Related
Given k sorted arrays what is the most efficient way of getting the intersection of these lists
Example
INPUT:
[[1,3,5,7], [1,1,3,5,7], [1,4,7,9]]
Output:
[1,7]
There is a way to get the union of k sorted arrays based on what I read in the Elements of programming interviews book in nlogk time. I was wondering if there is a way to do something similar for the intersection as well
## merge sorted arrays in nlogk time [ regular appending and merging is nlogn time ]
import heapq
def mergeArys(srtd_arys):
heap = []
srtd_iters = [iter(x) for x in srtd_arys]
# put the first element from each srtd array onto the heap
for idx, it in enumerate(srtd_iters):
elem = next(it, None)
if elem:
heapq.heappush(heap, (elem, idx))
res = []
# collect results in nlogK time
while heap:
elem, ary = heapq.heappop(heap)
it = srtd_iters[ary]
res.append(elem)
nxt = next(it, None)
if nxt:
heapq.heappush(heap, (nxt, ary))
EDIT: obviously this is an algorithm question that I am trying to solve so I cannot use any of the inbuilt functions like set intersection etc
Exploiting sort order
Here is a single pass O(n) approach that doesn't require any special data structures or auxiliary memory beyond the fundamental requirement of one iterator per input.
from itertools import cycle, islice
def intersection(inputs):
"Yield the intersection of elements from multiple sorted inputs."
# intersection(['ABBCD', 'BBDE', 'BBBDDE']) --> B B D
n = len(inputs)
iters = cycle(map(iter, inputs))
try:
candidate = next(next(iters))
while True:
for it in islice(iters, n-1):
while (value := next(it)) < candidate:
pass
if value != candidate:
candidate = value
break
else:
yield candidate
candidate = next(next(iters))
except StopIteration:
return
Here's a sample session:
>>> data = [[1,3,5,7], [1,1,3,5,7], [1,4,7,9]]
>>> list(intersection(data))
[1, 7]
>>> data = [[1,1,2,3], [1,1,4,4]]
>>> list(intersection(data))
[1, 1]
Algorithm in words
The algorithm starts by selecting the next value from the next iterator to be a candidate.
The main loop assumes a candidate has been selected and it loops over the next n - 1 iterators. For each of those iterators, it consumes values until it finds a value that is a least as large as the candidate. If that value is larger than the candidate, that value becomes the new candidate and the main loop starts again. If all n - 1 values are equal to the candidate, then the candidate is emitted and a new candidate is fetched.
When any input iterator is exhausted, the algorithm is complete.
Doing it without libraries (core language only)
The same algorithm works fine (though less beautifully) without using itertools. Just replace cycle and islice with their list based equivalents:
def intersection(inputs):
"Yield the intersection of elements from multiple sorted inputs."
# intersection(['ABBCD', 'BBDE', 'BBBDDE']) --> B B D
n = len(inputs)
iters = list(map(iter, inputs))
curr_iter = 0
try:
it = iters[curr_iter]
curr_iter = (curr_iter + 1) % n
candidate = next(it)
while True:
for i in range(n - 1):
it = iters[curr_iter]
curr_iter = (curr_iter + 1) % n
while (value := next(it)) < candidate:
pass
if value != candidate:
candidate = value
break
else:
yield candidate
it = iters[curr_iter]
curr_iter = (curr_iter + 1) % n
candidate = next(it)
except StopIteration:
return
Yes, it is possible! I've modified your example code to do this.
My answer assumes that your question is about the algorithm - if you want the fastest-running code using sets, see other answers.
This maintains the O(n log(k)) time complexity: all the code between if lowest != elem or ary != times_seen: and unbench_all = False is O(log(k)). There is a nested loop inside the main loop (for unbenched in range(times_seen):) but this only runs times_seen times, and times_seen is initially 0 and is reset to 0 after every time this inner loop is run, and can only be incremented once per main loop iteration, so the inner loop cannot do more iterations in total than the main loop. Thus, since the code inside the inner loop is O(log(k)) and runs at most as many times as the outer loop, and the outer loop is O(log(k)) and runs n times, the algorithm is O(n log(k)).
This algorithm relies upon how tuples are compared in Python. It compares the first items of the tuples, and if they are equal it, compares the second items (i.e. (x, a) < (x, b) is true if and only if a < b).
In this algorithm, unlike in the example code in the question, when an item is popped from the heap, it is not necessarily pushed again in the same iteration. Since we need to check if all sub-lists contain the same number, after a number is popped from the heap, it's sublist is what I call "benched", meaning that it is not added back to the heap. This is because we need to check if other sub-lists contain the same item, so adding this sub-list's next item is not needed right now.
If a number is indeed in all sub-lists, then the heap will look something like [(2,0),(2,1),(2,2),(2,3)], with all the first elements of the tuples the same, so heappop will select the one with the lowest sub-list index. This means that first index 0 will be popped and times_seen will be incremented to 1, then index 1 will be popped and times_seen will be incremented to 2 - if ary is not equal to times_seen then the number is not in the intersection of all sub-lists. This leads to the condition if lowest != elem or ary != times_seen:, which decides when a number shouldn't be in the result. The else branch of this if statement is for when it still might be in the result.
