Related
def transpose(matrix):
n=0
while n < (len(matrix)):
li = []
for sets in matrix:
li.append(sets[0])
n += 1
print(len(matrix))
return li
transpose([[1,2,3],[4,5,6],[7,8,9]])
Currently returns [1,4,7]
Wanted result [[1,4,7],[2,5,8],[3,6,9]]
You have a return statement within your while, so the function returns once it reaches that point. You should dedent your return to the same level as the while:
def transpose(matrix):
n = 0
li = []
while n < (len(matrix)):
...
return li
You could also replace the while loop and counter n with a for loop that iterates on range(len(matrix)) so you can safely discard n, and then move the initialization of li outside the loop:
def transpose(matrix):
li = []
for i in range(len(matrix)):
inner_li = []
for sets in matrix:
inner_li.append(sets[i])
li.append(inner_li)
return li
I suggest you adopt the popular recipe for transposing matrices to make your code cleaner:
def transpose(matrix):
return list(zip(*matrix))
>>> transpose([[1,2,3],[4,5,6],[7,8,9]])
[(1, 4, 7), (2, 5, 8), (3, 6, 9)]
Indentation matters. Additonally the list li was being initialized at the wrong location.
def transpose(matrix):
n=0
li = []
while n < (len(matrix)):
for sets in matrix:
li.append(sets[0])
n += 1
print(len(matrix))
return li
I suppose you know this, but just in case, this can be accomplished with numpy
import numpy as np
A = np.array([[1,2,3],[4,5,6],[7,8,9]])
print A.T
Your first mistake is the indented return.
The second is having 0 instead of n within sets[...].
The third is overwriting the value of li in every while-loop.
This is how it works:
def transpose(matrix):
n=0
li = []
while n < (len(matrix)):
li.append([])
for sets in matrix:
li[-1].append(sets[n])
n += 1
print li
return li
transpose([[1,2,3],[4,5,6],[7,8,9]])
Don't worry about it. You will become faster and less error-prone very quickly if you are curious and try things out :)
Yesterday, I encountered a problem which requires calculating combinations in an iterable with range 5.
Instead of using itertools.combination, I tried to make a primitive function of my own. It looks like:
def combine_5(elements):
"""Find all combinations in elements with range 5."""
temp_list = []
for i in elements:
cur_index = elements.index(i)
for j in elements[cur_index+1 : ]:
cur_index = elements.index(j)
for k in elements[cur_index+1 : ]:
cur_index = elements.index(k)
for n in elements[cur_index+1 : ]:
cur_index = elements.index(n)
for m in elements[cur_index+1 : ]:
temp_list.append((i,j,k,n,m))
return temp_list
Then I thought maybe I can abstract it a bit, to make a combine_n function. And below is my initial blueprint:
# Unfinished version of combine_n
def combine_n(elements, r, cur_index=-1):
"""Find all combinations in elements with range n"""
r -= 1
target_list = elements[cur_index+1 : ]
for i in target_list:
cur_index = elements.index(i)
if r > 0:
combine_n(elements, r, cur_index)
pass
else:
pass
Then I've been stuck there for a whole day, the major problem is that I can't convey a value properly inside the recursive function. I added some code that fixed one problem. But as it works for every recursive loop, new problems arose. More fixes lead to more bugs, a vicious cycle.
And then I went for help to itertools.combination's source code. And it turns out it didn't use recursion technique.
Do you think it is possible to abstract this combine_5 function into a combine_n function with recursion technique? Do you have any ideas about its realization?
FAILURE SAMPLE 1:
def combine_n(elements, r, cur_index=-1):
"""Find all combinations in elements with range n"""
r -= 1
target_list = elements[cur_index+1 : ]
for i in target_list:
cur_index = elements.index(i)
if r > 0:
combine_n(elements, r, cur_index)
print i
else:
print i
This is my recent try after a bunch of overcomplicated experiments.
The core ideas is: if I can print them right, I can collect them into a container later.
But the problem is, in a nested for loop, when the lower for-loop hit with an empty list.
The temp_list.append((i,j,k,n,m)) clause of combine_5 will not work.
But in FAILURE SAMPLE 1, it still will print the content of the upper for-loop
like combine_n([0,1], 2) will print 2, 1, 2.
I need to find a way to convey this empty message to the superior for-loop.
Which I didn't figure out so far.
