I'm learning Python and the simple ways to handle lists is presented as an advantage. Sometimes it is, but look at this:
>>> numbers = [20,67,3,2.6,7,74,2.8,90.8,52.8,4,3,2,5,7]
>>> numbers.remove(max(numbers))
>>> max(numbers)
74
A very easy, quick way of obtaining the second largest number from a list. Except that the easy list processing helps write a program that runs through the list twice over, to find the largest and then the 2nd largest. It's also destructive - I need two copies of the data if I wanted to keep the original. We need:
>>> numbers = [20,67,3,2.6,7,74,2.8,90.8,52.8,4,3,2,5,7]
>>> if numbers[0]>numbers[1]):
... m, m2 = numbers[0], numbers[1]
... else:
... m, m2 = numbers[1], numbers[0]
...
>>> for x in numbers[2:]:
... if x>m2:
... if x>m:
... m2, m = m, x
... else:
... m2 = x
...
>>> m2
74
Which runs through the list just once, but isn't terse and clear like the previous solution.
So: is there a way, in cases like this, to have both? The clarity of the first version, but the single run through of the second?
You could use the heapq module:
>>> el = [20,67,3,2.6,7,74,2.8,90.8,52.8,4,3,2,5,7]
>>> import heapq
>>> heapq.nlargest(2, el)
[90.8, 74]
And go from there...
Since #OscarLopez and I have different opinions on what the second largest means, I'll post the code according to my interpretation and in line with the first algorithm provided by the questioner.
def second_largest(numbers):
count = 0
m1 = m2 = float('-inf')
for x in numbers:
count += 1
if x > m2:
if x >= m1:
m1, m2 = x, m1
else:
m2 = x
return m2 if count >= 2 else None
(Note: Negative infinity is used here instead of None since None has different sorting behavior in Python 2 and 3 – see Python - Find second smallest number; a check for the number of elements in numbers makes sure that negative infinity won't be returned when the actual answer is undefined.)
If the maximum occurs multiple times, it may be the second largest as well. Another thing about this approach is that it works correctly if there are less than two elements; then there is no second largest.
Running the same tests:
second_largest([20,67,3,2.6,7,74,2.8,90.8,52.8,4,3,2,5,7])
=> 74
second_largest([1,1,1,1,1,2])
=> 1
second_largest([2,2,2,2,2,1])
=> 2
second_largest([10,7,10])
=> 10
second_largest([1,1,1,1,1,1])
=> 1
second_largest([1])
=> None
second_largest([])
=> None
Update
I restructured the conditionals to drastically improve performance; almost by a 100% in my testing on random numbers. The reason for this is that in the original version, the elif was always evaluated in the likely event that the next number is not the largest in the list. In other words, for practically every number in the list, two comparisons were made, whereas one comparison mostly suffices – if the number is not larger than the second largest, it's not larger than the largest either.
You could always use sorted
>>> sorted(numbers)[-2]
74
Try the solution below, it's O(n) and it will store and return the second greatest number in the second variable. UPDATE: I've adjusted the code to work with Python 3, because now arithmetic comparisons against None are invalid.
Notice that if all elements in numbers are equal, or if numbers is empty or if it contains a single element, the variable second will end up with a value of None - this is correct, as in those cases there isn't a "second greatest" element.
Beware: this finds the "second maximum" value, if there's more than one value that is "first maximum", they will all be treated as the same maximum - in my definition, in a list such as this: [10, 7, 10] the correct answer is 7.
def second_largest(numbers):
minimum = float('-inf')
first, second = minimum, minimum
for n in numbers:
if n > first:
first, second = n, first
elif first > n > second:
second = n
return second if second != minimum else None
Here are some tests:
second_largest([20, 67, 3, 2.6, 7, 74, 2.8, 90.8, 52.8, 4, 3, 2, 5, 7])
=> 74
second_largest([1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2])
=> 1
second_largest([2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1])
=> 1
second_largest([10, 7, 10])
=> 7
second_largest( [1, 3, 10, 16])
=> 10
second_largest([1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1])
=> None
second_largest([1])
=> None
second_largest([])
=> None
Why to complicate the scenario? Its very simple and straight forward
Convert list to set - removes duplicates
Convert set to list again - which gives list in ascending order
Here is a code
mlist = [2, 3, 6, 6, 5]
mlist = list(set(mlist))
print mlist[-2]
You can find the 2nd largest by any of the following ways:
Option 1:
numbers = set(numbers)
numbers.remove(max(numbers))
max(numbers)
Option 2:
sorted(set(numbers))[-2]
The quickselect algorithm, O(n) cousin to quicksort, will do what you want. Quickselect has average performance O(n). Worst case performance is O(n^2) just like quicksort but that's rare, and modifications to quickselect reduce the worst case performance to O(n).
