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.
A wiggle sequence is a sequence where the differences between successive numbers strictly alternate between positive and negative. The first difference (if one exists) may be either positive or negative. A sequence with one element and a sequence with two non-equal elements are trivially wiggle sequences.
[1, 7, 4, 9, 2, 5] is a wiggle sequence because the differences (6, -3, 5, -7, 3) alternate between positive and negative.[1, 4, 7, 2, 5] and [1, 7, 4, 5, 5] are not wiggle sequences. The first is not because its first two differences are positive, and the second is not because its last difference is zero.A subsequence is obtained by deleting some elements (possibly zero) from the original sequence, leaving the remaining elements in their original order.
Given an integer array nums, return the length of the longest wiggle subsequence of nums.
Example 1:
Input: nums = [1,7,4,9,2,5] Output: 6 Explanation: The entire sequence is a wiggle sequence with differences (6, -3, 5, -7, 3).
Example 2:
Input: nums = [1,17,5,10,13,15,10,5,16,8] Output: 7 Explanation: There are several subsequences that achieve this length. One is [1, 17, 10, 13, 10, 16, 8] with differences (16, -7, 3, -3, 6, -8).
Example 3:
Input: nums = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9] Output: 2
Constraints:
1 <= nums.length <= 10000 <= nums[i] <= 1000Follow up: Could you solve this in O(n) time?
Problem summary: A wiggle sequence is a sequence where the differences between successive numbers strictly alternate between positive and negative. The first difference (if one exists) may be either positive or negative. A sequence with one element and a sequence with two non-equal elements are trivially wiggle sequences. For example, [1, 7, 4, 9, 2, 5] is a wiggle sequence because the differences (6, -3, 5, -7, 3) alternate between positive and negative. In contrast, [1, 4, 7, 2, 5] and [1, 7, 4, 5, 5] are not wiggle sequences. The first is not because its first two differences are positive, and the second is not because its last difference is zero. A subsequence is obtained by deleting some elements (possibly zero) from the original sequence, leaving the remaining elements in their original order. Given an integer array nums, return the length of the longest wiggle subsequence of nums.
Start with the most direct exhaustive search. That gives a correctness anchor before optimizing.
Pattern signal: Array · Dynamic Programming · Greedy
[1,7,4,9,2,5]
[1,17,5,10,13,15,10,5,16,8]
[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]
rearrange-array-elements-by-sign)Source-backed implementations are provided below for direct study and interview prep.
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #376: Wiggle Subsequence
class Solution {
public int wiggleMaxLength(int[] nums) {
int n = nums.length;
int ans = 1;
int[] f = new int[n];
int[] g = new int[n];
f[0] = 1;
g[0] = 1;
for (int i = 1; i < n; ++i) {
for (int j = 0; j < i; ++j) {
if (nums[j] < nums[i]) {
f[i] = Math.max(f[i], g[j] + 1);
} else if (nums[j] > nums[i]) {
g[i] = Math.max(g[i], f[j] + 1);
}
}
ans = Math.max(ans, Math.max(f[i], g[i]));
}
return ans;
}
}
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #376: Wiggle Subsequence
func wiggleMaxLength(nums []int) int {
n := len(nums)
f := make([]int, n)
g := make([]int, n)
f[0], g[0] = 1, 1
ans := 1
for i := 1; i < n; i++ {
for j := 0; j < i; j++ {
if nums[j] < nums[i] {
f[i] = max(f[i], g[j]+1)
} else if nums[j] > nums[i] {
g[i] = max(g[i], f[j]+1)
}
}
ans = max(ans, max(f[i], g[i]))
}
return ans
}
# Accepted solution for LeetCode #376: Wiggle Subsequence
class Solution:
def wiggleMaxLength(self, nums: List[int]) -> int:
n = len(nums)
ans = 1
f = [1] * n
g = [1] * n
for i in range(1, n):
for j in range(i):
if nums[j] < nums[i]:
f[i] = max(f[i], g[j] + 1)
elif nums[j] > nums[i]:
g[i] = max(g[i], f[j] + 1)
ans = max(ans, f[i], g[i])
return ans
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #376: Wiggle Subsequence
struct Solution;
use std::cmp::Ordering::*;
impl Solution {
fn wiggle_max_length(nums: Vec<i32>) -> i32 {
let n = nums.len();
if n == 0 {
return 0;
}
let mut up: Vec<usize> = vec![1];
let mut down: Vec<usize> = vec![1];
for i in 1..n {
match nums[i].cmp(&nums[i - 1]) {
Greater => {
down.push(up[i - 1] + 1);
up.push(up[i - 1]);
}
Less => {
down.push(down[i - 1]);
up.push(down[i - 1] + 1);
}
Equal => {
down.push(down[i - 1]);
up.push(up[i - 1]);
}
}
}
up.into_iter().chain(down.into_iter()).max().unwrap() as i32
}
}
#[test]
fn test() {
let nums = vec![1, 7, 4, 9, 2, 5];
let res = 6;
assert_eq!(Solution::wiggle_max_length(nums), res);
let nums = vec![1, 17, 5, 10, 13, 15, 10, 5, 16, 8];
let res = 7;
assert_eq!(Solution::wiggle_max_length(nums), res);
let nums = vec![1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9];
let res = 2;
assert_eq!(Solution::wiggle_max_length(nums), res);
}
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #376: Wiggle Subsequence
function wiggleMaxLength(nums: number[]): number {
const n = nums.length;
const f: number[] = Array(n).fill(1);
const g: number[] = Array(n).fill(1);
let ans = 1;
for (let i = 1; i < n; ++i) {
for (let j = 0; j < i; ++j) {
if (nums[i] > nums[j]) {
f[i] = Math.max(f[i], g[j] + 1);
} else if (nums[i] < nums[j]) {
g[i] = Math.max(g[i], f[j] + 1);
}
}
ans = Math.max(ans, f[i], g[i]);
}
return ans;
}
Use this to step through a reusable interview workflow for this problem.
Pure recursion explores every possible choice at each step. With two choices per state (take or skip), the decision tree has 2ⁿ leaves. The recursion stack uses O(n) space. Many subproblems are recomputed exponentially many times.
Each cell in the DP table is computed exactly once from previously solved subproblems. The table dimensions determine both time and space. Look for the state variables — each unique combination of state values is one cell. Often a rolling array can reduce space by one dimension.
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: An incomplete state merges distinct subproblems and caches incorrect answers.
Usually fails on: Correctness breaks on cases that differ only in hidden state.
Fix: Define state so each unique subproblem maps to one DP cell.
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.