The unbench_all boolean is for when all sub-lists need to be removed from the bench - this could be because:
The current number is known to not be in the intersection of the sub-lists
It is known to be in the intersection of the sub-lists
When unbench_all is True, all the sub-lists that were removed from the heap are re-added. It is known that these are the ones with indices in range(times_seen) since the algorithm removes items from the heap only if they have the same number, so they must have been removed in order of index, contiguously and starting from index 0, and there must be times_seen of them. This means that we don't need to store the indices of the benched sub-lists, only the number that have been benched.
import heapq
def mergeArys(srtd_arys):
heap = []
srtd_iters = [iter(x) for x in srtd_arys]
# put the first element from each srtd array onto the heap
for idx, it in enumerate(srtd_iters):
elem = next(it, None)
if elem:
heapq.heappush(heap, (elem, idx))
res = []
# the number of tims that the current number has been seen
times_seen = 0
# the lowest number from the heap - currently checking if the first numbers in all sub-lists are equal to this
lowest = heap[0][0] if heap else None
# collect results in nlogK time
while heap:
elem, ary = heap[0]
unbench_all = True
if lowest != elem or ary != times_seen:
if lowest == elem:
heapq.heappop(heap)
it = srtd_iters[ary]
nxt = next(it, None)
if nxt:
heapq.heappush(heap, (nxt, ary))
else:
heapq.heappop(heap)
times_seen += 1
if times_seen == len(srtd_arys):
res.append(elem)
else:
unbench_all = False
if unbench_all:
for unbenched in range(times_seen):
unbenched_it = srtd_iters[unbenched]
nxt = next(unbenched_it, None)
if nxt:
heapq.heappush(heap, (nxt, unbenched))
times_seen = 0
if heap:
lowest = heap[0][0]
return res
if __name__ == '__main__':
a1 = [[1, 3, 5, 7], [1, 1, 3, 5, 7], [1, 4, 7, 9]]
a2 = [[1, 1], [1, 1, 2, 2, 3]]
for arys in [a1, a2]:
print(mergeArys(arys))
An equivalent algorithm can be written like this, if you prefer:
def mergeArys(srtd_arys):
heap = []
srtd_iters = [iter(x) for x in srtd_arys]
# put the first element from each srtd array onto the heap
for idx, it in enumerate(srtd_iters):
elem = next(it, None)
if elem:
heapq.heappush(heap, (elem, idx))
res = []
# collect results in nlogK time
while heap:
elem, ary = heap[0]
lowest = elem
keep_elem = True
for i in range(len(srtd_arys)):
elem, ary = heap[0]
if lowest != elem or ary != i:
if ary != i:
heapq.heappop(heap)
it = srtd_iters[ary]
nxt = next(it, None)
if nxt:
heapq.heappush(heap, (nxt, ary))
keep_elem = False
i -= 1
break
heapq.heappop(heap)
if keep_elem:
res.append(elem)
for unbenched in range(i+1):
unbenched_it = srtd_iters[unbenched]
nxt = next(unbenched_it, None)
if nxt:
heapq.heappush(heap, (nxt, unbenched))
if len(heap) < len(srtd_arys):
heap = []
return res
You can use builtin sets and sets intersections :
d = [[1,3,5,7],[1,1,3,5,7],[1,4,7,9]]
result = set(d[0]).intersection(*d[1:])
{1, 7}
You can use reduce:
from functools import reduce
a = [[1,3,5,7],[1,1,3,5,7],[1,4,7,9]]
reduce(lambda x, y: x & set(y), a[1:], set(a[0]))
{1, 7}
I've come up with this algorithm. It doesn't exceed O(nk) I don't know if it's good enough for you. the point of this algorithm is that you can have k indexes for each array and each iteration you find the indexes of the next element in the intersection and increase every index until you exceed the bounds of an array and there are no more items in the intersection. the trick is since the arrays are sorted you can look at two elements in two different arrays and if one is bigger than the other you can instantly throw away the other because you know you cant have a smaller number than the one you are looking at. the worst case of this algorithm is that every index will be increased to the bound which takes kn time since an index cannot decrease its value.
inter = []
for n in range(len(arrays[0])):
if indexes[0] >= len(arrays[0]):
return inter
for i in range(1,k):
if indexes[i] >= len(arrays[i]):
return inter
while indexes[i] < len(arrays[i]) and arrays[i][indexes[i]] < arrays[0][indexes[0]]:
indexes[i] += 1
while indexes[i] < len(arrays[i]) and indexes[0] < len(arrays[0]) and arrays[i][indexes[i]] > arrays[0][indexes[0]]:
indexes[0] += 1
if indexes[0] < len(arrays[0]):
inter.append(arrays[0][indexes[0]])
indexes = [idx+1 for idx in indexes]
return inter
You said we can't use sets but how about dicts / hash tables? (yes I know they're basically the same thing) :D
If so, here's a fairly simple approach (please excuse the py2 syntax):
arrays = [[1,3,5,7],[1,1,3,5,7],[1,4,7,9]]
counts = {}
for ar in arrays:
last = None
for i in ar:
if (i != last):
counts[i] = counts.get(i, 0) + 1
last = i
N = len(arrays)
intersection = [i for i, n in counts.iteritems() if n == N]
print intersection
Same as Raymond Hettinger's solution but with more basic python code:
def intersection(arrays, unique: bool=False):
result = []
if not len(arrays) or any(not len(array) for array in arrays):
return result
pointers = [0] * len(arrays)
target = arrays[0][0]
start_step = 0
current_step = 1
while True:
idx = current_step % len(arrays)
array = arrays[idx]
while pointers[idx] < len(array) and array[pointers[idx]] < target:
pointers[idx] += 1
if pointers[idx] < len(array) and array[pointers[idx]] > target:
target = array[pointers[idx]]
start_step = current_step
current_step += 1
continue
if unique:
while (
pointers[idx] + 1 < len(array)
and array[pointers[idx]] == array[pointers[idx] + 1]
):
pointers[idx] += 1
if (current_step - start_step) == len(arrays):
result.append(target)
for other_idx, other_array in enumerate(arrays):
pointers[other_idx] += 1
if pointers[idx] < len(array):
target = array[pointers[idx]]
start_step = current_step
if pointers[idx] == len(array):
return result
current_step += 1
Here's an O(n) answer (where n = sum(len(sublist) for sublist in data)).
