Develop Reference

How do I fix code that calculates the amount of combinations in the partitions of a set?

I am working on a code in Python 2 that partitions a set of 13 elements using integer partitions, then evaluating the different combinations they can have (order does not matter). I have seen the ways people do this by using recursive functions to calculate every partition in a set retroactively, but for what I'm working on I'm taking a different approach.
I'm working with the logic that the different ways a set can be partitioned is determined by the integer partitions of a set. For a set of 4 elements, it can be partitioned in these ways:
[1,1,1,1]
[1,1,2]
[2,2]
[1,3]
[4]
Every number stands for the length of a subset in the partition. Using this info, I can then calculate all of the combinations that can be used with these different integer partitions. If I add the number of combinations from each partition together, I should receive the Bell number (the number of possible partitions in a set). For a list of 4 elements, the Bell number should be 15.
My code runs through the subset lengths in each partition, sets the length of the set to n and the subset length to r, then calculates the combinations in the specific subset. When it goes to the next subset, it subtracts the previous r from n to account for it lessening the amount of combinations available, as n gets smaller when a subset is already defined.
My code, however, is lackluster. When inputting 4 as the length of the set, it outputs 16 (instead of 15). When inputting 5, it outputs 48 (instead of 52). When inputting 13, it outputs 102,513 (instead of 27,644,437). I need it to be exact rather than an estimate.
This is in part because of if elem != 1: not properly accounting for a list of all ones or a list of one subset. It's also in part because it doesn't account for repeats of a combination when appearing in a subset. In [2,2] for a list of 4 elements, it considers the subset to contain 6 combinations when in reality it contains 3.
I'm stuck on how to solve this issue, as I only know enough Python to get by. The way the code currently outputs is how I prefer it to output, obviously without the errors.
The recursive function that calculates the integer partitions is from Nicolas Blanc, and the rest was coded by myself. Important links: Bell number, Partition of a set
import math
in_par = []
stack = []
bell = 0
def partitions(remainder, start_number = 1):
if remainder == 0:
in_par.append(list(stack))
#print stack
else:
for nb_to_add in range(start_number, remainder+1):
stack.append(nb_to_add)
partitions(remainder - nb_to_add, nb_to_add)
stack.pop()
x = partitions(13) # <------- input element count here
for part in in_par:
part.reverse()
combinations = 0
n = 13 # <------- input element count here
for i,elem in enumerate(part):
r = elem
combo = 0
if elem != 1:
if i != (len(part) - 1):
combo = math.factorial(n) / (math.factorial(r) * math.factorial(n-r))
n = n - elem
combinations = combinations + combo
bell = bell + combinations
part.append([combinations])
print part
#print str(bell)
print "Bell Number: " + str(bell)

How do i optimize this code to run for larger values? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Elegant Python code for Integer Partitioning [closed]
(11 answers)
Closed 1 year ago.
I'm writing a python function that takes an integer value between 3 and 200 as input, calculates the number of sums using unique nonzero numbers that will equal the number and prints the output.
For example; with 3 as input 1 will be printed because only 1 + 2 will give 3, with 6 as input 3 will be printed because 1+2+3, 1+5 and 2+4 equal 6.
My code works well only for numbers less than 30 after which it starts getting slow. How do I optimize my code to run efficiently for all input between 3 and 200.
from itertools import combinations
def solution(n):
count = 0
max_terms = 0
num = 0
for i in range(1,n):
if num + i <= n:
max_terms += 1
num = num + i
for terms in range(2,max_terms + 1):
for sample in list(combinations(list(range(1,n)),terms)):
if sum(sample) == n:
count += 1
print(count)

Generating all combinations is indeed not very efficient as most will not add up to n.
Instead, you could use a recursive function, which can be called after taking away one partition (i.e. one term of the sum), and will solve the problem for the remaining amount, given an extra indication that future partitions should be greater than the one just taken.
To further improve the efficiency, you can use memoization (dynamic programming) to avoid solving the same sub problem multiple times.
Here is the code for that:
def solution(n, least=1, memo={}):
if n < least:
return 0
key = (n, least)
if key in memo: # Use memoization
return memo[key]
# Counting the case where n is not partitioned
# (But do not count it when it is the original number itself)
count = int(least > 1)
# Counting the cases where n is partitioned
for i in range(least, (n + 1) // 2):
count += solution(n - i, i + 1)
memo[key] = count
return count
Tested the code with these arguments. The comments list the sums that are counted:
print(solution(1)) # none
print(solution(2)) # none
print(solution(3)) # 1+2
print(solution(4)) # 1+3
print(solution(5)) # 1+4, 2+3
print(solution(6)) # 1+2+3, 1+5, 2+4
print(solution(7)) # 1+2+4, 1+6, 2+5, 3+4
print(solution(8)) # 1+2+5, 1+3+4, 1+7, 2+6, 3+5
print(solution(9)) # 1+2+6, 1+3+5, 2+3+4, 1+8, 2+7, 3+6, 4+5
print(solution(10)) # 1+2+3+4, 1+2+7, 1+3+6, 1+4+5, 2+3+5, 1+9, 2+8, 3+7, 4+6

