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 a positive integer array nums.
Partition nums into two arrays, nums1 and nums2, such that:
nums belongs to either the array nums1 or the array nums2.The value of the partition is |max(nums1) - min(nums2)|.
Here, max(nums1) denotes the maximum element of the array nums1, and min(nums2) denotes the minimum element of the array nums2.
Return the integer denoting the value of such partition.
Example 1:
Input: nums = [1,3,2,4] Output: 1 Explanation: We can partition the array nums into nums1 = [1,2] and nums2 = [3,4]. - The maximum element of the array nums1 is equal to 2. - The minimum element of the array nums2 is equal to 3. The value of the partition is |2 - 3| = 1. It can be proven that 1 is the minimum value out of all partitions.
Example 2:
Input: nums = [100,1,10] Output: 9 Explanation: We can partition the array nums into nums1 = [10] and nums2 = [100,1]. - The maximum element of the array nums1 is equal to 10. - The minimum element of the array nums2 is equal to 1. The value of the partition is |10 - 1| = 9. It can be proven that 9 is the minimum value out of all partitions.
Constraints:
2 <= nums.length <= 1051 <= nums[i] <= 109Problem summary: You are given a positive integer array nums. Partition nums into two arrays, nums1 and nums2, such that: Each element of the array nums belongs to either the array nums1 or the array nums2. Both arrays are non-empty. The value of the partition is minimized. The value of the partition is |max(nums1) - min(nums2)|. Here, max(nums1) denotes the maximum element of the array nums1, and min(nums2) denotes the minimum element of the array nums2. Return the integer denoting the value of such partition.
Start with the most direct exhaustive search. That gives a correctness anchor before optimizing.
Pattern signal: Array
[1,3,2,4]
[100,1,10]
Source-backed implementations are provided below for direct study and interview prep.
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #2740: Find the Value of the Partition
class Solution {
public int findValueOfPartition(int[] nums) {
Arrays.sort(nums);
int ans = 1 << 30;
for (int i = 1; i < nums.length; ++i) {
ans = Math.min(ans, nums[i] - nums[i - 1]);
}
return ans;
}
}
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #2740: Find the Value of the Partition
func findValueOfPartition(nums []int) int {
sort.Ints(nums)
ans := 1 << 30
for i, x := range nums[1:] {
ans = min(ans, x-nums[i])
}
return ans
}
# Accepted solution for LeetCode #2740: Find the Value of the Partition
class Solution:
def findValueOfPartition(self, nums: List[int]) -> int:
nums.sort()
return min(b - a for a, b in pairwise(nums))
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #2740: Find the Value of the Partition
impl Solution {
pub fn find_value_of_partition(mut nums: Vec<i32>) -> i32 {
nums.sort();
let mut ans = i32::MAX;
for i in 1..nums.len() {
ans = ans.min(nums[i] - nums[i - 1]);
}
ans
}
}
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #2740: Find the Value of the Partition
function findValueOfPartition(nums: number[]): number {
nums.sort((a, b) => a - b);
let ans = Infinity;
for (let i = 1; i < nums.length; ++i) {
ans = Math.min(ans, Math.abs(nums[i] - nums[i - 1]));
}
return ans;
}
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.