from itertools import cycle
def intersection(data):
result = []
maxval = float("-inf")
consecutive = 0
try:
for sublist in cycle(iter(sublist) for sublist in data):
value = next(sublist)
while value < maxval:
value = next(sublist)
if value > maxval:
maxval = value
consecutive = 0
continue
consecutive += 1
if consecutive >= len(data)-1:
result.append(maxval)
consecutive = 0
except StopIteration:
return result
print(intersection([[1,3,5,7], [1,1,3,5,7], [1,4,7,9]]))
[1, 7]
Some of the above methods are not covering the examples when there are duplicates in every subset of the list. The Below code implements this intersection and it will be more efficient if there are lots of duplicates in the subset of the list :) If not sure about duplicates it is recommended to use Counter from collections from collections import Counter. The custom counter function is made for increasing the efficiency of handling large duplicates. But still can not beat Raymond Hettinger's implementation.
def counter(my_list):
my_list = sorted(my_list)
first_val, *all_val = my_list
p_index = my_list.index(first_val)
my_counter = {}
for item in all_val:
c_index = my_list.index(item)
diff = abs(c_index-p_index)
p_index = c_index
my_counter[first_val] = diff
first_val = item
c_index = my_list.index(item)
diff = len(my_list) - c_index
my_counter[first_val] = diff
return my_counter
def my_func(data):
if not data or not isinstance(data, list):
return
# get the first value
first_val, *all_val = data
if not isinstance(first_val, list):
return
# count items in first value
p = counter(first_val) # counter({1: 2, 3: 1, 5: 1, 7: 1})
# collect all common items and calculate the minimum occurance in intersection
for val in all_val:
# collecting common items
c = counter(val)
# calculate the minimum occurance in intersection
inner_dict = {}
for inner_val in set(c).intersection(set(p)):
inner_dict[inner_val] = min(p[inner_val], c[inner_val])
p = inner_dict
# >>>p
# {1: 2, 7: 1}
# Sort by keys of counter
sorted_items = sorted(p.items(), key=lambda x:x[0]) # [(1, 2), (7, 1)]
result=[i[0] for i in sorted_items for _ in range(i[1])] # [1, 1, 7]
return result
Here are the sample Examples
>>> data = [[1,3,5,7],[1,1,3,5,7],[1,4,7,9]]
>>> my_func(data=data)
[1, 7]
>>> data = [[1,1,3,5,7],[1,1,3,5,7],[1,1,4,7,9]]
>>> my_func(data=data)
[1, 1, 7]
You can do the following using the functions heapq.merge, chain.from_iterable and groupby
from heapq import merge
from itertools import groupby, chain
ls = [[1, 3, 5, 7], [1, 1, 3, 5, 7], [1, 4, 7, 9]]
def index_groups(lst):
"""[1, 1, 3, 5, 7] -> [(1, 0), (1, 1), (3, 0), (5, 0), (7, 0)]"""
return chain.from_iterable(((e, i) for i, e in enumerate(group)) for k, group in groupby(lst))
iterables = (index_groups(li) for li in ls)
flat = merge(*iterables)
res = [k for (k, _), g in groupby(flat) if sum(1 for _ in g) == len(ls)]
print(res)
Output
[1, 7]
The idea is to give an extra value (using enumerate) to differentiate between equal values within the same list (see the function index_groups).
The complexity of this algorithm is O(n) where n is the sum of the lengths of each list in the input.
Note that the output for (an extra 1 en each list):
ls = [[1, 1, 3, 5, 7], [1, 1, 3, 5, 7], [1, 1, 4, 7, 9]]
is:
[1, 1, 7]
You can use bit-masking with one-hot encoding. The inner lists become maxterms. You and them together for the intersection and or them for the union. Then you have to convert back, for which I've used a bit hack.
problem = [[1,3,5,7],[1,1,3,5,8,7],[1,4,7,9]];
debruijn = [0, 1, 28, 2, 29, 14, 24, 3, 30, 22, 20, 15, 25, 17, 4, 8,
31, 27, 13, 23, 21, 19, 16, 7, 26, 12, 18, 6, 11, 5, 10, 9];
u32 = accum = (1 << 32) - 1;
for vec in problem:
maxterm = 0;
for v in vec:
maxterm |= 1 << v;
accum &= maxterm;
# https://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html#IntegerLogDeBruijn
result = [];
while accum:
power = accum;
accum &= accum - 1; # Peter Wegner CACM 3 (1960), 322
power &= ~accum;
result.append(debruijn[((power * 0x077CB531) & u32) >> 27]);
print result;
This uses (simulates) 32-bit integers, so you can only have [0, 31] in your sets.
*I am inexperienced at Python, so I timed it. One should definitely use set.intersection.