The idea of quickselect is to use the same pivot, lower, higher idea of quicksort, but to then ignore the lower part and to further order just the higher part.
This is one of the Simple Way
def find_second_largest(arr):
first, second = 0, 0
for number in arr:
if number > first:
second = first
first = number
elif number > second and number < first:
second = number
return second
If you do not mind using numpy (import numpy as np):
np.partition(numbers, -2)[-2]
gives you the 2nd largest element of the list with a guaranteed worst-case O(n) running time.
The partition(a, kth) methods returns an array where the kth element is the same it would be in a sorted array, all elements before are smaller, and all behind are larger.
there are some good answers here for type([]), in case someone needed the same thing on a type({}) here it is,
def secondLargest(D):
def second_largest(L):
if(len(L)<2):
raise Exception("Second_Of_One")
KFL=None #KeyForLargest
KFS=None #KeyForSecondLargest
n = 0
for k in L:
if(KFL == None or k>=L[KFL]):
KFS = KFL
KFL = n
elif(KFS == None or k>=L[KFS]):
KFS = n
n+=1
return (KFS)
KFL=None #KeyForLargest
KFS=None #KeyForSecondLargest
if(len(D)<2):
raise Exception("Second_Of_One")
if(type(D)!=type({})):
if(type(D)==type([])):
return(second_largest(D))
else:
raise Exception("TypeError")
else:
for k in D:
if(KFL == None or D[k]>=D[KFL]):
KFS = KFL
KFL = k
elif(KFS == None or D[k] >= D[KFS]):
KFS = k
return(KFS)
a = {'one':1 , 'two': 2 , 'thirty':30}
b = [30,1,2]
print(a[secondLargest(a)])
print(b[secondLargest(b)])
Just for fun I tried to make it user friendly xD
>>> l = [19, 1, 2, 3, 4, 20, 20]
>>> sorted(set(l))[-2]
19
O(n): Time Complexity of a loop is considered as O(n) if the loop variables is incremented / decremented by a constant amount. For example following functions have O(n) time complexity.
// Here c is a positive integer constant
for (int i = 1; i <= n; i += c) {
// some O(1) expressions
}
To find the second largest number i used the below method to find the largest number first and then search the list if thats in there or not
x = [1,2,3]
A = list(map(int, x))
y = max(A)
k1 = list()
for values in range(len(A)):
if y !=A[values]:
k.append(A[values])
z = max(k1)
print z
Objective: To find the second largest number from input.
Input : 5
2 3 6 6 5
Output: 5
*n = int(raw_input())
arr = map(int, raw_input().split())
print sorted(list(set(arr)))[-2]*
def SecondLargest(x):
largest = max(x[0],x[1])
largest2 = min(x[0],x[1])
for item in x:
if item > largest:
largest2 = largest
largest = item
elif largest2 < item and item < largest:
largest2 = item
return largest2
SecondLargest([20,67,3,2.6,7,74,2.8,90.8,52.8,4,3,2,5,7])
list_nums = [1, 2, 6, 6, 5]
minimum = float('-inf')
max, min = minimum, minimum
for num in list_nums:
if num > max:
max, min = num, max
elif max > num > min:
min = num
print(min if min != minimum else None)
Output
5
Initialize with -inf. This code generalizes for all cases to find the second largest element.
max1= float("-inf")
max2=max1
for item in arr:
if max1<item:
max2,max1=max1,item
elif item>max2 and item!=max1:
max2=item
print(max2)
Using reduce from functools should be a linear-time functional-style alternative:
from functools import reduce
def update_largest_two(largest_two, x):
m1, m2 = largest_two
return (m1, m2) if m2 >= x else (m1, x) if m1 >= x else (x, m1)
def second_largest(numbers):
if len(numbers) < 2:
return None
largest_two = sorted(numbers[:2], reverse=True)
rest = numbers[2:]
m1, m2 = reduce(update_largest_two, rest, largest_two)
return m2
... or in a very concise style:
from functools import reduce
def second_largest(n):
update_largest_two = lambda a, x: a if a[1] >= x else (a[0], x) if a[0] >= x else (x, a[0])
return None if len(n) < 2 else (reduce(update_largest_two, n[2:], sorted(n[:2], reverse=True)))[1]
This can be done in [N + log(N) - 2] time, which is slightly better than the loose upper bound of 2N (which can be thought of O(N) too).
