My first instinct was to write a recursive parser and call it a day, which technically works but I fumbled explaining the O(n) guarantee because I kept second-guessing whether the recursion would revisit characters.
First, clarify the recursive definition and derive an iterative characterization: a good string is either '0' or '1' followed by two good strings. Then, design an O(n) algorithm using a stack or a counter to validate the structure, ensuring that every '1' has exactly two good substrings following it.
Pro tip: Emphasize that the grammar is unambiguous and can be parsed deterministically in one pass, which is key to achieving O(n) time. Also, mention that the number of '1's must be one less than the number of '0's for a valid good string, as a quick sanity check.
Restate the definition: '0' is good; if A and B are good, then '1' + A + B is good. This implies a binary tree structure where each '1' node has exactly two children that are good strings.
Use a stack to simulate the recursive parsing. Scan the string from left to right: push '0' as a completed good string; when encountering '1', ensure there are at least two good strings on the stack to combine into a new good string.
Initialize a counter (or stack) to track the number of completed good strings. For each character: if '0', increment counter; if '1', check if counter >= 2, then decrement counter by 1 (since two good strings combine into one). At the end, the string is good if counter == 1 and no invalid operations occurred.
Test with simple cases: '0' (good), '100' (good: 1 + '0' + '0'), '11000' (good: 1 + '10' + '0'? Actually '10' is not good; correct example: '11000' is not good). Also test invalid strings like '1', '01', '111000' to ensure the algorithm correctly rejects them.
The algorithm runs in O(n) time with a single pass. Space can be O(1) if using a counter, or O(n) if using a stack, but a counter suffices because we only need the count of completed good strings.
AI-generated suggestions, not part of the candidate's original notes. May be inaccurate — verify before relying on them.