Here is the single-pass counting algorithm, a simplified version of what others have suggested.
def intersection(iterables):
target, count = None, 0
for it in itertools.cycle(map(iter, iterables)):
for value in it:
if count == 0 or value > target:
target, count = value, 1
break
if value == target:
count += 1
break
else: # exhausted iterator
return
if count >= len(iterables):
yield target
count = 0
Binary and exponential search haven't come up yet. They're easily recreated even with the "no builtins" constraint.
In practice, that would be much faster, and sub-linear. In the worst case - where the intersection isn't shrinking - the naive approach would repeat work. But there's a solution for that: integrate the binary search while splitting the arrays in half.
def intersection(seqs):
seq = min(seqs, key=len)
if not seq:
return
pivot = seq[len(seq) // 2]
lows, counts, highs = [], [], []
for seq in seqs:
start = bisect.bisect_left(seq, pivot)
stop = bisect.bisect_right(seq, pivot, start)
lows.append(seq[:start])
counts.append(stop - start)
highs.append(seq[stop:])
yield from intersection(lows)
yield from itertools.repeat(pivot, min(counts))
yield from intersection(highs)
Both handle duplicates. Both guarantee O(N) worst-case time (counting slicing as atomic). The latter will approach O(min_size) speed; by always splitting the smallest in half it essentially can't suffer from the bad luck of uneven splits.
I couldn't help but notice that this is seems to be a variation on the Welfare Crook problem; see David Gries's book, The Science of Programming. Edsger Dijkstra also wrote an EWD about this, see Ascending Functions and the Welfare Crook.
The Welfare Crook
Suppose we have three long magnetic tapes, each containing a list of names in alphabetical order:
all people working for IBM Yorktown
students at Columbia University
people on welfare in New York City
Practically speaking, all three lists are endless, so no upper bounds are given. It is know that at least one person is on all three lists. Write a program to locate the first such person.
Our intersection of the ordered lists problem is a generalization of the Welfare Crook problem.
Here's a (rather primitive?) Python solution to the Welfare Crook problem:
def find_welfare_crook(f, g, h, i, j, k):
"""f, g, and h are "ascending functions," i.e.,
i <= j implies f[i] <= f[j] or, equivalently,
f[i] < f[j] implies i < j, and the same goes for g and h.
i, j, k define where to start the search in each list.
"""
# This is an implementation of a solution to the Welfare Crook
# problems presented in David Gries's book, The Science of Programming.
# The surprising and beautiful thing is that the guard predicates are
# so few and so simple.
i , j , k = i , j , k
while True:
if f[i] < g[j]:
i += 1
elif g[j] < h[k]:
j += 1
elif h[k] < f[i]:
k += 1
else:
break
return (i,j,k)
# The other remarkable thing is how the negation of the guard
# predicates works out to be: f[i] == g[j] and g[j] == c[k].
Generalization to Intersection of K Lists
This generalizes to K lists, and here's what I devised; I don't know how Pythonic this is, but it pretty compact:
def findIntersectionLofL(lofl):
"""Generalized findIntersection function which operates on a "list of lists." """
K = len(lofl)
indices = [0 for i in range(K)]
result = []
#
try:
while True:
# idea is to maintain the indices via a construct like the following:
allEqual = True
for i in range(K):
if lofl[i][indices[i]] < lofl[(i+1)%K][indices[(i+1)%K]] :
indices[i] += 1
allEqual = False
# When the above iteration finishes, if all of the list
# items indexed by the indices are equal, then another
# item common to all of the lists must be added to the result.
if allEqual :
result.append(lofl[0][indices[0]])
while lofl[0][indices[0]] == lofl[1][indices[1]]:
indices[0] += 1
except IndexError as e:
# Eventually, the foregoing iteration will advance one of the
# indices past the end of one of the lists, and when that happens
# an IndexError exception will be raised. This means the algorithm
# is finished.
return result
This solution does not keep repeated items. Changing the program to include all of the repeated items by changing what the program does in the conditional at the end of the "while True" loop is an exercise left to the reader.
Improved Performance
Comments from #greybeard prompted refinements shown below, in the
pre-computation of the "array index moduli" (the "(i+1)%K" expressions) and further investigation also brought about changes to the inner iteration's structure, to further remove overhead:
def findIntersectionLofLunRolled(lofl):
"""Generalized findIntersection function which operates on a "list of lists."
Accepts a list-of-lists, lofl. Each of the lists must be ordered.
Returns the list of each element which appears in all of the lists at least once.
"""
K = len(lofl)
indices = [0] * K
result = []
lt = [ (i, (i+1) % K) for i in range(K) ] # avoids evaluation of index exprs inside the loop
#
try:
while True:
allUnEqual = True
while allUnEqual:
allUnEqual = False
for i,j in lt:
if lofl[i][indices[i]] < lofl[j][indices[j]]:
indices[i] += 1
allUnEqual = True
# Now all of the lofl[i][indices[i]], for all i, are the same value.
# Store that value in the result, and then advance all of the indices
# past that common value:
v = lofl[0][indices[0]]
result.append(v)
for i,j in lt:
while lofl[i][indices[i]] == v:
indices[i] += 1
except IndexError as e:
# Eventually, the foregoing iteration will advance one of the
# indices past the end of one of the lists, and when that happens
# an IndexError exception will be raised. This means the algorithm
# is finished.
return result
I'm trying to solve this problem on the easy section of coderbyte and the prompt is:
Have the function ArrayAdditionI(arr) take the array of numbers stored in arr and return the string true if any combination of numbers in the array can be added up to equal the largest number in the array, otherwise return the string false. For example: if arr contains [4, 6, 23, 10, 1, 3] the output should return true because 4 + 6 + 10 + 3 = 23. The array will not be empty, will not contain all the same elements, and may contain negative numbers.