your question isn't clear enough. So, I'm making some assumptionns...
So, what you want is to enter a number. say 4 and then, figure out the total combinations where two different digits add up to that number. If that is what you want, then the answer is quite simple.
for 4, lets take that as 'n'. 'n' has the combinations 1+3,2+2.
for n as 6, the combos are - 1+5,2+4,3+3.
You might have caught a pattern. (4 and 6 have half their combinations) also, for odd numbers, they have combinations that are half their previous even number. i.e. - 5 has (4/2)=2 combos. i.e. 1+4,2+3 so...
the formula to get the number for comnbinations are -
(n)/2 - this is if you want to include same number combos like 2+2 for 4 but, exclude combos with 0. i.e. 0+4 for 4
(n+1)/2 - this works if you want to exclude either the combos with 0 i.e. 0+4 for 4 or the ones with same numbers i.e. 2+2 for 4.
(n-1)/2 - here, same number combos are excluded. i.e. 2+2 wont be counted as a combo for n as 4. also, 0 combos i.e. 0+4 for 4 are excluded.
n is the main number. in these examples, it is '4'. This will work only if n is an integer and these values after calculations are stored as an integer.
3 number combos are totally different. I'm sure there's a formula for that too.

Finding numbers that have specific roles

I'm trying to find if a number is ordinary or not using inputs. A positive integer is ordinary if it has at least two pairs of positive integer factors such that the difference of one pair equals the sum of the other pair.
For example, 6 is ordinary since 6×1=6,2×3=6,6−1=2+3; and 24 is also ordinary since 12−2=6+4.
I'm stuck on how to make a code where it "grabs" a specific match of the factors of a number.
Thanks :)

First you need a method that will return all factor pairs for a number, this answer provides a decent enough solution https://stackoverflow.com/a/5505024/548562
def f(value):
factors = []
for i in range(1, int(value**0.5)+1):
if value % i == 0:
factors.append((i, value / i))
return factors
Now we have all possible factor pairs we need to loop over every permutation to see if the sum of one pair is equal to the difference of another. itertools provides a permutations function that can be used for this
def is_special(x):
factor_pairs = f(x)
for p1, p2 in itertools.permutations(factor_pairs, 2):
if p1[1] - p1[0] == p2[0] + p2[1]:
return False
return True

Python: Performance when looping and manipulating a large array

My question is two-fold:
Is there a way to both efficiently loop over and manipulate an
array using enumerate for example and manipulate the loop at
the same time?
Are there any memory-optimized versions of arrays in python?
(like NumPy creating smaller arrays with a specified type)
I have made an algorithm finding prime numbers in range (2 - rng) with the Sieve of Eratosthenes.
Note: The problem is nonexistent if searching for primes in 2 - 1,000,000 (under 1 sec total runtime too). In the tens and hundreds of millions this starts to hurt. So far changing the table from including all natural numbers to just odd ones, the rough maximum range I was able to search was 400 million (200 million in odd numbers).
Whiles instead of for loops decrease performance at least with the current algorithm.
NumPy while being able to create smaller arrays with type conversion, it actually takes roughly double the time to process with the same code, except
oddTable = np.int8(np.zeros(size))
in place of
oddTable = [0] * size
and using integers to assign values "prime" and "not prime" to keep the array type.
Using pseudo-code, the algorithm would look like this:
oddTable = [0] * size # Array representing odd numbers excluding 1 up to rng
for item in oddTable:
if item == 0: # Prime, since not product of any previous prime
set item to "prime"
set every multiple of item in oddTable to "not prime"
Python is a neat language particularly when looping over every item in a list, but as the index in, say
for i in range(1000)
can't be manipulated while in the loop, I had to convert the range a few times to produce an iterable which to use. In the code: "P" marks prime numbers, "_" marks not primes and 0 not checked.
num = 1 # Primes found (2 is prime)
size = int(rng / 2) - 1 # Size of table required to represent odd numbers
oddTable = [0] * size # Array with odd numbers \ 1: [3, 5, 7, 9...]
new_rng = int((size - 1) / 3) # To go through every 3rd item
for i in range(new_rng): # Eliminate no % 3's
oddTable[i * 3] = "_"
oddTable[0] = "P" # Set 3 to prime
num += 1
def act(x): # The actual integer index x in table refers to
x = (x + 1) * 2 + 1
return x
# Multiples of 2 and 3 eliminated, so all primes are 6k + 1 or 6k + 5
# In the oddTable: remaining primes are either 3*i + 1 or 3*i + 2
# new_rng to loop exactly 1/3 of the table length -> touch every item once
for i in range(new_rng):
j = 3*i + 1 # 3*i + 1
if oddTable[j] == 0:
num += 1
oddTable[j] = "P"
k = act(j)
multiple = j + k # The odd multiple indexes of act(j)
while multiple < size:
oddTable[multiple] = "_"
multiple += k
j += 1 # 3*i + 2
if oddTable[j] == 0:
num += 1
oddTable[j] = "P"
k = act(j)
multiple = j + k
while multiple < size:
oddTable[multiple] = "_"
multiple += k

