Related
I want to lexicographically compare two lists, but the values inside the list should be computed when needed. For instance, for these two lists
a = list([1, 3, 3])
b = list([1, 2, 2])
(a < b) == False
(b < a) == True
I'd like the values in the list to be functions and in the case of a and b, the values (i.e. the function) at index=2 would not be evaluated as the values at index=1 (a[1]==3, b[1]==2) are already sufficient to determine that b < a.
One option would be to manually compare the elements, and that's probably what I will do when I don't find a solution that allows me to use the list's comparator, but I found that the manual loop is a tad slower than the list's builtin comparator which is why I want to make use of it.
Update
Here's a way to accomplish what I am trying to do, but I was wondering if there are any built-in functions that would do this faster (and which makes use of this feature of lists).
def lex_comp(a, b):
for func_a, func_b in izip(a, b):
v_a = func_a()
v_b = func_b()
if v_a < v_b: return -1
if v_b > v_a: return +1
return 0
def foo1(): return 1
def foo2(): return 1
def bar1(): return 1
def bar2(): return 2
def func1(): return ...
def func2(): return ...
list_a = [foo1, bar1, func1, ...]
list_b = [foo2, bar2, func2, ...]
# now you can use the comparator for instance to sort a list of these lists
sort([list_a, list_b], cmp=lex_comp)
Try this (the extra parameters to the function are just for illustration purposes):
import itertools
def f(a, x):
print "lazy eval of {}".format(a)
return x
a = [lambda: f('a', 1), lambda: f('b', 3), lambda: f('c', 3)]
b = [lambda: f('d', 1), lambda: f('e', 2), lambda: f('f', 2)]
c = [lambda: f('g', 1), lambda: f('h', 2), lambda: f('i', 2)]
def lazyCmpList(a, b):
l = len(list(itertools.takewhile(lambda (x, y): x() == y(), itertools.izip(a, b))))
if l == len(a):
return 0
else:
return cmp(a[l](), b[l]())
print lazyCmpList(a, b)
print lazyCmpList(b, a)
print lazyCmpList(b, c)
Produces:
lazy eval of a
lazy eval of d
lazy eval of b
lazy eval of e
-1
lazy eval of d
lazy eval of a
lazy eval of e
lazy eval of b
1
lazy eval of d
lazy eval of g
lazy eval of e
lazy eval of h
lazy eval of f
lazy eval of i
0
Note that the code assumes the list of functions are of the same length. It could be enhanced to support non-equal list length, you'd have to define what the logic was i.e. what should cmp([f1, f2, f3], [f1, f2, f3, f1]) produce?
I haven't compared the speed but given your updated code I would imagine any speedup will be marginal (looping done in C code rather than Python). This solution may actually be slower as it is more complex and involved more memory allocation.
Given you are trying to sort a list of functions by evaluating them it follows that the functions will be evaluated i.e. O(nlogn) times and so your best speedup may be to look at using memoization to avoid repeated revaluation of the functions.
Here is an approach that uses lazy evaluation:
>>> def f(x):
... return 2**x
...
>>> def g(x):
... return x*2
...
>>> [f(x) for x in range(1,10)]
[2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512]
>>> [g(x) for x in range(1,10)]
[2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18]
>>> zipped = zip((f(i) for i in range(1,10)),(g(i) for i in range(1,10)))
>>> x,y = next(itertools.dropwhile(lambda t: t[0]==t[1],zipped))
>>> x > y
True
>>> x < y
False
>>> x
8
>>> y
6
>>>
I did some testing and found that #juanpa's answer and the version in my update are the fastest versions:
import random
import itertools
import functools
num_rows = 100
data = [[random.randint(0, 2) for i in xrange(10)] for j in xrange(num_rows)]