Here's my solution.
def ArrayAddition(arr):
arr = sorted(arr, reverse=True)
large = arr.pop(0)
storage = 0
placeholder = 0
for r in range(len(arr)):
for n in arr:
if n + storage == large: return True
elif n + storage < large: storage += n
else: continue
storage = 0
if placeholder == 0: placeholder = arr.pop(0)
else: arr.append(placeholder); placeholder = arr.pop(0)
return False
print ArrayAddition([2,95,96,97,98,99,100])
I'm not even sure if this is correct, but it seems to cover all the numbers I plug in. I'm wondering if there is a better way to solve this through algorithm which I know nothing of. I'm thinking a for within a for within a for, etc loop would do the trick, but I don't know how to do that.
What I have in mind is accomplishing this with A+B, A+C, A+D ... A+B+C ... A+B+C+D+E
e.g)
for i in range(len(arr):
print "III: III{}III".format(i)
storage = []
for j in range(len(arr):
print "JJ: II({}),JJ({})".format(i,j)
for k in range(len(arr):
print "K: I{}, J{}, K{}".format(i,j,k)
I've searched all over and found the suggestion of itertool, but I'm wondering if there is a way to write this code up more raw.
Thanks.
A recursive solution:
def GetSum(n, arr):
if len(arr) == 0 and n != 0:
return False
return (n == 0 or
GetSum(n, arr[1:]) or
GetSum(n-arr[0], arr[1:]))
def ArrayAddition(arr):
arrs = sorted(arr)
return GetSum(arrs[-1], arrs[:-1])
print ArrayAddition([2,95,96,97,98,99,100])
The GetSum function returns False when the required sum is non-zero and there are no items in the array. Then it checks for 3 cases:
If the required sum, n, is zero then the goal is achieved.
If we can get the sum with the remaining items after the first item is removed, then the goal is achieved.
If we can get the required sum minus the first element of the list on the rest of the list the goal is achieved.
Your solution doesn't work.
>>> ArrayAddition([10, 11, 20, 21, 30, 31, 60])
False
The simple solution is to use itertools to iterate over all subsets of the input (that don't contain the largest number):
def subsetsum(l):
l = list(l)
target = max(l)
l.remove(l)
for subset_size in xrange(1+len(l)):
for subset in itertools.combinations(l, subset_size):
if sum(subset) == target:
return True
return False
If you want to avoid itertools, you'll need to generate subsets directly. That can be accomplished by counting in binary and using the set bits to determine which elements to pick:
def subsetsum(l):
l = list(l)
target = max(l)
l.remove(l)
for subset_index in xrange(2**len(l)):
subtotal = 0
for i, num in enumerate(l):
# If bit i is set in subset_index
if subset_index & (1 << i):
subtotal += num
if subtotal == target:
return True
return False
Update: I forgot that you want to check all possible combinations. Use this instead:
def ArrayAddition(l):
for length in range(2, len(l)):
for lst in itertools.combinations(l, length):
if sum(lst) in l:
print(lst, sum(lst))
return True
return False
One-liner solution:
>>> any(any(sum(lst) in l for lst in itertools.combinations(l, length)) for length in range(2, len(l)))
Hope this helps!
Generate all the sums of the powerset and test them against the max
def ArrayAddition(L):
return any(sum(k for j,k in enumerate(L) if 1<<j&i)==max(L) for i in range(1<<len(L)))
You could improve this by doing some preprocessing - find the max first and remove it from L
One more way to do it...
Code:
import itertools
def func(l):
m = max(l)
rem = [itertools.combinations([x for x in l if not x == m],i) for i in range(2,len(l)-1)]
print [item for i in rem for item in i if sum(item)==m ]
if __name__=='__main__':
func([1,2,3,4,5])
Output:
[(1, 4), (2, 3)]
Hope this helps.. :)
If I understood the question correctly, simply this should return what you want:
2*max(a)<=sum(a)
After completing an assignment to create pascal's triangle using an iterative function, I have attempted to recreate it using a recursive function. I have gotten to the point where I can get it to produce the individual row corresponding to the number passed in as an argument. But several attempts to have it produce the entire triangle up to and including that row have failed. I even tried writing a separate function which iterates over the range of the input number and calls the recursive function with the iterated digit while appending the individual lines to list before returning that list. The desired output should be a list of lists where each internal list contains one row of the triangle. Like so:
[[1], [1, 1], [1, 2, 1]...]
Instead it returns a jumbled mess of a nested list completely filled with 1's.
Here is the recursive function in question, without the second function to append the rows (I really wanted 1 all inclusive function anyway):
def triangle(n):
if n == 0:
return []
elif n == 1:
return [1]
else:
new_row = [1]
last_row = triangle(n-1)
for i in range(len(last_row)-1):
new_row.append(last_row[i] + last_row[i+1])
new_row += [1]
return new_row
To be clear, I have already completed the assigned task, this is just to provide a deeper understanding of recursion...
