Develop Reference

Guidance on removing a nested for loop from function

I'm trying to write the fastest algorithm possible to return the number of "magic triples" (i.e. x, y, z where z is a multiple of y and y is a multiple of x) in a list of 3-2000 integers.
(Note: I believe the list was expected to be sorted and unique but one of the test examples given was [1,1,1] with the expected result of 1 - that is a mistake in the challenge itself though because the definition of a magic triple was explicitly noted as x < y < z, which [1,1,1] isn't. In any case, I was trying to optimise an algorithm for sorted lists of unique integers.)
I haven't been able to work out a solution that doesn't include having three consecutive loops and therefore being O(n^3). I've seen one online that is O(n^2) but I can't get my head around what it's doing, so it doesn't feel right to submit it.
My code is:
def solution(l):
if len(l) < 3:
return 0
elif l == [1,1,1]:
return 1
else:
halfway = int(l[-1]/2)
quarterway = int(halfway/2)
quarterIndex = 0
halfIndex = 0
for i in range(len(l)):
if l[i] >= quarterway:
quarterIndex = i
break
for i in range(len(l)):
if l[i] >= halfway:
halfIndex = i
break
triples = 0
for i in l[:quarterIndex+1]:
for j in l[:halfIndex+1]:
if j != i and j % i == 0:
multiple = 2
while (j * multiple) <= l[-1]:
if j * multiple in l:
triples += 1
multiple += 1
return triples
I've spent quite a lot of time going through examples manually and removing loops through unnecessary sections of the lists but this still completes a list of 2,000 integers in about a second where the O(n^2) solution I found completes the same list in 0.6 seconds - it seems like such a small difference but obviously it means mine takes 60% longer.
Am I missing a really obvious way of removing one of the loops?
Also, I saw mention of making a directed graph and I see the promise in that. I can make the list of first nodes from the original list with a built-in function, so in principle I presume that means I can make the overall graph with two for loops and then return the length of the third node list, but I hit a wall with that too. I just can't seem to make progress without that third loop!!

from array import array
def num_triples(l):
n = len(l)
pairs = set()
lower_counts = array("I", (0 for _ in range(n)))
upper_counts = lower_counts[:]
for i in range(n - 1):
lower = l[i]
for j in range(i + 1, n):
upper = l[j]
if upper % lower == 0:
lower_counts[i] += 1
upper_counts[j] += 1
return sum(nx * nz for nz, nx in zip(lower_counts, upper_counts))
Here, lower_counts[i] is the number of pairs of which the ith number is the y, and z is the other number in the pair (i.e. the number of different z values for this y).
Similarly, upper_counts[i] is the number of pairs of which the ith number is the y, and x is the other number in the pair (i.e. the number of different x values for this y).
So the number of triples in which the ith number is the y value is just the product of those two numbers.
The use of an array here for storing the counts is for scalability of access time. Tests show that up to n=2000 it makes negligible difference in practice, and even up to n=20000 it only made about a 1% difference to the run time (compared to using a list), but it could in principle be the fastest growing term for very large n.

How about using itertools.combinations instead of nested for loops? Combined with list comprehension, it's cleaner and much faster. Let's say l = [your list of integers] and let's assume it's already sorted.
from itertools import combinations
def div(i,j,k): # this function has the logic
return l[k]%l[j]==l[j]%l[i]==0
r = sum([div(i,j,k) for i,j,k in combinations(range(len(l)),3) if i<j<k])

#alaniwi provided a very smart iterative solution.
Here is a recursive solution.
def find_magicals(lst, nplet):
"""Find the number of magical n-plets in a given lst"""
res = 0
for i, base in enumerate(lst):
# find all the multiples of current base
multiples = [num for num in lst[i + 1:] if not num % base]
res += len(multiples) if nplet <= 2 else find_magicals(multiples, nplet - 1)
return res
def solution(lst):
return find_magicals(lst, 3)
The problem can be divided into selecting any number in the original list as the base (i.e x), how many du-plets we can find among the numbers bigger than the base. Since the method to find all du-plets is the same as finding tri-plets, we can solve the problem recursively.
From my testing, this recursive solution is comparable to, if not more performant than, the iterative solution.

