Develop Reference

Function to reverse every sub-array group of size k in python

I did this code so I reverse sub array group of integers but actually it only reverse the first sub array only and I don't know why this is happening!!!
Here is the code:
def reverseInGroups(self, arr, N, K):
rev=list()
count=0
reach=K
limit=0
while limit<N-1:
rev[limit:reach]=reversed(arr[limit:reach])
limit=limit+K
reach=reach+K
if reach==N-1 or reach<N-1:
continue
elif reach>N-1:
reach=N-1
return rev
This is the the input,excpected output and my output:
For Input:
5 3
1 2 3 4 5
Your Output:
1 2 3 4 5
Expected Output:
3 2 1 5 4

I tried your code online and its fine, but you have one logic error in your function to get your desired output.
while limit<N-1:
rev[limit:reach]=reversed(arr[limit:reach])
limit=limit+K #3
reach=reach+K #6
if reach==N-1 or reach<N-1:
continue
elif reach>N-1:
reach=N #5
this is an image to see what I mean image description

You don't have to create new list rev, you can reverse items in list arr. For example:
def reverseInGroups(arr, N, K):
limit = 0
while limit < N:
arr[limit : limit + K] = reversed(arr[limit : limit + K])
limit += K
return arr
l = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
print(reverseInGroups(l, 5, 3))
Prints:
[3, 2, 1, 5, 4]

I suggest you use this simpler solution:
arr = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
n = 5
k = 3
new_arr = list()
for index in range(0, n - 1, k):
new_arr[index:index+k] = arr[index:index+k][::-1]
print(new_arr)
And the output is:
[3, 2, 1, 5, 4]
After putting this code in your function, it is as below:
def reverseInGroups(self, arr, n, k):
new_arr = list()
for index in range(0, n - 1, k):
new_arr[index:index+k] = arr[index:index+k][::-1]
return new_arr

we can do the loop in the increment of K and then reverse the array of that specific size
def reverseInGroups(self, arr, N, K):
# code here
for i in range(0, N -1 , K):
arr[i:i +K] = arr[i:i +K][::-1]

I kept getting "ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'error'"

I was given an outline of this code from my teacher, however I kept getting ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'error'. I know that I need a module named error, however when I couldn't find a code for a module named error.
I am trying to solve this question:
Solve the tridiagonal equations Ax = b by Doolittle’s decomposition method, where:
A = [6 2 0 0 0
−1 7 2 0 0
0 −2 8 2 0
0 0 3 7 −2
0 0 0 3 5]
b = [2
−3
4
−3
1].
Here is the code that I was using:
from numpy import argmax, dot, zeros, array, asarray, tril, triu
def swapRows(v,i,j):
if len(v.shape) == 1: v[i],v[j] = v[j],v[i]
else:
temp = v[i].copy()
v[i] = v[j]
v[j] = temp
def swapCols(v,i,j):
temp = v[:,j].copy()
v[:,j] = v[:,i]
v[:,i] = temp
import error
def LUdecomp(a,tol=1.0e-9):
n = len(a)
seq = array(range(n))
# Set up scale factors
s = zeros(n)
for i in range(n):
s[i] = max(abs(a[i,:]))
for k in range(0,n-1):
# Row interchange, if needed
p = argmax(abs(a[k:n,k])/s[k:n]) + k
if abs(a[p,k]) < tol: error.err('Matrix is singular')
if p != k:
swapRows(s,k,p)
swapRows(a,k,p)
swapRows(seq,k,p)
# Elimination
for i in range(k+1,n):
if a[i,k] != 0.0:
lam = a[i,k]/a[k,k]
a[i,k+1:n] = a[i,k+1:n] - lam*a[k,k+1:n]
a[i,k] = lam
return a,seq
def LUsolve(a,b,seq):
n = len(a)
# Rearrange constant vector; store it in [x]
x = b.copy()
for i in range(n):
x[i] = b[seq[i]]
# Solution
for k in range(1,n):
x[k] = x[k] - dot(a[k,0:k],x[0:k])
x[n-1] = x[n-1]/a[n-1,n-1]
for k in range(n-2,-1,-1):
x[k] = (x[k] - dot(a[k,k+1:n],x[k+1:n]))/a[k,k]
return x
A = asarray( [ [ 6, 2, 0, 0, 0 ],
[ -1, 7, 2, 0, 0 ],
[ 0, -2, 8, 2, 0 ],
[ 0, 0, 3, 7, -2 ],
[ 0, 0, 0, 3, 5 ] ], dtype=float ) A_orig = A.copy() b = asarray( [ 2, -3, 4, -3, 1 ], dtype=float ) b_orig = b.copy()
A,seq = LUdecomp(A) # A is overwritten as L\U L = tril( A, -1 ) # extract L for ii in range(L.shape[0]): L[ii,ii] = 1.0 # add in 1's on the diagonal U = triu( A, 0 ) # extract U print ("L = ") print (L) print ("U = ") print (U) if False:
print ("A[seq,:]= ")
print (A_orig[seq,:])
print ("LU= ")
print (dot(L,U))
x = LUsolve(A,b,seq) print ("Solution= ", x)