Yes, it's possible to do it with recursion. You can make combine_n return a list of tuples with all the combinations beginning at index cur_index, and starting with a partial combination of cur_combo, which you build up as you recurse:
def combine_n(elements, r, cur_index=0, cur_combo=()):
r-=1
temp_list = []
for elem_index in range(cur_index, len(elements)-r):
i = elements[elem_index]
if r > 0:
temp_list = temp_list + combine_n(elements, r, elem_index+1, cur_combo+(i,))
else:
temp_list.append(cur_combo+(i,))
return temp_list
elements = list(range(1,6))
print = combine_n(elements, 3)
output:
[(1, 2, 3), (1, 2, 4), (1, 2, 5), (1, 3, 4), (1, 3, 5), (1, 4, 5), (2, 3, 4), (2, 3, 5), (2, 4, 5), (3, 4, 5)]
The for loop only goes up to len(elements)-r, because if you go further than that then there aren't enough remaining elements to fill the remaining places in the tuple. The tuples only get added to the list with append at the last level of recursion, then they get passed back up the call stack by returning the temp_lists and concatenating at each level back to the top.
I need code that takes a list (up to n=31) and returns all possible subsets of n=3 without any two elements repeating in the same subset twice (think of people who are teaming up in groups of 3 with new people every time):
list=[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]
and returns
[1,2,3][4,5,6][7,8,9]
[1,4,7][2,3,8][3,6,9]
[1,6,8][2,4,9][3,5,7]
but not:
[1,5,7][2,4,8][3,6,9]
because 1 and 7 have appeared together already (likewise, 3 and 9).
I would also like to do this for subsets of n=2.
Thank you!!
Here's what I came up with:
from itertools import permutations, combinations, ifilter, chain
people = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]
#get all combinations of 3 sets of 3 people
combos_combos = combinations(combinations(people,3), 3)
#filter out sets that don't contain all 9 people
valid_sets = ifilter(lambda combo:
len(set(chain.from_iterable(combo))) == 9,
combos_combos)
#a set of people that have already been paired
already_together = set()
for sets in valid_sets:
#get all (sorted) combinations of pairings in this set
pairings = list(chain.from_iterable(combinations(combo, 2) for combo in sets))
pairings = set(map(tuple, map(sorted, pairings)))
#if all of the pairings have never been paired before, we have a new one
if len(pairings.intersection(already_together)) == 0:
print sets
already_together.update(pairings)
This prints:
~$ time python test_combos.py
((1, 2, 3), (4, 5, 6), (7, 8, 9))
((1, 4, 7), (2, 5, 8), (3, 6, 9))
((1, 5, 9), (2, 6, 7), (3, 4, 8))
((1, 6, 8), (2, 4, 9), (3, 5, 7))
real 0m0.182s
user 0m0.164s
sys 0m0.012s
Try this:
from itertools import permutations
lst = list(range(1, 10))
n = 3
triplets = list(permutations(lst, n))
triplets = [set(x) for x in triplets]
def array_unique(seq):
checked = []
for x in seq:
if x not in checked:
checked.append(x)
return checked
triplets = array_unique(triplets)
result = []
m = n * 3
for x in triplets:
for y in triplets:
for z in triplets:
if len(x.union(y.union(z))) == m:
result += [[x, y, z]]
def groups(sets, i):
result = [sets[i]]
for x in sets:
flag = True
for y in result:
for r in x:
for p in y:
if len(r.intersection(p)) >= 2:
flag = False
break
else:
continue
if flag == False:
break
if flag == True:
result.append(x)
return result
for i in range(len(result)):
print('%d:' % (i + 1))
for x in groups(result, i):
print(x)
Output for n = 10:
http://pastebin.com/Vm54HRq3
Here's my attempt of a fairly general solution to your problem.
from itertools import combinations
n = 3
l = range(1, 10)
def f(l, n, used, top):
if len(l) == n:
if all(set(x) not in used for x in combinations(l, 2)):
yield [l]
else:
for group in combinations(l, n):
if any(set(x) in used for x in combinations(group, 2)):
continue
for rest in f([i for i in l if i not in group], n, used, False):
config = [list(group)] + rest
if top:
# Running at top level, this is a valid
# configuration. Update used list.
for c in config:
used.extend(set(x) for x in combinations(c, 2))
yield config
break
for i in f(l, n, [], True):
print i
However, it is very slow for high values of n, too slow for n=31. I don't have time right now to try to improve the speed, but I might try later. Suggestions are welcome!
My wife had this problem trying to arrange breakout groups for a meeting with nine people; she wanted no pairs of attendees to repeat.
I immediately busted out itertools and was stumped and came to StackOverflow. But in the meantime, my non-programmer wife solved it visually. The key insight is to create a tic-tac-toe grid:
1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9
And then simply take 3 groups going down, 3 groups going across, and 3 groups going diagonally wrapping around, and 3 groups going diagonally the other way, wrapping around.