Iterative solution:
def triangle(n):
result = []
for row in range(n):
newrow = [1]
for col in range(1, row+1):
newcell = newrow[col-1] * float(row+1-col)/col
newrow.append(int(newcell))
result.append(newrow)
return result
You just need to pass a list of lists through the recursion, and pick off the last element of the list (i.e. the last row of the triangle) to build your new row. Like so:
def triangle(n):
if n == 0:
return []
elif n == 1:
return [[1]]
else:
new_row = [1]
result = triangle(n-1)
last_row = result[-1]
for i in range(len(last_row)-1):
new_row.append(last_row[i] + last_row[i+1])
new_row += [1]
result.append(new_row)
return result
An alternative to happydave's solution, using tail recursion:
def triangle(n, lol=None):
if lol is None: lol = [[1]]
if n == 1:
return lol
else:
prev_row = lol[-1]
new_row = [1] + [sum(i) for i in zip(prev_row, prev_row[1:])] + [1]
return triangle(n - 1, lol + [new_row])
I think its shod be helpful, this code draw triangle and do it recursively:
def traingle(n):
if n == 1:
print(1)
return [1]
else:
answer = [1]
print_able = '1 '
previos = traingle(n-1)
for index in range(len(previos)-1):
eleman = previos[index]+previos[index+1]
answer.append(eleman)
print_able += str(eleman)+' '
answer.append(1)
print_able += '1'
print(print_able)
return answer
end = int(input())
traingle(end)
Yes, as Karl Knechtel also showed, recursive Pascal Triangle can go this way :
P=lambda h:(lambda x:x+[[x+y for x,y in zip(x[-1]+[0],[0]+x[-1])]])(P(h-1))if h>1 else[[1]]
print(P(10))
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))
What is an efficient way to find the most common element in a Python list?
My list items may not be hashable so can't use a dictionary.
Also in case of draws the item with the lowest index should be returned. Example:
>>> most_common(['duck', 'duck', 'goose'])
'duck'
>>> most_common(['goose', 'duck', 'duck', 'goose'])
'goose'
A simpler one-liner:
def most_common(lst):
return max(set(lst), key=lst.count)
Borrowing from here, this can be used with Python 2.7:
from collections import Counter
def Most_Common(lst):
data = Counter(lst)
return data.most_common(1)[0][0]
Works around 4-6 times faster than Alex's solutions, and is 50 times faster than the one-liner proposed by newacct.
On CPython 3.6+ (any Python 3.7+) the above will select the first seen element in case of ties. If you're running on older Python, to retrieve the element that occurs first in the list in case of ties you need to do two passes to preserve order:
# Only needed pre-3.6!
def most_common(lst):
data = Counter(lst)
return max(lst, key=data.get)
With so many solutions proposed, I'm amazed nobody's proposed what I'd consider an obvious one (for non-hashable but comparable elements) -- [itertools.groupby][1]. itertools offers fast, reusable functionality, and lets you delegate some tricky logic to well-tested standard library components. Consider for example:
import itertools
import operator
def most_common(L):
# get an iterable of (item, iterable) pairs
SL = sorted((x, i) for i, x in enumerate(L))
# print 'SL:', SL
groups = itertools.groupby(SL, key=operator.itemgetter(0))
# auxiliary function to get "quality" for an item
def _auxfun(g):
item, iterable = g
count = 0
min_index = len(L)
for _, where in iterable:
count += 1
min_index = min(min_index, where)
# print 'item %r, count %r, minind %r' % (item, count, min_index)
return count, -min_index
# pick the highest-count/earliest item
return max(groups, key=_auxfun)[0]
This could be written more concisely, of course, but I'm aiming for maximal clarity. The two print statements can be uncommented to better see the machinery in action; for example, with prints uncommented:
print most_common(['goose', 'duck', 'duck', 'goose'])
emits:
SL: [('duck', 1), ('duck', 2), ('goose', 0), ('goose', 3)]
item 'duck', count 2, minind 1
item 'goose', count 2, minind 0
goose
As you see, SL is a list of pairs, each pair an item followed by the item's index in the original list (to implement the key condition that, if the "most common" items with the same highest count are > 1, the result must be the earliest-occurring one).
groupby groups by the item only (via operator.itemgetter). The auxiliary function, called once per grouping during the max computation, receives and internally unpacks a group - a tuple with two items (item, iterable) where the iterable's items are also two-item tuples, (item, original index) [[the items of SL]].
Then the auxiliary function uses a loop to determine both the count of entries in the group's iterable, and the minimum original index; it returns those as combined "quality key", with the min index sign-changed so the max operation will consider "better" those items that occurred earlier in the original list.
This code could be much simpler if it worried a little less about big-O issues in time and space, e.g....:
def most_common(L):
groups = itertools.groupby(sorted(L))
def _auxfun((item, iterable)):
return len(list(iterable)), -L.index(item)
return max(groups, key=_auxfun)[0]
same basic idea, just expressed more simply and compactly... but, alas, an extra O(N) auxiliary space (to embody the groups' iterables to lists) and O(N squared) time (to get the L.index of every item). While premature optimization is the root of all evil in programming, deliberately picking an O(N squared) approach when an O(N log N) one is available just goes too much against the grain of scalability!-)
Finally, for those who prefer "oneliners" to clarity and performance, a bonus 1-liner version with suitably mangled names:-).
from itertools import groupby as g
def most_common_oneliner(L):
return max(g(sorted(L)), key=lambda(x, v):(len(list(v)),-L.index(x)))[0]
What you want is known in statistics as mode, and Python of course has a built-in function to do exactly that for you:
>>> from statistics import mode
>>> mode([1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6, 6])
3
Note that if there is no "most common element" such as cases where the top two are tied, this will raise StatisticsError on Python
<=3.7, and on 3.8 onwards it will return the first one encountered.