If your intention is to throw an error at some point, then you can reach that without the import error statement. Raising an exception might be a solution.
See the documentation on errors and exceptions.
You can remove import error and edit
if abs(a[p,k]) < tol: error.err('Matrix is singular')
in LUdecomp() as follows:
if abs(a[p,k]) < tol:
raise Exception('Matrix is singular')

Generate lexicographic series efficiently in Python

I want to generate a lexicographic series of numbers such that for each number the sum of digits is a given constant. It is somewhat similar to 'subset sum problem'. For example if I wish to generate 4-digit numbers with sum = 3 then I have a series like:
[3 0 0 0]
[2 1 0 0]
[2 0 1 0]
[2 0 0 1]
[1 2 0 0] ... and so on.
I was able to do it successfully in Python with the following code:
import numpy as np
M = 4 # No. of digits
N = 3 # Target sum
a = np.zeros((1,M), int)
b = np.zeros((1,M), int)
a[0][0] = N
jj = 0
while a[jj][M-1] != N:
ii = M-2
while a[jj][ii] == 0:
ii = ii-1
kk = ii
if kk > 0:
b[0][0:kk-1] = a[jj][0:kk-1]
b[0][kk] = a[jj][kk]-1
b[0][kk+1] = N - sum(b[0][0:kk+1])
b[0][kk+2:] = 0
a = np.concatenate((a,b), axis=0)
jj += 1
for ii in range(0,len(a)):
print a[ii]
print len(a)
I don't think it is a very efficient way (as I am a Python newbie). It works fine for small values of M and N (<10) but really slow beyond that. I wish to use it for M ~ 100 and N ~ 6. How can I make my code more efficient or is there a better way to code it?

Very effective algorithm adapted from Jorg Arndt book "Matters Computational"
(Chapter 7.2 Co-lexicographic order for compositions into exactly k parts)
n = 4
k = 3
x = [0] * n
x[0] = k
while True:
print(x)
v = x[-1]
if (k==v ):
break
x[-1] = 0
j = -2
while (0==x[j]):
j -= 1
x[j] -= 1
x[j+1] = 1 + v
[3, 0, 0, 0]
[2, 1, 0, 0]
[2, 0, 1, 0]
[2, 0, 0, 1]
[1, 2, 0, 0]
[1, 1, 1, 0]
[1, 1, 0, 1]
[1, 0, 2, 0]
[1, 0, 1, 1]
[1, 0, 0, 2]
[0, 3, 0, 0]
[0, 2, 1, 0]
[0, 2, 0, 1]
[0, 1, 2, 0]
[0, 1, 1, 1]
[0, 1, 0, 2]
[0, 0, 3, 0]
[0, 0, 2, 1]
[0, 0, 1, 2]
[0, 0, 0, 3]
Number of compositions and time on seconds for plain Python (perhaps numpy arrays are faster) for n=100, and k = 2,3,4,5 (2.8 ghz Cel-1840)
2 5050 0.040000200271606445
3 171700 0.9900014400482178
4 4421275 20.02204465866089
5 91962520 372.03577995300293
I expect time 2 hours for 100/6 generation
Same with numpy arrays (x = np.zeros((n,), dtype=int)) gives worse results - but perhaps because I don't know how to use them properly
2 5050 0.07999992370605469
3 171700 2.390003204345703
4 4421275 54.74532389640808
Native code (this is Delphi, C/C++ compilers might optimize better) generates 100/6 in 21 seconds
3 171700 0.012
4 4421275 0.125
5 91962520 1.544
6 1609344100 20.748
Cannot go sleep until all measurements aren't done :)
MSVS VC++: 18 seconds! (O2 optimization)
5 91962520 1.466
6 1609344100 18.283
So 100 millions variants per second.
A lot of time is wasted for checking of empty cells (because fill ratio is small). Speed described by Arndt is reached on higher k/n ratios and is about 300-500 millions variants per second:
n=25, k=15 25140840660 60.981 400 millions per second