The trick is to use binary recursive calls and "tennis tournament" algorithm. The winner (the largest number) will emerge after all the 'matches' (takes N-1 time), but if we record the 'players' of all the matches, and among them, group all the players that the winner has beaten, the second largest number will be the largest number in this group, i.e. the 'losers' group.
The size of this 'losers' group is log(N), and again, we can revoke the binary recursive calls to find the largest among the losers, which will take [log(N) - 1] time. Actually, we can just linearly scan the losers group to get the answer too, the time budget is the same.
Below is a sample python code:
def largest(L):
global paris
if len(L) == 1:
return L[0]
else:
left = largest(L[:len(L)//2])
right = largest(L[len(L)//2:])
pairs.append((left, right))
return max(left, right)
def second_largest(L):
global pairs
biggest = largest(L)
second_L = [min(item) for item in pairs if biggest in item]
return biggest, largest(second_L)
if __name__ == "__main__":
pairs = []
# test array
L = [2,-2,10,5,4,3,1,2,90,-98,53,45,23,56,432]
if len(L) == 0:
first, second = None, None
elif len(L) == 1:
first, second = L[0], None
else:
first, second = second_largest(L)
print('The largest number is: ' + str(first))
print('The 2nd largest number is: ' + str(second))
You can also try this:
>>> list=[20, 20, 19, 4, 3, 2, 1,100,200,100]
>>> sorted(set(list), key=int, reverse=True)[1]
100
A simple way :
n=int(input())
arr = set(map(int, input().split()))
arr.remove(max(arr))
print (max(arr))
use defalut sort() method to get second largest number in the list.
sort is in built method you do not need to import module for this.
lis = [11,52,63,85,14]
lis.sort()
print(lis[len(lis)-2])
Just to make the accepted answer more general, the following is the extension to get the kth largest value:
def kth_largest(numbers, k):
largest_ladder = [float('-inf')] * k
count = 0
for x in numbers:
count += 1
ladder_pos = 1
for v in largest_ladder:
if x > v:
ladder_pos += 1
else:
break
if ladder_pos > 1:
largest_ladder = largest_ladder[1:ladder_pos] + [x] + largest_ladder[ladder_pos:]
return largest_ladder[0] if count >= k else None
def secondlarget(passinput):
passinputMax = max(passinput) #find the maximum element from the array
newpassinput = [i for i in passinput if i != passinputMax] #Find the second largest element in the array
#print (newpassinput)
if len(newpassinput) > 0:
return max(newpassinput) #return the second largest
return 0
if __name__ == '__main__':
n = int(input().strip()) # lets say 5
passinput = list(map(int, input().rstrip().split())) # 1 2 2 3 3
result = secondlarget(passinput) #2
print (result) #2
if __name__ == '__main__':
n = int(input())
arr = list(map(float, input().split()))
high = max(arr)
secondhigh = min(arr)
for x in arr:
if x < high and x > secondhigh:
secondhigh = x
print(secondhigh)
The above code is when we are setting the elements value in the list
as per user requirements. And below code is as per the question asked
#list
numbers = [20, 67, 3 ,2.6, 7, 74, 2.8, 90.8, 52.8, 4, 3, 2, 5, 7]
#find the highest element in the list
high = max(numbers)
#find the lowest element in the list
secondhigh = min(numbers)
for x in numbers:
'''
find the second highest element in the list,
it works even when there are duplicates highest element in the list.
It runs through the entire list finding the next lowest element
which is less then highest element but greater than lowest element in
the list set initially. And assign that value to secondhigh variable, so
now this variable will have next lowest element in the list. And by end
of loop it will have the second highest element in the list
'''
if (x<high and x>secondhigh):
secondhigh=x
print(secondhigh)
Max out the value by comparing each one to the max_item. In the first if, every time the value of max_item changes it gives its previous value to second_max. To tightly couple the two second if ensures the boundary
def secondmax(self, list):
max_item = list[0]
second_max = list[1]
for item in list:
if item > max_item:
second_max = max_item
max_item = item
if max_item < second_max:
max_item = second_max
return second_max
you have to compare in between new values, that's the trick, think always in the previous (the 2nd largest) should be between the max and the previous max before, that's the one!!!!
def secondLargest(lista):
max_number = 0
prev_number = 0
for i in range(0, len(lista)):
if lista[i] > max_number:
prev_number = max_number
max_number = lista[i]
elif lista[i] > prev_number and lista[i] < max_number:
prev_number = lista[i]
return prev_number
Most of previous answers are correct but here is another way !