# turn data values into functions.
def return_func(value):
return value
list_funcs = [[functools.partial(return_func, v) for v in row] for row in data]
def lazy_cmp_FujiApple(a, b):
l = len(list(itertools.takewhile(lambda (x, y): x() == y(), itertools.izip(a, b))))
if l == len(a):
return 0
else:
return cmp(a[l](), b[l]())
sorted1 = sorted(list_funcs, lazy_cmp_FujiApple)
%timeit sorted(list_funcs, lazy_cmp_FujiApple)
# 100 loops, best of 3: 2.77 ms per loop
def lex_comp_mine(a, b):
for func_a, func_b in itertools.izip(a, b):
v_a = func_a()
v_b = func_b()
if v_a < v_b: return -1
if v_a > v_b: return +1
return 0
sorted2 = sorted(list_funcs, cmp=lex_comp_mine)
%timeit sorted(list_funcs, cmp=lex_comp_mine)
# 1000 loops, best of 3: 930 µs per loop
def lazy_comp_juanpa(a, b):
x, y = next(itertools.dropwhile(lambda t: t[0]==t[1], itertools.izip(a, b)))
return cmp(x, y)
sorted3 = sorted(list_funcs, cmp=lazy_comp_juanpa)
%timeit sorted(list_funcs, cmp=lex_comp_mine)
# 1000 loops, best of 3: 949 µs per loop
%timeit sorted(data)
# 10000 loops, best of 3: 45.4 µs per loop
# print sorted(data)
# print [[c() for c in row] for row in sorted1]
# print [[c() for c in row] for row in sorted2]
# print sorted3
I guess the creation of an intermediate list is hurting performance of #FujiApple's version. When running my comparator version on the original data list and comparing the runtime to Python's native list sorting, I note that my version is about 10times slower (501 µs vs 45.4 µs per loop). I guess theres' no easy way to get close to the performance of Python's native implementation...
I'm stuck at higher-order functions in python. I need to write a repeat function repeat that applies the function f n times on a given argument x.
For example, repeat(f, 3, x) is f(f(f(x))).
This is what I have:
def repeat(f,n,x):
if n==0:
return f(x)
else:
return repeat(f,n-1,x)
When I try to assert the following line:
plus = lambda x,y: repeat(lambda z:z+1,x,y)
assert plus(2,2) == 4
It gives me an AssertionError. I read about How to repeat a function n times but I need to have it done in this way and I can't figure it out...
You have two problems:
You are recursing the wrong number of times (if n == 1, the function should be called once); and
You aren't calling f on the returned value from the recursive call, so the function is only ever applied once.
Try:
def repeat(f, n, x):
if n == 1: # note 1, not 0
return f(x)
else:
return f(repeat(f, n-1, x)) # call f with returned value
or, alternatively:
def repeat(f, n, x):
if n == 0:
return x # note x, not f(x)
else:
return f(repeat(f, n-1, x)) # call f with returned value
(thanks to #Kevin for the latter, which supports n == 0).
Example:
>>> repeat(lambda z: z + 1, 2, 2)
4
>>> assert repeat(lambda z: z * 2, 4, 3) == 3 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2
>>>
You've got a very simple error there, in the else block you are just passing x along without doing anything to it. Also you are applying x when n == 0, don't do that.
def repeat(f,n,x):
"""
>>> repeat(lambda x: x+1, 2, 0)
2
"""
return repeat(f, n-1, f(x)) if n > 0 else x
How do I find the missing number from a sorted list the pythonic way?
a=[1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10]
I have come across this post but is there a more and efficient way to do this?
>>> a=[1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10]
>>> sum(xrange(a[0],a[-1]+1)) - sum(a)
6
alternatively (using the sum of AP series formula)
>>> a[-1]*(a[-1] + a[0]) / 2 - sum(a)
6
For generic cases when multiple numbers may be missing, you can formulate an O(n) approach.
>>> a=[1,2,3,4,7,8,10]
>>> from itertools import imap, chain
>>> from operator import sub
>>> print list(chain.from_iterable((a[i] + d for d in xrange(1, diff))
for i, diff in enumerate(imap(sub, a[1:], a))
if diff > 1))
[5, 6, 9]
This should work:
a = [1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10]
b = [x for x in range(a[0], a[-1] + 1)]
a = set(a)
print(list(a ^ set(b)))
>>> [2, 6]
1 + 2 + 3 + ... + (n - 1) + n = (n) * (n + 1)/2
so the missing number is:
(a[-1] * (a[-1] + 1))/2 - sum(a)
set(range(a[len(a)-1])[1:]) - set(a)
Take the set of all numbers minus the set of given.