My recommendations:
Rewrite it as a generator utilizing yield, rather than a loop that concatenates a global variable on each iteration.
Keep a running sum instead of calculating the sum of some subset of the array representation of the number.
Operate on a single instance of your working number representation instead of splicing a copy of it to a temporary variable on each iteration.
Note no particular order is implied.

I have a better solution using itertools as follows,
from itertools import product
n = 4 #number of elements
s = 3 #sum of elements
r = []
for x in range(n):
r.append(x)
result = [p for p in product(r, repeat=n) if sum(p) == s]
print(len(result))
print(result)
I am saying this is better because it took 0.1 secs on my system, while your code with numpy took 0.2 secs.
But as far as n=100 and s=6, this code takes time to go through all the combinations, I think it will take days to compute the results.

I found a solution using itertools as well (Source: https://bugs.python.org/msg144273). Code follows:
import itertools
import operator
def combinations_with_replacement(iterable, r):
# combinations_with_replacement('ABC', 2) --> AA AB AC BB BC CC
pool = tuple(iterable)
n = len(pool)
if not n and r:
return
indices = [0] * r
yield tuple(pool[i] for i in indices)
while True:
for i in reversed(range(r)):
if indices[i] != n - 1:
break
else:
return
indices[i:] = [indices[i] + 1] * (r - i)
yield tuple(pool[i] for i in indices)
int_part = lambda n, k: (tuple(map(c.count, range(k))) for c in combinations_with_replacement(range(k), n))
for item in int_part(3,4): print(item)

Decimal expansion based on slot length summation

I'm trying to create an algorithm to produce a decimal number by certain way.
a) I have an initial number say i = 2.
b) Then I have an incremental addition method, say f(n) { n * 2 }.
c) Then I have a slot length for digits say l = 2, that creates front zeros for small numbers and limits max length of the longer numbers. 2 becomes 02, 64 is 64, but 512 = (5)12 where 5 is moved backward on previous slot
d) Max slots is the fourth parameter, m = 10
e) Finally I want to compute value by summing up digit from slots and using it as a decimal part of the 0.
So with given example:
i=2
f(n)=n*2
l=2
m=10
outcome should be produced in this manner:
step 1)
02 04 08 16 32 64 128 256 512 1024
step 2)
02 04 08 16 32 64
1 28
2 56
5 12
10 24
->
slot: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
computed: 02 04 08 16 32 65 30 61 22 24
step 3)
I have a number: 02040816326530612224 or 0.02040816326530612224 as stated on part e).
Note that if max slot is bigger in this example, then numbers on slots 9 and 10 will change. I also want to have part b) as a function, so I can change it to other like fib(nx) {n1+n2}.
I prefer Python as a computer language for algo, but anything that is easy to transform to Python is acceptable.
ADDED
This is a function I have managed to create so far:
# l = slot length, doesnt work with number > 2...
def comp(l = 2):
a = []
# how to pass a function, that produces this list?
b = [[0, 2], [0, 4], [0, 8], [1, 6], [3, 2], [6, 4], [1, 2, 8], [2, 5, 6], [5, 1, 2], [1, 0, 2, 4], [2, 0, 4, 8]]
r = 0
# main algo
for bb in b:
ll = len(bb)
for i in range(0, ll):
x = r + i - ll + l
# is there a better way to do following try except part?
try:
a[x] += bb[i]
except IndexError:
a.append(bb[i])
# moving bits backward, any better way to do this?
s = a[x] - 9
d = 0
while s > 0:
d += 1
a[x] -= 10
a[x-d] += 1
s = a[x-d] - 9
r += l
return '0.' + ''.join(map(str, a))