Our strategy is to create a loop with two variables first_highest and second_highest. We loop through the numbers and if our current_value is greater than the first_highest then we set second_highest to be the same as first_highest and then the second_highest to be the current number. If our current number is greater than second_highest then we set second_highest to the same as current number
#!/usr/bin/env python3
import sys
def find_second_highest(numbers):
min_integer = -sys.maxsize -1
first_highest= second_highest = min_integer
for current_number in numbers:
if current_number == first_highest and min_integer != second_highest:
first_highest=current_number
elif current_number > first_highest:
second_highest = first_highest
first_highest = current_number
elif current_number > second_highest:
second_highest = current_number
return second_highest
print(find_second_highest([80,90,100]))
print(find_second_highest([80,80]))
print(find_second_highest([2,3,6,6,5]))
Best solution that my friend Dhanush Kumar came up with:
def second_max(loop):
glo_max = loop[0]
sec_max = float("-inf")
for i in loop:
if i > glo_max:
sec_max = glo_max
glo_max=i
elif sec_max < i < glo_max:
sec_max = i
return sec_max
#print(second_max([-1,-3,-4,-5,-7]))
assert second_max([-1,-3,-4,-5,-7])==-3
assert second_max([5,3,5,1,2]) == 3
assert second_max([1,2,3,4,5,7]) ==5
assert second_max([-3,1,2,5,-2,3,4]) == 4
assert second_max([-3,-2,5,-1,0]) == 0
assert second_max([0,0,0,1,0]) == 0
Below code will find the max and the second max numbers without the use of max function. I assume that the input will be numeric and the numbers are separated by single space.
myList = input().split()
myList = list(map(eval,myList))
m1 = myList[0]
m2 = myList[0]
for x in myList:
if x > m1:
m2 = m1
m1 = x
elif x > m2:
m2 = x
print ('Max Number: ',m1)
print ('2nd Max Number: ',m2)
Here I tried to come up with an answer.
2nd(Second) maximum element in a list using single loop and without using any inbuilt function.
def secondLargest(lst):
mx = 0
num = 0
sec = 0
for i in lst:
if i > mx:
sec = mx
mx = i
else:
if i > num and num >= sec:
sec = i
num = i
return sec
Google Foobar Question:
Please Pass the Coded Messages
You need to pass a message to the bunny prisoners, but to avoid detection, the code you agreed to use is... obscure, to say the least. The bunnies are given food on standard-issue prison plates that are stamped with the numbers 0-9 for easier sorting, and you need to combine sets of plates to create the numbers in the code. The signal that a number is part of the code is that it is divisible by 3. You can do smaller numbers like 15 and 45 easily, but bigger numbers like 144 and 414 are a little trickier. Write a program to help yourself quickly create large numbers for use in the code, given a limited number of plates to work with.
You have L, a list containing some digits (0 to 9). Write a function answer(L) which finds the largest number that can be made from some or all of these digits and is divisible by 3. If it is not possible to make such a number, return 0 as the answer. L will contain anywhere from 1 to 9 digits. The same digit may appear multiple times in the list, but each element in the list may only be used once.
Languages
To provide a Python solution, edit solution.py
To provide a Java solution, edit solution.java
Test cases
Inputs:
(int list) l = [3, 1, 4, 1]
Output:
(int) 4311
Inputs:
(int list) l = [3, 1, 4, 1, 5, 9]
Output:
(int) 94311
Use verify [file] to test your solution and see how it does. When you are finished editing your code, use submit [file] to submit your answer. If your solution passes the test cases, it will be removed from your home folder.
