
function twoOutOfThree(nums1: number[], nums2: number[], nums3: number[]): number[] {
const count = new Array(101).fill(0);
new Set(nums1).forEach(v => count[v]++);
new Set(nums2).forEach(v => count[v]++);
new Set(nums3).forEach(v => count[v]++);
const ans = [];
count.forEach((v, i) => {
if (v >= 2) {
ans.push(i);
}
});
return ans;
}
Use this to step through a reusable interview workflow for this problem.
Sort the array in O(n log n), then scan for the missing or unique element by comparing adjacent pairs. Sorting requires O(n) auxiliary space (or O(1) with in-place sort but O(n log n) time remains). The sort step dominates.
Bitwise operations (AND, OR, XOR, shifts) are O(1) per operation on fixed-width integers. A single pass through the input with bit operations gives O(n) time. The key insight: XOR of a number with itself is 0, which eliminates duplicates without extra space.
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.