def doub(n):
return pow(2, n)
def fibo(n):
a, b = 0, 1
for i in range(n):
a, b = b, a + b
return a
def fixed_slot_numbers(f, l, m):
b = []
for n in range(1, m):
a = [int(c) for c in str(f(n))]
while len(a) < l:
a.insert(0, 0)
b.append(a)
return b
def algo(function, fixed_slot_length = 2, max_slots = 12):
a = []
slot_numbers = fixed_slot_numbers(function, fixed_slot_length, max_slots)
for r, b in enumerate(slot_numbers):
r *= fixed_slot_length
slot_length = len(b)
for bidx in range(0, slot_length):
aidx = r + bidx - slot_length + fixed_slot_length
try:
a[aidx] += b[bidx]
except IndexError:
a.append(b[bidx])
d = 0
while a[aidx-d] > 9:
a[aidx-d] -= 10
d += 1
a[aidx-d] += 1
return '0.%s' % ''.join(map(str, a))
algo(doub, 2, 28) -> 0.020408163265306122448979591836734693877551020405424128 = 1/49
algo(fibo, 1, 28) -> 0.112359550561797752808950848 = 10/89

How to make a checkerboard in numpy?

I'm using numpy to initialize a pixel array to a gray checkerboard (the classic representation for "no pixels", or transparent). It seems like there ought to be a whizzy way to do it with numpy's amazing array assignment/slicing/dicing operations, but this is the best I've come up with:
w, h = 600, 800
sq = 15 # width of each checker-square
self.pix = numpy.zeros((w, h, 3), dtype=numpy.uint8)
# Make a checkerboard
row = [[(0x99,0x99,0x99),(0xAA,0xAA,0xAA)][(i//sq)%2] for i in range(w)]
self.pix[[i for i in range(h) if (i//sq)%2 == 0]] = row
row = [[(0xAA,0xAA,0xAA),(0x99,0x99,0x99)][(i//sq)%2] for i in range(w)]
self.pix[[i for i in range(h) if (i//sq)%2 == 1]] = row
It works, but I was hoping for something simpler.

def checkerboard(shape):
return np.indices(shape).sum(axis=0) % 2
Most compact, probably the fastest, and also the only solution posted that generalizes to n-dimensions.

I'd use the Kronecker product kron:
np.kron([[1, 0] * 4, [0, 1] * 4] * 4, np.ones((10, 10)))
The checkerboard in this example has 2*4=8 fields of size 10x10 in each direction.

this ought to do it
any size checkerboard you want (just pass in width and height, as w, h); also i have hard-coded cell height/width to 1, though of course this could also be parameterized so that an arbitrary value is passed in:
>>> import numpy as NP
>>> def build_checkerboard(w, h) :
re = NP.r_[ w*[0,1] ] # even-numbered rows
ro = NP.r_[ w*[1,0] ] # odd-numbered rows
return NP.row_stack(h*(re, ro))
>>> checkerboard = build_checkerboard(5, 5)
>>> checkerboard
Out[3]: array([[0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1],
[1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0],
[0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1],
[1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0],
[0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1],
[1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0],
[0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1],
[1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0],
[0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1],
[1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0]])
with this 2D array, it's simple to render an image of a checkerboard, like so:
>>> import matplotlib.pyplot as PLT
>>> fig, ax = PLT.subplots()
>>> ax.imshow(checkerboard, cmap=PLT.cm.gray, interpolation='nearest')
>>> PLT.show()