You can do it just in your head then.
- : 123,456,789
| : 147,258,368
\ : 159,267,348
/ : 168,249,357
I suppose the next question is how far can you take a visual method like this? Does it rely on the coincidence that the desired subset size * the number of subsets = the number of total elements?
This is a part of my homework assignment and im close to the final answer but not quite yet. I need to write a function that counts odd numbers in a list.
Create a recursive function count_odd(l) which takes as its only argument a list of integers. The function will return a count of the number of list elements that are odd, i.e., not evenly divisible by 2.\
>>> print count_odd([])
0
>>> print count_odd([1, 3, 5])
3
>>> print count_odd([2, 4, 6])
0
>>> print count_odd([0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144])
8
Here is what i have so far:
#- recursive function count_odd -#
def count_odd(l):
"""returns a count of the odd integers in l.
PRE: l is a list of integers.
POST: l is unchanged."""
count_odd=0
while count_odd<len(l):
if l[count_odd]%2==0:
count_odd=count_odd
else:
l[count_odd]%2!=0
count_odd=count_odd+1
return count_odd
#- test harness
print count_odd([])
print count_odd([1, 3, 5])
print count_odd([2, 4, 6])
print count_odd([0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144])
Can u help explain what im missing. The first two test harness works fine but i cant get the final two. Thanks!
Since this is homework, consider this pseudo-code that just counts a list:
function count (LIST)
if LIST has more items
// recursive case.
// Add one for the current item we are counting,
// and call count() again to process the *remaining* items.
remaining = everything in LIST except the first item
return 1 + count(remaining)
else
// base case -- what "ends" the recursion
// If an item is removed each time, the list will eventually be empty.
return 0
This is very similar to what the homework is asking for, but it needs to be translate to Python and you must work out the correct recursive case logic.
Happy coding.
def count_odd(L):
return (L[0]%2) + count_odd(L[1:]) if L else 0
Are slices ok? Doesn't feel recursive to me, but I guess the whole thing is kind of against usual idioms (i.e. - recursion of this sort in Python):
def countOdd(l):
if l == list(): return 0 # base case, empty list means we're done
return l[0] % 2 + countOdd(l[1:]) # add 1 (or don't) depending on odd/even of element 0. recurse on the rest
x%2 is 1 for odds, 0 for evens. If you are uncomfortable with it or just don't understand it, use the following in place of the last line above:
thisElement = l[0]
restOfList = l[1:]
if thisElement % 2 == 0: currentElementOdd = 0
else: currentElementOdd = 1
return currentElementOdd + countOdd(restOfList)
PS - this is pretty recursive, see what your teacher says if you turn this in =P
>>> def countOdd(l):
... return fold(lambda x,y: x+(y&1),l,0)
...
>>> def fold(f,l,a):
... if l == list(): return a
... return fold(f,l[1:],f(a,l[0]))
All of the prior answers are subdividing the problem into subproblems of size 1 and size n-1. Several people noted that the recursive stack might easily blow out. This solution should keep the recursive stack size at O(log n):
def count_odd(series):
l = len(series) >> 1
if l < 1:
return series[0] & 1 if series else 0
else:
return count_odd(series[:l]) + count_odd(series[l:])
The goal of recursion is to divide the problem into smaller pieces, and apply the solution to the smaller pieces. In this case, we can check if the first number of the list (l[0]) is odd, then call the function again (this is the "recursion") with the rest of the list (l[1:]), adding our current result to the result of the recursion.
def count_odd(series):
if not series:
return 0
else:
left, right = series[0], series[1:]
return count_odd(right) + (1 if (left & 1) else 0)
Tail recursion
def count_odd(integers):
def iter_(lst, count):
return iter_(rest(lst), count + is_odd(first(lst))) if lst else count
return iter_(integers, 0)
def is_odd(integer):
"""Whether the `integer` is odd."""
return integer % 2 != 0 # or `return integer & 1`
def first(lst):
"""Get the first element from the `lst` list.
Return `None` if there are no elements.
"""
return lst[0] if lst else None
def rest(lst):
"""Return `lst` list without the first element."""
return lst[1:]
There is no tail-call optimization in Python, so the above version is purely educational.