To make your code more pythonic, split your algorithm in smaller chunks (functions), so that each chunk can be grasped easily.
My second comment might astound you: Python comes with "batteries included". In order to program your Erathostenes' Sieve, why do you need to manipulate arrays explicitly and pollute your code with it? Why not create a function (e.g. is_prime) and use the standard memoize decorator that was provided for that purpose? (If you insist on using 2.7, see also memoization library for python 2.7).
The result of the two pieces of advice above might not be the "most efficient", but it will (as I experienced with that exact problem) work well enough, while allowing you to quickly create sleek code that will save your programmer's time (both for creation and maintenance).

Random contiguous slice of list in Python based on a single random integer

Using a single random number and a list, how would you return a random slice of that list?
For example, given the list [0,1,2] there are seven possibilities of random contiguous slices:
[ ]
[ 0 ]
[ 0, 1 ]
[ 0, 1, 2 ]
[ 1 ]
[ 1, 2]
[ 2 ]
Rather than getting a random starting index and a random end index, there must be a way to generate a single random number and use that one value to figure out both starting index and end/length.
I need it that way, to ensure these 7 possibilities have equal probability.

Simply fix one order in which you would sort all possible slices, then work out a way to turn an index in that list of all slices back into the slice endpoints. For example, the order you used could be described by
The empty slice is before all other slices
Non-empty slices are ordered by their starting point
Slices with the same starting point are ordered by their endpoint
So the index 0 should return the empty list. Indices 1 through n should return [0:1] through [0:n]. Indices n+1 through n+(n-1)=2n-1 would be [1:2] through [1:n]; 2n through n+(n-1)+(n-2)=3n-3 would be [2:3] through [2:n] and so on. You see a pattern here: the last index for a given starting point is of the form n+(n-1)+(n-2)+(n-3)+…+(n-k), where k is the starting index of the sequence. That's an arithmetic series, so that sum is (k+1)(2n-k)/2=(2n+(2n-1)k-k²)/2. If you set that term equal to a given index, and solve that for k, you get some formula involving square roots. You could then use the ceiling function to turn that into an integral value for k corresponding to the last index for that starting point. And once you know k, computing the end point is rather easy.
But the quadratic equation in the solution above makes things really ugly. So you might be better off using some other order. Right now I can't think of a way which would avoid such a quadratic term. The order Douglas used in his answer doesn't avoid square roots, but at least his square root is a bit simpler due to the fact that he sorts by end point first. The order in your question and my answer is called lexicographical order, his would be called reverse lexicographical and is often easier to handle since it doesn't depend on n. But since most people think about normal (forward) lexicographical order first, this answer might be more intuitive to many and might even be the required way for some applications.
Here is a bit of Python code which lists all sequence elements in order, and does the conversion from index i to endpoints [k:m] the way I described above:
from math import ceil, sqrt
n = 3
print("{:3} []".format(0))
for i in range(1, n*(n+1)//2 + 1):
b = 1 - 2*n
c = 2*(i - n) - 1
# solve k^2 + b*k + c = 0
k = int(ceil((- b - sqrt(b*b - 4*c))/2.))
m = k + i - k*(2*n-k+1)//2
print("{:3} [{}:{}]".format(i, k, m))
The - 1 term in c doesn't come from the mathematical formula I presented above. It's more like subtracting 0.5 from each value of i. This ensures that even if the result of sqrt is slightly too large, you won't end up with a k which is too large. So that term accounts for numeric imprecision and should make the whole thing pretty robust.
The term k*(2*n-k+1)//2 is the last index belonging to starting point k-1, so i minus that term is the length of the subsequence under consideration.
You can simplify things further. You can perform some computation outside the loop, which might be important if you have to choose random sequences repeatedly. You can divide b by a factor of 2 and then get rid of that factor in a number of other places. The result could look like this:
from math import ceil, sqrt
n = 3
b = n - 0.5
bbc = b*b + 2*n + 1
print("{:3} []".format(0))
for i in range(1, n*(n+1)//2 + 1):
k = int(ceil(b - sqrt(bbc - 2*i)))
m = k + i - k*(2*n-k+1)//2
print("{:3} [{}:{}]".format(i, k, m))