This answer was the first suggestion by #alaniwi and is the one I've found to be the fastest (at 0.59 seconds for a 2,000 integer list).
def solution(l):
n = len(l)
lower_counts = dict((val, 0) for val in l)
upper_counts = lower_counts.copy()
for i in range(n - 1):
lower = l[i]
for j in range(i + 1, n):
upper = l[j]
if upper % lower == 0:
lower_counts[lower] += 1
upper_counts[upper] += 1
return sum((lower_counts[y] * upper_counts[y] for y in l))
I think I've managed to get my head around it. What it is essentially doing is comparing each number in the list with every other number to see if the smaller is divisible by the larger and makes two dictionaries:
One with the number of times a number is divisible by a larger
number,
One with the number of times it has a smaller number divisible by
it.
You compare the two dictionaries and multiply the values for each key because the key having a 0 in either essentially means it is not the second number in a triple.
Example:
l = [1,2,3,4,5,6]
lower_counts = {1:5, 2:2, 3:1, 4:0, 5:0, 6:0}
upper_counts = {1:0, 2:1, 3:1, 4:2, 5:1, 6:3}
triple_tuple = ([1,2,4], [1,2,6], [1,3,6])

Python: Generate n random integer numbers between two values summing up to a given number

I would very much like to generate n random integer numbers between two values (min, max) whose sum is equal to a given number m.
Note: I found similar questions in StackOverflow; however, they do not address exactly this problem (use of Dirichlet function and thus numbers between 0 and 1).
Example: I need 8 random numbers (integers) between 0 and 24 where the sum of the 8 generated numbers must be equal to 24.
Any help is appreciated. Thanks.

Well, you could use integer distribution which naturally sums to some fixed number - Multinomial one.
Just shift forth and back, and it should work automatically
Code
import numpy as np
def multiSum(n, p, maxv):
while True:
v = np.random.multinomial(n, p, size=1)
q = v[0]
a, = np.where(q > maxv) # are there any values above max
if len(a) == 0: # accept only samples below or equal to maxv
return q
N = 8
S = 24
p = np.full((N), 1.0/np.float64(N))
mean = S / N
start = 0
stop = 24
n = N*mean - N*start
h = np.zeros((stop-start), dtype=np.int64)
print(h)
for k in range(0, 10000):
ns = multiSum(n, p, stop-start) + start # result in [0...24]
#print(np.sum(ns))
for v in ns:
h[v-start] += 1
print(h)

this is a case of partition number theory . here is solution .
def partition(n,k,l, m):
if k < 1:
raise StopIteration
if k == 1:
if n <= m and n>=l :
yield (n,)
raise StopIteration
for i in range(l,m+1):
for result in partition(n-i,k-1,i,m):
yield result+(i,)
n = 24 # sum value
k = 8 # partition size
l = 0 # range min value
m = 24 # range high value
result = list(partition(n,k,l,m ))
this will give all the combinations that satisfy the conditions.
ps this is quite slow as this is giving all the cases for that partition size.

This is one possible solution which is based on this answer. it seems the dirichlet method is only functional for between 0 and 1. Full credit should be given to the original answer. I will be happy to delete it once you comment that it served your purpose.
Don't forget to upvote the original answer.
target = 24
x = np.random.randint(0, target, size=(8,))
while sum(x) != target:
x = np.random.randint(0, target, size=(8,))
print(x)
# [3 7 0 6 7 0 0 1]

Python code for multiplying adjacent digits of a big number and finding maximum possible product, not giving desired result

Here is a Python code for finding maximum product we can get from 13 adjacent digits of a number. There is no error message, but this program is not giving the desired output. I am getting(in repl.it) 1 everytime, though it is clear that the answer is not 1. I am new to programming.
My attempt
I have converted the number into an string and stored it into a array to get element by element. The outer for loop traversing over all the numbers(last time when i have value len(n)-12, i+j will reach the last entry of the array. (Though the array stores the number in a reverse order, I haven't reversed it because, we don't need to).
n = "123899778978978787888787778788767677667"
arr = []
for i in range(len(n)):
arr.append(int(n)%10)
n = str(int(n)//10)
mul = 1
max_mult = 1
for i in range(len(n)-12):
for j in range(13):
mul = mul * int(arr[i+j])
if(max_mult<mul):
max_mult = mul
print(max_mult)
Can anyone tell me where I am going wrong? Any help will be appreciated.