Here's another way to do it using ogrid which is a bit faster:
import numpy as np
import Image
w, h = 600, 800
sq = 15
color1 = (0xFF, 0x80, 0x00)
color2 = (0x80, 0xFF, 0x00)
def use_ogrid():
coords = np.ogrid[0:w, 0:h]
idx = (coords[0] // sq + coords[1] // sq) % 2
vals = np.array([color1, color2], dtype=np.uint8)
img = vals[idx]
return img
def use_fromfunction():
img = np.zeros((w, h, 3), dtype=np.uint8)
c = np.fromfunction(lambda x, y: ((x // sq) + (y // sq)) % 2, (w, h))
img[c == 0] = color1
img[c == 1] = color2
return img
if __name__ == '__main__':
for f in (use_ogrid, use_fromfunction):
img = f()
pilImage = Image.fromarray(img, 'RGB')
pilImage.save('{0}.png'.format(f.func_name))
Here are the timeit results:
% python -mtimeit -s"import test" "test.use_fromfunction()"
10 loops, best of 3: 307 msec per loop
% python -mtimeit -s"import test" "test.use_ogrid()"
10 loops, best of 3: 129 msec per loop

You can use Numpy's tile function to get checkerboard array of size n*m where n and m should be even numbers for the right result...
def CreateCheckboard(n,m):
list_0_1 = np.array([ [ 0, 1], [ 1, 0] ])
checkerboard = np.tile(list_0_1, ( n//2, m//2))
print(checkerboard.shape)
return checkerboard
CreateCheckboard(4,6)
which gives the output:
(4, 6)
array([[0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1],
[1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0],
[0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1],
[1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0]])

You can use the step of start:stop:step for slicing method to update a matrix horizontally and vertically:
Here x[1::2, ::2] picks every other element starting from the first element on the row and for every second row of the matrix.
import numpy as np
print("Checkerboard pattern:")
x = np.zeros((8,8),dtype=int)
# (odd_rows, even_columns)
x[1::2,::2] = 1
# (even_rows, odd_columns)
x[::2,1::2] = 1
print(x)

Late, but for posterity:
def check(w, h, c0, c1, blocksize):
tile = np.array([[c0,c1],[c1,c0]]).repeat(blocksize, axis=0).repeat(blocksize, axis=1)
grid = np.tile(tile, ( h/(2*blocksize)+1, w/(2*blocksize)+1, 1))
return grid[:h,:w]

I'm not sure if this is better than what I had:
c = numpy.fromfunction(lambda x,y: ((x//sq) + (y//sq)) % 2, (w,h))
self.chex = numpy.array((w,h,3))
self.chex[c == 0] = (0xAA, 0xAA, 0xAA)
self.chex[c == 1] = (0x99, 0x99, 0x99)

A perfplot analysis shows that the best (fastest, most readable, memory-efficient) solution is via slicing,
def slicing(n):
A = np.zeros((n, n), dtype=int)
A[1::2, ::2] = 1
A[::2, 1::2] = 1
return A
The stacking solution is a bit faster large matrices, but arguably less well readable. The top-voted answer is also the slowest.
Code to reproduce the plot:
import numpy as np
import perfplot
def indices(n):
return np.indices((n, n)).sum(axis=0) % 2
def slicing(n):
A = np.zeros((n, n), dtype=int)
A[1::2, ::2] = 1
A[::2, 1::2] = 1
return A
def tile(n):
return np.tile([[0, 1], [1, 0]], (n // 2, n // 2))
def stacking(n):
row0 = np.array(n // 2 * [0, 1] + (n % 2) * [0])
row1 = row0 ^ 1
return np.array(n // 2 * [row0, row1] + (n % 2) * [row0])
def ogrid(n):
coords = np.ogrid[0:n, 0:n]
return (coords[0] + coords[1]) % 2
b = perfplot.bench(
setup=lambda n: n,
kernels=[slicing, indices, tile, stacking, ogrid],
n_range=[2 ** k for k in range(14)],
xlabel="n",
)
b.save("out.png")
b.show()