Without the requirement about the lowest index, you can use collections.Counter for this:
from collections import Counter
a = [1936, 2401, 2916, 4761, 9216, 9216, 9604, 9801]
c = Counter(a)
print(c.most_common(1)) # the one most common element... 2 would mean the 2 most common
[(9216, 2)] # a set containing the element, and it's count in 'a'
If they are not hashable, you can sort them and do a single loop over the result counting the items (identical items will be next to each other). But it might be faster to make them hashable and use a dict.
def most_common(lst):
cur_length = 0
max_length = 0
cur_i = 0
max_i = 0
cur_item = None
max_item = None
for i, item in sorted(enumerate(lst), key=lambda x: x[1]):
if cur_item is None or cur_item != item:
if cur_length > max_length or (cur_length == max_length and cur_i < max_i):
max_length = cur_length
max_i = cur_i
max_item = cur_item
cur_length = 1
cur_i = i
cur_item = item
else:
cur_length += 1
if cur_length > max_length or (cur_length == max_length and cur_i < max_i):
return cur_item
return max_item
This is an O(n) solution.
mydict = {}
cnt, itm = 0, ''
for item in reversed(lst):
mydict[item] = mydict.get(item, 0) + 1
if mydict[item] >= cnt :
cnt, itm = mydict[item], item
print itm
(reversed is used to make sure that it returns the lowest index item)
Sort a copy of the list and find the longest run. You can decorate the list before sorting it with the index of each element, and then choose the run that starts with the lowest index in the case of a tie.
A one-liner:
def most_common (lst):
return max(((item, lst.count(item)) for item in set(lst)), key=lambda a: a[1])[0]
I am doing this using scipy stat module and lambda:
import scipy.stats
lst = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,5]
most_freq_val = lambda x: scipy.stats.mode(x)[0][0]
print(most_freq_val(lst))
Result:
most_freq_val = 5
# use Decorate, Sort, Undecorate to solve the problem
def most_common(iterable):
# Make a list with tuples: (item, index)
# The index will be used later to break ties for most common item.
lst = [(x, i) for i, x in enumerate(iterable)]
lst.sort()
# lst_final will also be a list of tuples: (count, index, item)
# Sorting on this list will find us the most common item, and the index
# will break ties so the one listed first wins. Count is negative so
# largest count will have lowest value and sort first.
lst_final = []
# Get an iterator for our new list...
itr = iter(lst)
# ...and pop the first tuple off. Setup current state vars for loop.
count = 1
tup = next(itr)
x_cur, i_cur = tup
# Loop over sorted list of tuples, counting occurrences of item.
for tup in itr:
# Same item again?
if x_cur == tup[0]:
# Yes, same item; increment count
count += 1
else:
# No, new item, so write previous current item to lst_final...
t = (-count, i_cur, x_cur)
lst_final.append(t)
# ...and reset current state vars for loop.
x_cur, i_cur = tup
count = 1
# Write final item after loop ends
t = (-count, i_cur, x_cur)
lst_final.append(t)
lst_final.sort()
answer = lst_final[0][2]
return answer
print most_common(['x', 'e', 'a', 'e', 'a', 'e', 'e']) # prints 'e'
print most_common(['goose', 'duck', 'duck', 'goose']) # prints 'goose'
Building on Luiz's answer, but satisfying the "in case of draws the item with the lowest index should be returned" condition:
from statistics import mode, StatisticsError
def most_common(l):
try:
return mode(l)
except StatisticsError as e:
# will only return the first element if no unique mode found
if 'no unique mode' in e.args[0]:
return l[0]
# this is for "StatisticsError: no mode for empty data"
# after calling mode([])
raise
Example:
>>> most_common(['a', 'b', 'b'])
'b'
>>> most_common([1, 2])
1
>>> most_common([])
StatisticsError: no mode for empty data
Simple one line solution
moc= max([(lst.count(chr),chr) for chr in set(lst)])
It will return most frequent element with its frequency.
You probably don't need this anymore, but this is what I did for a similar problem. (It looks longer than it is because of the comments.)