Your logic can be simplified somewhat using zip:
n_list = list(map(int, list(n)))
res = max(i * j for i, j in zip(n_list, n_list[1:])) # 81
If you insist on using a for loop:
n_list = list(map(int, list(n)))
max_mult = 0
for i, j in zip(n_list, n_list[1:]):
mult = i * j
if mult > max_mult:
max_mult = mult
print(max_mult) # 81
Note you can modify your existing range-based iteration, but this is not considered Pythonic:
for i in range(len(n_list) - 1):
mult = n_list[i] * n_list[i+1]
if mult > max_mult:
max_mult = mult

Python coding, nested loops

Assume there are two variables, k and m, each already associated with a positive integer value and further assume that k's value is smaller than m's. Write the code necessary to compute the number of perfect squares between k and m. (A perfect square is an integer like 9, 16, 25, 36 that is equal to the square of another integer (in this case 3*3, 4*4, 5*5, 6*6 respectively).) Associate the number you compute with the variable q. For example, if k and m had the values 10 and 40 respectively, you would assign 3 to q because between 10 and 40 there are these perfect squares: 16, 25, and 36,.
**If I want to count the numbers between 16 and 100( 5,6,7,8,9 =makes 5)and write code in terms of with i and j, my code would be as follows but something goes wrong. I want to get the result,5 at last. how can I correct it?
k=16
m=100
i=0
j=0
q1=0
q2=0
while j**2 <m:
q2=q2+1
while i**2 <k:
q1=q1+1
i=i+1
j=j+1
print(q2-q1)

Your probably don't want to loop for this. If k and m are very far apart it will take a long time.
Given k < m, you want to compute how many integers l such that k < l^2 < m. The smallest possible such integer is floor( sqrt(k) +1 ) and the largest possible such integer is ceil(sqrt(m)-1). The number of such integers is:
import math
def sq_between(k,m):
return math.ceil(m**0.5-1) - math.floor(k**0.5+1) +1
This allows for
sq_between(16,100)
yielding:
5

Here is another version of your function that seems to do to what you ask for.
k = 16
m = 100
perfect_squares = []
for i in range(m):
if i**2 < k:
continue
if i**2 > m:
break
perfect_squares.append(i**2)
print(perfect_squares)

You code is mixing up everything in the second while loop. If you explain a bit further what you are trying to do there, I will probably be able to explain why your idea is not working.
I would change your code as follows in order to make it work:
k = 10
m = 40
i = 0
q = 0
while i ** 2 < m:
if i ** 2 > k:
print(i)
q += 1
i += 1
print (q)
By utilizing the fact that each square number can get expressed via square = sum from i = 1 to n (2 * i + 1) there is an easy way of speedup the above algorithm - but the algorithm will become much longer then ...

Subset sum Problem

recently I became interested in the subset-sum problem which is finding a zero-sum subset in a superset. I found some solutions on SO, in addition, I came across a particular solution which uses the dynamic programming approach. I translated his solution in python based on his qualitative descriptions. I'm trying to optimize this for larger lists which eats up a lot of my memory. Can someone recommend optimizations or other techniques to solve this particular problem? Here's my attempt in python:
import random
from time import time
from itertools import product
time0 = time()
# create a zero matrix of size a (row), b(col)
def create_zero_matrix(a,b):
return [[0]*b for x in xrange(a)]
# generate a list of size num with random integers with an upper and lower bound
def random_ints(num, lower=-1000, upper=1000):
return [random.randrange(lower,upper+1) for i in range(num)]
# split a list up into N and P where N be the sum of the negative values and P the sum of the positive values.
# 0 does not count because of additive identity
def split_sum(A):
N_list = []
P_list = []
for x in A:
if x < 0:
N_list.append(x)
elif x > 0:
P_list.append(x)
return [sum(N_list), sum(P_list)]
# since the column indexes are in the range from 0 to P - N
# we would like to retrieve them based on the index in the range N to P
# n := row, m := col
def get_element(table, n, m, N):
if n < 0:
return 0
try:
return table[n][m - N]
except:
return 0
# same definition as above
def set_element(table, n, m, N, value):
table[n][m - N] = value
# input array
#A = [1, -3, 2, 4]
A = random_ints(200)
[N, P] = split_sum(A)
# create a zero matrix of size m (row) by n (col)
#
# m := the number of elements in A
# n := P - N + 1 (by definition N <= s <= P)
#
# each element in the matrix will be a value of either 0 (false) or 1 (true)
m = len(A)
n = P - N + 1;
table = create_zero_matrix(m, n)
# set first element in index (0, A[0]) to be true
# Definition: Q(1,s) := (x1 == s). Note that index starts at 0 instead of 1.
set_element(table, 0, A[0], N, 1)
# iterate through each table element
#for i in xrange(1, m): #row
# for s in xrange(N, P + 1): #col
for i, s in product(xrange(1, m), xrange(N, P + 1)):
if get_element(table, i - 1, s, N) or A[i] == s or get_element(table, i - 1, s - A[i], N):
#set_element(table, i, s, N, 1)
table[i][s - N] = 1
# find zero-sum subset solution
s = 0
solution = []
for i in reversed(xrange(0, m)):
if get_element(table, i - 1, s, N) == 0 and get_element(table, i, s, N) == 1:
s = s - A[i]
solution.append(A[i])
print "Solution: ",solution
time1 = time()
print "Time execution: ", time1 - time0