It is a little strange to give the empty list equal weight with the others. It is more natural for the empty list to be given weight 0 or n+1 times the others, if there are n elements on the list. But if you want it to have equal weight, you can do that.
There are n*(n+1)/2 nonempty contiguous sublists. You can specify these by the end point, from 0 to n-1, and the starting point, from 0 to the endpoint.
Generate a random integer x from 0 to n*(n+1)/2.
If x=0, return the empty list. Otherwise, x is unformly distributed from 1 through n(n+1)/2.
Compute e = floor(sqrt(2*x)-1/2). This takes the values 0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, etc.
Compute s = (x-1) - e*(e+1)/2. This takes the values 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 2, 0, 1, 2, 3, ...
Return the interval starting at index s and ending at index e.
(s,e) takes the values (0,0),(0,1),(1,1),(0,2),(1,2),(2,2),...
import random
import math
n=10
x = random.randint(0,n*(n+1)/2)
if (x==0):
print(range(n)[0:0]) // empty set
exit()
e = int(math.floor(math.sqrt(2*x)-0.5))
s = int(x-1 - (e*(e+1)/2))
print(range(n)[s:e+1]) // starting at s, ending at e, inclusive

First create all possible slice indexes.
[0:0], [1:1], etc are equivalent, so we include only one of those.
Finally you pick a random index couple, and apply it.
import random
l = [0, 1, 2]
combination_couples = [(0, 0)]
length = len(l)
# Creates all index couples.
for j in range(1, length+1):
for i in range(j):
combination_couples.append((i, j))
print(combination_couples)
rand_tuple = random.sample(combination_couples, 1)[0]
final_slice = l[rand_tuple[0]:rand_tuple[1]]
print(final_slice)
To ensure we got them all:
for i in combination_couples:
print(l[i[0]:i[1]])
Alternatively, with some math...
For a length-3 list there are 0 to 3 possible index numbers, that is n=4. You have 2 of them, that is k=2. First index has to be smaller than second, therefor we need to calculate the combinations as described here.
from math import factorial as f
def total_combinations(n, k=2):
result = 1
for i in range(1, k+1):
result *= n - k + i
result /= f(k)
# We add plus 1 since we included [0:0] as well.
return result + 1
print(total_combinations(n=4)) # Prints 7 as expected.

there must be a way to generate a single random number and use that one value to figure out both starting index and end/length.
It is difficult to say what method is best but if you're only interested in binding single random number to your contiguous slice you can use modulo.
Given a list l and a single random nubmer r you can get your contiguous slice like that:
l[r % len(l) : some_sparkling_transformation(r) % len(l)]
where some_sparkling_transformation(r) is essential. It depents on your needs but since I don't see any special requirements in your question it could be for example:
l[r % len(l) : (2 * r) % len(l)]
The most important thing here is that both left and right edges of the slice are correlated to r. This makes a problem to define such contiguous slices that wont follow any observable pattern. Above example (with 2 * r) produces slices that are always empty lists or follow a pattern of [a : 2 * a].
Let's use some intuition. We know that we want to find a good random representation of the number r in a form of contiguous slice. It cames out that we need to find two numbers: a and b that are respectively left and right edges of the slice. Assuming that r is a good random number (we like it in some way) we can say that a = r % len(l) is a good approach.
Let's now try to find b. The best way to generate another nice random number will be to use random number generator (random or numpy) which supports seeding (both of them). Example with random module:
import random
def contiguous_slice(l, r):
random.seed(r)
a = int(random.uniform(0, len(l)+1))
b = int(random.uniform(0, len(l)+1))
a, b = sorted([a, b])
return l[a:b]
Good luck and have fun!