And another itertools way:
from itertools import count, izip
a=[1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10]
nums = (b for a, b in izip(a, count(a[0])) if a != b)
next(nums, None)
# 6
This will handle the cases when the first or last number is missing.
>>> a=[1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10]
>>> n = len(a) + 1
>>> (n*(n+1)/2) - sum(a)
6
If many missing numbers in list:
>>> a=[1,2,3,4,5,7,8,10]
>>> [(e1+1) for e1,e2 in zip(a, a[1:]) if e2-e1 != 1]
[6, 9]
def find(arr):
for x in range(0,len(arr) -1):
if arr[x+1] - arr[x] != 1:
print arr[x] + 1
Simple solution for the above problem, it also finds multiple missing elements.
a = [1,2,3,4,5,8,9,10]
missing_element = []
for i in range(a[0], a[-1]+1):
if i not in a:
missing_element.append(i)
print missing_element
o/p:
[6,7]
Here is the simple logic for finding mising numbers in list.
l=[-10,-5,2,4,5,9,20]
s=l[0]
e=l[-1]
x=sorted(range(s,e+1))
l_1=[]
for i in x:
if i not in l:
l_1.append(i)
print(l_1)
def findAllMissingNumbers(a):
b = sorted(a)
return list(set(range(b[0], b[-1])) - set(b))
L=[-5,1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10,13,55]
missing=[]
for i in range(L[0],L[-1]):
if i not in L:
missing.append(i)
print(missing)
A simple list comprehension approach that will work with multiple (non-consecutive) missing numbers.
def find_missing(lst):
"""Create list of integers missing from lst."""
return [lst[x] + 1 for x in range(len(lst) - 1)
if lst[x] + 1 != lst[x + 1]]
There is a perfectly working solution by #Abhiji. I would like to extent his answer by the option to define a granularity value. This might be necessary if the list should be checked for a missing value > 1:
from itertools import imap, chain
from operator import sub
granularity = 3600
data = [3600, 10800, 14400]
print list(
chain.from_iterable(
(data[i] + d for d in xrange(1, diff) if d % granularity == 0)
for i, diff in enumerate(imap(sub, data[1:], data))
if diff > granularity
)
)
The code above would produce the following output: [7200].
As this code snipped uses a lot of nested functions, I'd further like to provide a quick back reference, that helped me to understand the code:
Python enumerate()
Python imap()
Python chain.from_iterable()
Less efficient for very large lists, but here's my version for the Sum formula:
def missing_number_sum(arr):
return int((arr[-1]+1) * arr[-1]/2) - sum(arr)
If the range is known and the list is given, the below approach will work.
a=[1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10]
missingValues = [i for i in range(1, 10+1) if i not in a]
print(missingValues)
# o/p: [6]
set(range(1,a[-1])) | set(a)
Compute the union of two sets.
I used index position.
this way i compare index and value.
a=[0,1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10]
for i in a:
print i==a.index(i)
I am trying to write a program in Python, but I am stuck in this piece of code:
def function():
a=[3,4,5,2,4]
b=1
c=0
for x in range(5):
if a[x-1]>b:
c=c+1
return c
print(function())
It gives me value 1 instead of 5. Actually the function I am trying to write is a little bit more complicated, but the problem is actually the same, it doesn't give me the right result.
def result():
r=[0]*len(y)
a=2
b=an_integer
while b>0:
for x in range(len(y)) :
if y[x-1] > 1/a and b>0:
r[x-1]=r[x-1]+1
b=b-1
a=a+1
return r
print(result())
v is a list of values smaller than 1 and b has an integer as value. If some values x in v are bigger than 1/a then the values x in r should get 1 bigger, then it should repeat a=a+1 until b becomes 0. I want this function to give a result of the type for ex. [7,6,5,4,3] where the sum of the elements in this list is equal to b.
Sometimes it gives me the right value, sometimes not and when the elements in v are equal for example v=[0.33333,0.33333,0.33333] it gets stuck and doesn't give me a result.
I don't know what I am doing wrong !