The call could be visualize as:
count_odd([1,2,3]) # returns
iter_([1,2,3], 0) # could be replaced by; depth=1
iter_([2,3], 0 + is_odd(1)) if [1,2,3] else 0 # `bool([1,2,3])` is True in Python
iter_([2,3], 0 + True) # `True == 1` in Python
iter_([2,3], 1) # depth=2
iter_([3], 1 + is_odd(2)) if [2,3] else 1
iter_([3], 1 + False) # `False == 0` in Python
iter_([3], 1) # depth=3
iter_([], 1 + is_odd(3)) if [3] else 1
iter_([], 2) # depth=4
iter_(rest([]), 2 + is_odd(first([])) if [] else 2 # bool([]) is False in Python
2 # the answer
Simple trampolining
To avoid 'max recursion depth exceeded' errors for large arrays all tail calls in recursive functions can be wrapped in lambda: expressions; and special trampoline() function can be used to unwrap such expressions. It effectively converts recursion into iterating over a simple loop:
import functools
def trampoline(function):
"""Resolve delayed calls."""
#functools.wraps(function)
def wrapper(*args):
f = function(*args)
while callable(f):
f = f()
return f
return wrapper
def iter_(lst, count):
#NOTE: added `lambda:` before the tail call
return (lambda:iter_(rest(lst), count+is_odd(first(lst)))) if lst else count
#trampoline
def count_odd(integers):
return iter_(integers, 0)
Example:
count_odd([1,2,3])
iter_([1,2,3], 0) # returns callable
lambda:iter_(rest(lst), count+is_odd(first(lst))) # f = f()
iter_([2,3], 0+is_odd(1)) # returns callable
lambda:iter_(rest(lst), count+is_odd(first(lst))) # f = f()
iter_([3], 1+is_odd(2)) # returns callable
lambda:iter_(rest(lst), count+is_odd(first(lst))) # f = f()
iter_([], 1+is_odd(3))
2 # callable(2) is False
I would write it like this:
def countOddNumbers(numbers):
sum = 0
for num in numbers:
if num%2!=0:
sum += numbers.count(num)
return sum
not sure if i got your question , but as above something similar:
def countOddNumbers(numbers):
count=0
for i in numbers:
if i%2!=0:
count+=1
return count
Generator can give quick result in one line code:
sum((x%2 for x in nums))
Fromg Google's Python Class:
E. Given two lists sorted in increasing order, create and return a merged
list of all the elements in sorted order. You may modify the passed in lists.
Ideally, the solution should work in "linear" time, making a single
pass of both lists.
Here's my solution:
def linear_merge(list1, list2):
merged_list = []
i = 0
j = 0
while True:
if i == len(list1):
return merged_list + list2[j:]
if j == len(list2):
return merged_list + list1[i:]
if list1[i] <= list2[j]:
merged_list.append(list1[i])
i += 1
else:
merged_list.append(list2[j])
j += 1
First of all, is it okay to use an infinite loop here? Should I break out of the loop using the break keyword when I'm done merging the list, or are the returns okay here?
I've seen similar questions asked here, and all the solutions look quite similar to mine, i.e. very C-like. Is there no more python-like solution? Or is this because of the nature of the algorithm?
This question covers this in more detail than you probably need. ;) The chosen answer matches your requirement. If I needed to do this myself, I would do it in the way that dbr described in his or her answer (add the lists together, sort the new list) as it is very simple.
EDIT:
I'm adding an implementation below. I actually saw this in another answer here which seems to have been deleted. I'm just hoping it wasn't deleted because it had an error which I'm not catching. ;)
def mergeSortedLists(a, b):
l = []
while a and b:
if a[0] < b[0]:
l.append(a.pop(0))
else:
l.append(b.pop(0))
return l + a + b
Here's a generator approach. You've probably noticed that a whole lot of these "generate lists" can be done well as generator functions. They're very useful: they don't require you to generate the whole list before using data from it, to keep the whole list in memory, and you can use them to directly generate many data types, not just lists.
This works if passed any iterator, not just lists.
This approach also passes one of the more useful tests: it behaves well when passed an infinite or near-infinite iterator, eg. linear_merge(xrange(10**9), xrange(10**9)).
The redundancy in the two cases could probably be reduced, which would be useful if you wanted to support merging more than two lists, but for clarity I didn't do that here.
def linear_merge(list1, list2):
"""
>>> a = [1, 3, 5, 7]
>>> b = [2, 4, 6, 8]
>>> [i for i in linear_merge(a, b)]
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]
>>> [i for i in linear_merge(b, a)]
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]
>>> a = [1, 2, 2, 3]
>>> b = [2, 2, 4, 4]
>>> [i for i in linear_merge(a, b)]
[1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 4]
"""
list1 = iter(list1)
list2 = iter(list2)
value1 = next(list1)
value2 = next(list2)
# We'll normally exit this loop from a next() call raising StopIteration, which is
# how a generator function exits anyway.
while True:
if value1 <= value2:
# Yield the lower value.
yield value1
try:
# Grab the next value from list1.
value1 = next(list1)
except StopIteration:
# list1 is empty. Yield the last value we received from list2, then
# yield the rest of list2.
yield value2
while True:
yield next(list2)
else:
yield value2
try:
value2 = next(list2)
except StopIteration:
# list2 is empty.
yield value1
while True:
yield next(list1)
Why stop at two lists?