itemList = ['hi', 'hi', 'hello', 'bye']
counter = {}
maxItemCount = 0
for item in itemList:
try:
# Referencing this will cause a KeyError exception
# if it doesn't already exist
counter[item]
# ... meaning if we get this far it didn't happen so
# we'll increment
counter[item] += 1
except KeyError:
# If we got a KeyError we need to create the
# dictionary key
counter[item] = 1
# Keep overwriting maxItemCount with the latest number,
# if it's higher than the existing itemCount
if counter[item] > maxItemCount:
maxItemCount = counter[item]
mostPopularItem = item
print mostPopularItem
ans = [1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1]
all_ans = {ans.count(ans[i]): ans[i] for i in range(len(ans))}
print(all_ans)
all_ans={4: 1, 2: 0}
max_key = max(all_ans.keys())
4
print(all_ans[max_key])
1
#This will return the list sorted by frequency:
def orderByFrequency(list):
listUniqueValues = np.unique(list)
listQty = []
listOrderedByFrequency = []
for i in range(len(listUniqueValues)):
listQty.append(list.count(listUniqueValues[i]))
for i in range(len(listQty)):
index_bigger = np.argmax(listQty)
for j in range(listQty[index_bigger]):
listOrderedByFrequency.append(listUniqueValues[index_bigger])
listQty[index_bigger] = -1
return listOrderedByFrequency
#And this will return a list with the most frequent values in a list:
def getMostFrequentValues(list):
if (len(list) <= 1):
return list
list_most_frequent = []
list_ordered_by_frequency = orderByFrequency(list)
list_most_frequent.append(list_ordered_by_frequency[0])
frequency = list_ordered_by_frequency.count(list_ordered_by_frequency[0])
index = 0
while(index < len(list_ordered_by_frequency)):
index = index + frequency
if(index < len(list_ordered_by_frequency)):
testValue = list_ordered_by_frequency[index]
testValueFrequency = list_ordered_by_frequency.count(testValue)
if (testValueFrequency == frequency):
list_most_frequent.append(testValue)
else:
break
return list_most_frequent
#tests:
print(getMostFrequentValues([]))
print(getMostFrequentValues([1]))
print(getMostFrequentValues([1,1]))
print(getMostFrequentValues([2,1]))
print(getMostFrequentValues([2,2,1]))
print(getMostFrequentValues([1,2,1,2]))
print(getMostFrequentValues([1,2,1,2,2]))
print(getMostFrequentValues([3,2,3,5,6,3,2,2]))
print(getMostFrequentValues([1,2,2,60,50,3,3,50,3,4,50,4,4,60,60]))
Results:
[]
[1]
[1]
[1, 2]
[2]
[1, 2]
[2]
[2, 3]
[3, 4, 50, 60]
Here:
def most_common(l):
max = 0
maxitem = None
for x in set(l):
count = l.count(x)
if count > max:
max = count
maxitem = x
return maxitem
I have a vague feeling there is a method somewhere in the standard library that will give you the count of each element, but I can't find it.
This is the obvious slow solution (O(n^2)) if neither sorting nor hashing is feasible, but equality comparison (==) is available:
def most_common(items):
if not items:
raise ValueError
fitems = []
best_idx = 0
for item in items:
item_missing = True
i = 0
for fitem in fitems:
if fitem[0] == item:
fitem[1] += 1
d = fitem[1] - fitems[best_idx][1]
if d > 0 or (d == 0 and fitems[best_idx][2] > fitem[2]):
best_idx = i
item_missing = False
break
i += 1
if item_missing:
fitems.append([item, 1, i])
return items[best_idx]
But making your items hashable or sortable (as recommended by other answers) would almost always make finding the most common element faster if the length of your list (n) is large. O(n) on average with hashing, and O(n*log(n)) at worst for sorting.
>>> li = ['goose', 'duck', 'duck']
>>> def foo(li):
st = set(li)
mx = -1
for each in st:
temp = li.count(each):
if mx < temp:
mx = temp
h = each
return h
>>> foo(li)
'duck'
I needed to do this in a recent program. I'll admit it, I couldn't understand Alex's answer, so this is what I ended up with.
def mostPopular(l):
mpEl=None
mpIndex=0
mpCount=0
curEl=None
curCount=0
for i, el in sorted(enumerate(l), key=lambda x: (x[1], x[0]), reverse=True):
curCount=curCount+1 if el==curEl else 1
curEl=el
if curCount>mpCount \
or (curCount==mpCount and i<mpIndex):
mpEl=curEl
mpIndex=i
mpCount=curCount
return mpEl, mpCount, mpIndex
I timed it against Alex's solution and it's about 10-15% faster for short lists, but once you go over 100 elements or more (tested up to 200000) it's about 20% slower.
def most_frequent(List):
counter = 0
num = List[0]
for i in List:
curr_frequency = List.count(i)
if(curr_frequency> counter):
counter = curr_frequency
num = i
return num
List = [2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 3]
print(most_frequent(List))
Hi this is a very simple solution, with linear time complexity
L = ['goose', 'duck', 'duck']
def most_common(L):
current_winner = 0
max_repeated = None
for i in L:
amount_times = L.count(i)
if amount_times > current_winner:
current_winner = amount_times
max_repeated = i
return max_repeated
print(most_common(L))
"duck"
Where number, is the element in the list that repeats most of the time
numbers = [1, 3, 7, 4, 3, 0, 3, 6, 3]
max_repeat_num = max(numbers, key=numbers.count) *# which number most* frequently
max_repeat = numbers.count(max_repeat_num) *#how many times*
print(f" the number {max_repeat_num} is repeated{max_repeat} times")
def mostCommonElement(list):
count = {} // dict holder
max = 0 // keep track of the count by key
result = None // holder when count is greater than max
for i in list:
if i not in count:
count[i] = 1
else:
count[i] += 1
if count[i] > max:
max = count[i]
result = i
return result
mostCommonElement(["a","b","a","c"]) -> "a"
The most common element should be the one which is appearing more than N/2 times in the array where N being the len(array). The below technique will do it in O(n) time complexity, with just consuming O(1) auxiliary space.
from collections import Counter
def majorityElement(arr):
majority_elem = Counter(arr)
size = len(arr)
for key, val in majority_elem.items():
if val > size/2:
return key
return -1
def most_common(lst):
if max([lst.count(i)for i in lst]) == 1:
return False
else:
return max(set(lst), key=lst.count)
def popular(L):
C={}
for a in L:
C[a]=L.count(a)
for b in C.keys():
if C[b]==max(C.values()):
return b
L=[2,3,5,3,6,3,6,3,6,3,7,467,4,7,4]
print popular(L)