So that's the question, my python code only passes 3 out of 5 tests cases. I spent a few hours but can't find out what cases I am missing. Here is my code:
maximum = [0, 0, 0, 0, 0,0,0,0,0]
def subset_sum(numbers, target, partial=[]):
global maximum
s = sum(partial)
if s%3 == 0:
if s != 0:
str1 = ''.join(str(e) for e in partial)
y = int(str1)
str1 = ''.join(str(e) for e in maximum)
z = int(str1)
if y>z:
maximum = partial
# print maximum
if s >= target:
return # if we reach the number why bother to continue
for i in range(len(numbers)):
n = numbers[i]
remaining = numbers[i+1:]
subset_sum(remaining, target, partial + [n])
def answer(l):
global maximum
#maximum = [0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
subset_sum(l,sum(l))
maximum = sorted(maximum, key=int, reverse=True)
str1 = ''.join(str(e) for e in maximum)
y = int(str1)
return y
print(answer([3,1,4,1,5,9]))
So what test cases am I not accounting for, and how could I improve it?
try this using combination it may help:
from itertools import combinations
def answer(nums):
nums.sort(reverse = True)
for i in reversed(range(1, len(nums) + 1)):
for tup in combinations(nums, i):
if sum(tup) % 3 == 0: return int(''.join(map(str, tup)))
return 0
Presently, you are forming a number by using adjacent digits only while the question does not say so.
A quick fix would be to set remaining list properly -
remaining = numbers[:i] + numbers[i+1:]
But you need to think of better algorithm.
Update
inputNumbers = [2, 1, 1, 1, 7, 8, 5, 7, 9, 3]
inputNumSorted = sorted(inputNumbers)
sumMax = sum(inputNumbers)
queue = [(sumMax, inputNumSorted)]
found = False
while (len(queue) > 0):
(sumCurrent, digitList) = queue.pop()
remainder = sumCurrent%3
if (remainder == 0):
found = True
break
else :
for index, aNum in enumerate(digitList):
if(aNum%3 == remainder):
sumCurrent -= remainder
digitList.remove(aNum)
found = True
break
else:
newList = digitList[:index]+digitList[index+1:]
if (len(newList) > 0):
queue.insert(0, (sumCurrent-aNum, newList))
if(found):
break
maxNum = 0
if (found):
for x,y in enumerate(digitList):
maxNum += (10**x)*y
print(maxNum)
I believe the solution looks something like this:
Arrange the input digits into a single number, in order from largest to smallest. (The specific digit order won't affect its divisibility by 3.)
If this number is divisible by 3, you're done.
Otherwise, try removing the smallest digit. If this results in a number that is divisible by 3, you're done. Otherwise start over with the original number and try removing the second-smallest digit. Repeat.
Otherwise, try removing digits two at a time, starting with the two smallest. If any of these result in a number that is divisible by 3, you're done.
Otherwise, try removing three digits...
Four digits...
Etc.
If nothing worked, return zero.
Here's the actual solution and this passes in all the test cases
import itertools
def solution(l):
l.sort(reverse = True)
for i in reversed(range(1, len(l) + 1)):
for j in itertools.combinations(l, i):
if sum(tup) % 3 == 0: return int(''.join(map(str, j)))
return 0
Here is a commented solution (that passed all test cases):
def solution(l):
# sort in decending order
l = sorted(l, reverse = True)
# if the number is already divisible by three
if sum(l) % 3 == 0:
# return the number
return int("".join(str(n) for n in l))
possibilities = [0]
# try every combination of removing a single digit
for i in range(len(l)):
# copy list of digits
_temp = l[:]
# remove a digit
del _temp[len(_temp) - i - 1]
# check if it is divisible by three
if sum(_temp) % 3 == 0:
# if so, this is our solution (the digits are removed in order)
return int("".join(str(n) for n in _temp))
# try every combination of removing a second digit
for j in range(1, len(_temp)):
# copy list of digits again
_temp2 = _temp[:]
# remove another digit
del _temp2[len(_temp2) - j - 1]
# check if this combination is divisible by three
if sum(_temp2) % 3 == 0:
# if so, append it to the list of possibilities
possibilities.append(int("".join(str(n) for n in _temp2)))
# return the largest solution
return max(possibilities)
I tried a lot but test case 3 fails .Sorry for bad variable names
import itertools
def solution(l):
a=[]
k=''
aa=0
b=[]
for i in range(len(l)+1):
for j in itertools.combinations(l,i):
a.append(j)
for i in a:
if sum(i)>=aa and sum(i)%3==0 and len(b)<len(i):
aa=sum(i)
b=i[::-1]
else:
pass
b=sorted(b)[::-1]
for i in b:
k+=str(i)
if list(k)==[]:
return 0
else:
return k