Here's my generator based implementation to merge any number of sorted iterators in linear time.
I'm not sure why something like this isn't in itertools...
def merge(*sortedlists):
# Create a list of tuples containing each iterator and its first value
iterlist = [[i,i.next()] for i in [iter(j) for j in sortedlists]]
# Perform an initial sort of each iterator's first value
iterlist.sort(key=lambda x: x[1])
# Helper function to move the larger first item to its proper position
def reorder(iterlist, i):
if i == len(iterlist) or iterlist[0][1] < iterlist[i][1]:
iterlist.insert(i-1,iterlist.pop(0))
else:
reorder(iterlist,i+1)
while True:
if len(iterlist):
# Reorder the list if the 1st element has grown larger than the 2nd
if len(iterlist) > 1 and iterlist[0][1] > iterlist[1][1]:
reorder(iterlist, 1)
yield iterlist[0][1]
# try to pull the next value from the current iterator
try:
iterlist[0][1] = iterlist[0][0].next()
except StopIteration:
del iterlist[0]
else:
break
Here's an example:
x = [1,10,20,33,99]
y = [3,11,20,99,1001]
z = [3,5,7,70,1002]
[i for i in merge(x,y,z)]
hi i just did this exercise and i was wondering why not use,
def linear_merge(list1, list2):
return sorted(list1 + list2)
pythons sorted function is linear isn't it?
Here's my implementation from a previous question:
def merge(*args):
import copy
def merge_lists(left, right):
result = []
while (len(left) and len(right)):
which_list = (left if left[0] <= right[0] else right)
result.append(which_list.pop(0))
return result + left + right
lists = [arg for arg in args]
while len(lists) > 1:
left, right = copy.copy(lists.pop(0)), copy.copy(lists.pop(0))
result = merge_lists(left, right)
lists.append(result)
return lists.pop(0)
Another generator:
def merge(xs, ys):
xs = iter(xs)
ys = iter(ys)
try:
y = next(ys)
except StopIteration:
for x in xs:
yield x
raise StopIteration
while True:
for x in xs:
if x > y:
yield y
break
yield x
else:
yield y
for y in ys:
yield y
break
xs, ys, y = ys, xs, x
I agree with other answers that extending and sorting is the most straightforward way, but if you must merge, this will be a little faster because it does not make two calls to len every iteration nor does it do a bounds check. The Python pattern, if you could call it that, is to avoid testing for a rare case and catch the exception instead.
def linear_merge(list1, list2):
merged_list = []
i = 0
j = 0
try:
while True:
if list1[i] <= list2[j]:
merged_list.append(list1[i])
i += 1
else:
merged_list.append(list2[j])
j += 1
except IndexError:
if i == len(list1):
merged_list.extend(list2[j:])
if j == len(list2):
merged_list.extend(list1[i:])
return merged_list
edit
Optimized per John Machin's comment. Moved try outside of while True and extended merged_list upon exception.
According to a note here:
# Note: the solution above is kind of cute, but unforunately list.pop(0)
# is not constant time with the standard python list implementation, so
# the above is not strictly linear time.
# An alternate approach uses pop(-1) to remove the endmost elements
# from each list, building a solution list which is backwards.
# Then use reversed() to put the result back in the correct order. That
# solution works in linear time, but is more ugly.
and this link http://www.ics.uci.edu/~pattis/ICS-33/lectures/complexitypython.txt
append is O(1), reverse is O(n) but then it also says that pop is O(n) so which is which? Anyway I have modified the accepted answer to use pop(-1):
def linear_merge(list1, list2):
# +++your code here+++
ret = []
while list1 and list2:
if list1[-1] > list2[-1]:
ret.append(list1.pop(-1))
else:
ret.append(list2.pop(-1))
ret.reverse()
return list1 + list2 + ret
This solution runs in linear time and without editing l1 and l2:
def merge(l1, l2):
m, m2 = len(l1), len(l2)
newList = []
l, r = 0, 0
while l < m and r < m2:
if l1[l] < l2[r]:
newList.append(l1[l])
l += 1
else:
newList.append(l2[r])
r += 1
return newList + l1[l:] + l2[r:]