Can't you use hstack and vstack? See here.
Like this:
>>> import numpy as np
>>> b = np.array([0]*4)
>>> b.shape = (2,2)
>>> w = b + 0xAA
>>> r1 = np.hstack((b,w,b,w,b,w,b))
>>> r2 = np.hstack((w,b,w,b,w,b,w))
>>> board = np.vstack((r1,r2,r1,r2,r1,r2,r1))

import numpy as np
a=np.array(([1,0]*4+[0,1]*4)*4).reshape((8,8))
print(a)
[[1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0]
[0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1]
[1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0]
[0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1]
[1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0]
[0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1]
[1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0]
[0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1]]

For those wanting arbitrarily sized squares/rectangles:
import numpy as np
# if you want X squares per axis, do squaresize=[i//X for i in boardsize]
def checkerboard(boardsize, squaresize):
return np.fromfunction(lambda i, j: (i//squaresize[0])%2 != (j//squaresize[1])%2, boardsize).astype(int)
print(checkerboard((10,15), (2,3)))
[[0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0]
[0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0]
[1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1]
[1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1]
[0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0]
[0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0]
[1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1]
[1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1]
[0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0]
[0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0]]

Replace n with an even number and you will get the answer.
import numpy as np
b = np.array([[0,1],[1,0]])
np.tile(b,(n, n))

Based on Eelco Hoogendoorn's answer, if you want a checkerboard with various tile sizes you can use this:
def checkerboard(shape, tile_size):
return (np.indices(shape) // tile_size).sum(axis=0) % 2

I modified hass's answer as follows.
import math
import numpy as np
def checkerboard(w, h, c0, c1, blocksize):
tile = np.array([[c0,c1],[c1,c0]]).repeat(blocksize, axis=0).repeat(blocksize, axis=1)
grid = np.tile(tile,(int(math.ceil((h+0.0)/(2*blocksize))),int(math.ceil((w+0.0)/(2*blocksize)))))
return grid[:h,:w]

Using tile function :
import numpy as np
n = int(input())
x = np.tile(arr,(n,n//2))
x[1::2, 0::2] = 1
x[0::2, 1::2] = 1
print(x)

Very very late, but I needed a solution that allows for a non-unit checker size on an arbitrarily sized checkerboard. Here's a simple and fast solution:
import numpy as np
def checkerboard(shape, dw):
"""Create checkerboard pattern, each square having width ``dw``.
Returns a numpy boolean array.
"""
# Create individual block
block = np.zeros((dw * 2, dw * 2), dtype=bool)
block[dw:, :dw] = 1
block[:dw, dw:] = 1
# Tile until we exceed the size of the mask, then trim
repeat = (np.array(shape) + dw * 2) // np.array(block.shape)
trim = tuple(slice(None, s) for s in shape)
checkers = np.tile(block, repeat)[trim]
assert checkers.shape == shape
return checkers
To convert the checkerboard squares to colors, you could do:
checkers = checkerboard(shape, dw)
img = np.empty_like(checkers, dtype=np.uint8)
img[checkers] = 0xAA
img[~checkers] = 0x99

import numpy as np
n = int(input())
arr = ([0, 1], [1,0])
print(np.tile(arr, (n//2,n//2)))
For input 6, output:
[[0 1 0 1 0 1]
[1 0 1 0 1 0]
[0 1 0 1 0 1]
[1 0 1 0 1 0]
[0 1 0 1 0 1]
[1 0 1 0 1 0]]

I recently want the same function and i modified doug's answer a little bit as follows:
def gen_checkerboard(grid_num, grid_size):
row_even = grid_num/2 * [0,1]
row_odd = grid_num/2 * [1,0]
checkerboard = numpy.row_stack(grid_num/2*(row_even, row_odd))
return checkerboard.repeat(grid_size, axis = 0).repeat(grid_size, axis = 1)

Simplest implementation of the same.
import numpy as np
n = int(input())
checkerboard = np.tile(np.array([[0,1],[1,0]]), (n//2, n//2))
print(checkerboard)

n = int(input())
import numpy as np
m=int(n/2)
a=np.array(([0,1]*m+[1,0]*m)*m).reshape((n,n))
print (a)
So if input is n = 4 then output would be like:
[[0 1 0 1]
[1 0 1 0]
[0 1 0 1]
[1 0 1 0]]