Your return statements are incorrectly indented. You want to return after the loop ends, not inside the loop.
def function():
a = [3, 4, 5, 2, 4]
b = 1
c = 0
for x in range(5):
if a[x-1] > b:
c = c + 1
return c
Also, a couple of optimizations to the code:
def function(a, b):
c = 0
for x in a:
if x > b:
c += 1
return c
or further:
def function(a, b):
return sum(x > b for x in a)
return; only inside the fun in the end it.
and name the Variable v
I know there is nothing wrong with writing with proper function structure, but I would like to know how can I find nth fibonacci number with most Pythonic way with a one-line.
I wrote that code, but It didn't seem to me best way:
>>> fib = lambda n:reduce(lambda x, y: (x[0]+x[1], x[0]), [(1,1)]*(n-2))[0]
>>> fib(8)
13
How could it be better and simplier?
fib = lambda n:reduce(lambda x,n:[x[1],x[0]+x[1]], range(n),[0,1])[0]
(this maintains a tuple mapped from [a,b] to [b,a+b], initialized to [0,1], iterated N times, then takes the first tuple element)
>>> fib(1000)
43466557686937456435688527675040625802564660517371780402481729089536555417949051
89040387984007925516929592259308032263477520968962323987332247116164299644090653
3187938298969649928516003704476137795166849228875L
(note that in this numbering, fib(0) = 0, fib(1) = 1, fib(2) = 1, fib(3) = 2, etc.)
(also note: reduce is a builtin in Python 2.7 but not in Python 3; you'd need to execute from functools import reduce in Python 3.)
A rarely seen trick is that a lambda function can refer to itself recursively:
fib = lambda n: n if n < 2 else fib(n-1) + fib(n-2)
By the way, it's rarely seen because it's confusing, and in this case it is also inefficient. It's much better to write it on multiple lines:
def fibs():
a = 0
b = 1
while True:
yield a
a, b = b, a + b
I recently learned about using matrix multiplication to generate Fibonacci numbers, which was pretty cool. You take a base matrix:
[1, 1]
[1, 0]
and multiply it by itself N times to get:
[F(N+1), F(N)]
[F(N), F(N-1)]
This morning, doodling in the steam on the shower wall, I realized that you could cut the running time in half by starting with the second matrix, and multiplying it by itself N/2 times, then using N to pick an index from the first row/column.
With a little squeezing, I got it down to one line:
import numpy
def mm_fib(n):
return (numpy.matrix([[2,1],[1,1]])**(n//2))[0,(n+1)%2]
>>> [mm_fib(i) for i in range(20)]
[0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610, 987, 1597, 2584, 4181]
This is a closed expression for the Fibonacci series that uses integer arithmetic, and is quite efficient.
fib = lambda n:pow(2<<n,n+1,(4<<2*n)-(2<<n)-1)%(2<<n)
>> fib(1000)
4346655768693745643568852767504062580256466051737178
0402481729089536555417949051890403879840079255169295
9225930803226347752096896232398733224711616429964409
06533187938298969649928516003704476137795166849228875L
It computes the result in O(log n) arithmetic operations, each acting on integers with O(n) bits. Given that the result (the nth Fibonacci number) is O(n) bits, the method is quite reasonable.
It's based on genefib4 from http://fare.tunes.org/files/fun/fibonacci.lisp , which in turn was based on an a less efficient closed-form integer expression of mine (see: http://paulhankin.github.io/Fibonacci/)
If we consider the "most Pythonic way" to be elegant and effective then:
def fib(nr):
return int(((1 + math.sqrt(5)) / 2) ** nr / math.sqrt(5) + 0.5)
wins hands down. Why use a inefficient algorithm (and if you start using memoization we can forget about the oneliner) when you can solve the problem just fine in O(1) by approximation the result with the golden ratio? Though in reality I'd obviously write it in this form:
def fib(nr):
ratio = (1 + math.sqrt(5)) / 2
return int(ratio ** nr / math.sqrt(5) + 0.5)
More efficient and much easier to understand.