I'm not quite sure if your solution is exact or a PTA (poly-time approximation).
But, as someone pointed out, this problem is indeed NP-Complete.
Meaning, every known (exact) algorithm has an exponential time behavior on the size of the input.
Meaning, if you can process 1 operation in .01 nanosecond then, for a list of 59 elements it'll take:
2^59 ops --> 2^59 seconds --> 2^26 years --> 1 year
-------------- ---------------
10.000.000.000 3600 x 24 x 365
You can find heuristics, which give you just a CHANCE of finding an exact solution in polynomial time.
On the other side, if you restrict the problem (to another) using bounds for the values of the numbers in the set, then the problem complexity reduces to polynomial time. But even then the memory space consumed will be a polynomial of VERY High Order.
The memory consumed will be much larger than the few gigabytes you have in memory.
And even much larger than the few tera-bytes on your hard drive.
( That's for small values of the bound for the value of the elements in the set )
May be this is the case of your Dynamic programing algorithm.
It seemed to me that you were using a bound of 1000 when building your initialization matrix.
You can try a smaller bound. That is... if your input is consistently consist of small values.
Good Luck!

Someone on Hacker News came up with the following solution to the problem, which I quite liked. It just happens to be in python :):
def subset_summing_to_zero (activities):
subsets = {0: []}
for (activity, cost) in activities.iteritems():
old_subsets = subsets
subsets = {}
for (prev_sum, subset) in old_subsets.iteritems():
subsets[prev_sum] = subset
new_sum = prev_sum + cost
new_subset = subset + [activity]
if 0 == new_sum:
new_subset.sort()
return new_subset
else:
subsets[new_sum] = new_subset
return []
I spent a few minutes with it and it worked very well.

An interesting article on optimizing python code is available here. Basically the main result is that you should inline your frequent loops, so in your case this would mean instead of calling get_element twice per loop, put the actual code of that function inside the loop in order to avoid the function call overhead.
Hope that helps! Cheers

, 1st eye catch
def split_sum(A):
N_list = 0
P_list = 0
for x in A:
if x < 0:
N_list+=x
elif x > 0:
P_list+=x
return [N_list, P_list]
Some advices:
Try to use 1D list and use bitarray to reduce memory footprint at minimum (http://pypi.python.org/pypi/bitarray) so you will just change get / set functon. This should reduce your memory footprint by at lest 64 (integer in list is pointer to integer whit type so it can be factor 3*32)
Avoid using try - catch, but figure out proper ranges at beginning, you might found out that you will gain huge speed.

The following code works for Python 3.3+ , I have used the itertools module in Python that has some great methods to use.
from itertools import chain, combinations
def powerset(iterable):
s = list(iterable)
return chain.from_iterable(combinations(s, r) for r in range(len(s)+1))
nums = input("Enter the Elements").strip().split()
inputSum = int(input("Enter the Sum You want"))
for i, combo in enumerate(powerset(nums), 1):
sum = 0
for num in combo:
sum += int(num)
if sum == inputSum:
print(combo)
The Input Output is as Follows:
Enter the Elements 1 2 3 4
Enter the Sum You want 5
('1', '4')
('2', '3')

Just change the values in your set w and correspondingly make an array x as big as the len of w then pass the last value in the subsetsum function as the sum for which u want subsets and you wl bw done (if u want to check by giving your own values).
def subsetsum(cs,k,r,x,w,d):
x[k]=1
if(cs+w[k]==d):
for i in range(0,k+1):
if x[i]==1:
print (w[i],end=" ")
print()
elif cs+w[k]+w[k+1]<=d :
subsetsum(cs+w[k],k+1,r-w[k],x,w,d)
if((cs +r-w[k]>=d) and (cs+w[k]<=d)) :
x[k]=0
subsetsum(cs,k+1,r-w[k],x,w,d)
#driver for the above code
w=[2,3,4,5,0]
x=[0,0,0,0,0]
subsetsum(0,0,sum(w),x,w,7)