Simplest way to write checkboard matrix using tile()
array = np.tile([0,1],n//2)
array1 = np.tile([1,0],n//2)
finalArray = np.array([array, array1], np.int32)
finalArray = np.tile(finalArray,(n//2,1))

Suppose we need a patter with length and breadth (even number) as l, b.
base_matrix = np.array([[0,1],[1,0]])
As this base matrix, which would be used as a tile already has length and breadth of 2 X 2, we would need to divide by 2.
print np.tile(base_matrix, (l / 2, b / 2))
print (np.tile(base,(4/2,6/2)))
[[0 1 0 1 0 1]
[1 0 1 0 1 0]
[0 1 0 1 0 1]
[1 0 1 0 1 0]]

n = int(input())
import numpy as np
a = np.array([0])
x = np.tile(a,(n,n))
x[1::2, ::2] = 1
x[::2, 1::2] = 1
print(x)
I guess this works perfectly well using numpy.tile( ) function.

Here is the solution using tile function in numpy.
import numpy as np
x = np.array([[0, 1], [1, 0]])
check = np.tile(x, (n//2, n//2))
# Print the created matrix
print(check)
for input 2, the Output is
[[0 1]
[1 0]]
for input 4, the Output is
[[0 1 0 1]
[1 0 1 0]
[0 1 0 1]
[1 0 1 0]]

Given odd or even 'n', below approach generates "arr" in the checkerboard pattern and does not use loops. If n is odd, this is extremely straightforward to use. If n is even, we generate the checkerboard for n-1 and then add an extra row and column.
rows = n-1 if n%2 == 0 else n
arr=(rows*rows)//2*[0,1]
arr.extend([0])
arr = np.reshape(arr, (rows,rows))
if n%2 == 0:
extra = (n//2*[1,0])
arr = np.concatenate((arr, np.reshape(extra[:-1], (1,n-1))))
arr = np.concatenate((arr, np.reshape(extra, (n,1))), 1)

Here is a generalisation to falko's answer
import numpy as np
def checkerboard(width,sq):
'''
width --> the checkerboard will be of size width x width
sq ---> each square inside the checkerboard will be of size sq x sq
'''
rep = int(width/(2*sq))
return np.kron([[1, 0] * rep, [0, 1] * rep] * rep, np.ones((sq, sq))).astype(np.uint8)
x = checkerboard(width=8,sq=4)
print(x)
print('checkerboard is of size ',x.shape)
which gives the following output
[[1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0]
[1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0]
[1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0]
[1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0]
[0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1]
[0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1]
[0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1]
[0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1]]
checkerboard is of size (8, 8)

Here's a numpy solution with some checking to make sure that the width and height are evenly divisible by the square size.
def make_checkerboard(w, h, sq, fore_color, back_color):
"""
Creates a checkerboard pattern image
:param w: The width of the image desired
:param h: The height of the image desired
:param sq: The size of the square for the checker pattern
:param fore_color: The foreground color
:param back_color: The background color
:return:
"""
w_rem = np.mod(w, sq)
h_rem = np.mod(w, sq)
if w_rem != 0 or h_rem != 0:
raise ValueError('Width or height is not evenly divisible by square '
'size.')
img = np.zeros((h, w, 3), dtype='uint8')
x_divs = w // sq
y_divs = h // sq
fore_tile = np.ones((sq, sq, 3), dtype='uint8')
fore_tile *= np.array([[fore_color]], dtype='uint8')
back_tile = np.ones((sq, sq, 3), dtype='uint8')
back_tile *= np.array([[back_color]], dtype='uint8')
for y in np.arange(y_divs):
if np.mod(y, 2):
b = back_tile
f = fore_tile
else:
b = fore_tile
f = back_tile
for x in np.arange(x_divs):
if np.mod(x, 2) == 0:
img[y * sq:y * sq + sq, x * sq:x * sq + sq] = f
else:
img[y * sq:y * sq + sq, x * sq:x * sq + sq] = b
return img