This is a non-recursive (anonymous) memoizing one liner
fib = lambda x,y=[1,1]:([(y.append(y[-1]+y[-2]),y[-1])[1] for i in range(1+x-len(y))],y[x])[1]
fib = lambda n, x=0, y=1 : x if not n else fib(n-1, y, x+y)
run time O(n), fib(0) = 0, fib(1) = 1, fib(2) = 1 ...
I'm Python newcomer, but did some measure for learning purposes. I've collected some fibo algorithm and took some measure.
from datetime import datetime
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from functools import wraps
from functools import reduce
from functools import lru_cache
import numpy
def time_it(f):
#wraps(f)
def wrapper(*args, **kwargs):
start_time = datetime.now()
f(*args, **kwargs)
end_time = datetime.now()
elapsed = end_time - start_time
elapsed = elapsed.microseconds
return elapsed
return wrapper
#time_it
def fibslow(n):
if n <= 1:
return n
else:
return fibslow(n-1) + fibslow(n-2)
#time_it
#lru_cache(maxsize=10)
def fibslow_2(n):
if n <= 1:
return n
else:
return fibslow_2(n-1) + fibslow_2(n-2)
#time_it
def fibfast(n):
if n <= 1:
return n
a, b = 0, 1
for i in range(1, n+1):
a, b = b, a + b
return a
#time_it
def fib_reduce(n):
return reduce(lambda x, n: [x[1], x[0]+x[1]], range(n), [0, 1])[0]
#time_it
def mm_fib(n):
return (numpy.matrix([[2, 1], [1, 1]])**(n//2))[0, (n+1) % 2]
#time_it
def fib_ia(n):
return pow(2 << n, n+1, (4 << 2 * n) - (2 << n)-1) % (2 << n)
if __name__ == '__main__':
X = range(1, 200)
# fibslow_times = [fibslow(i) for i in X]
fibslow_2_times = [fibslow_2(i) for i in X]
fibfast_times = [fibfast(i) for i in X]
fib_reduce_times = [fib_reduce(i) for i in X]
fib_mm_times = [mm_fib(i) for i in X]
fib_ia_times = [fib_ia(i) for i in X]
# print(fibslow_times)
# print(fibfast_times)
# print(fib_reduce_times)
plt.figure()
# plt.plot(X, fibslow_times, label='Slow Fib')
plt.plot(X, fibslow_2_times, label='Slow Fib w cache')
plt.plot(X, fibfast_times, label='Fast Fib')
plt.plot(X, fib_reduce_times, label='Reduce Fib')
plt.plot(X, fib_mm_times, label='Numpy Fib')
plt.plot(X, fib_ia_times, label='Fib ia')
plt.xlabel('n')
plt.ylabel('time (microseconds)')
plt.legend()
plt.show()
The result is usually the same.
Fiboslow_2 with recursion and cache, Fib integer arithmetic and Fibfast algorithms seems the best ones. Maybe my decorator not the best thing to measure performance, but for an overview it seemed good.
Another example, taking the cue from Mark Byers's answer:
fib = lambda n,a=0,b=1: a if n<=0 else fib(n-1,b,a+b)
I wanted to see if I could create an entire sequence, not just the final value.
The following will generate a list of length 100. It excludes the leading [0, 1] and works for both Python2 and Python3. No other lines besides the one!
(lambda i, x=[0,1]: [(x.append(x[y+1]+x[y]), x[y+1]+x[y])[1] for y in range(i)])(100)
Output
[1,
2,
3,
...
218922995834555169026,
354224848179261915075,
573147844013817084101]
Here's an implementation that doesn't use recursion, and only memoizes the last two values instead of the whole sequence history.
nthfib() below is the direct solution to the original problem (as long as imports are allowed)
It's less elegant than using the Reduce methods above, but, although slightly different that what was asked for, it gains the ability to to be used more efficiently as an infinite generator if one needs to output the sequence up to the nth number as well (re-writing slightly as fibgen() below).
from itertools import imap, islice, repeat
nthfib = lambda n: next(islice((lambda x=[0, 1]: imap((lambda x: (lambda setx=x.__setitem__, x0_temp=x[0]: (x[1], setx(0, x[1]), setx(1, x0_temp+x[1]))[0])()), repeat(x)))(), n-1, None))
>>> nthfib(1000)
43466557686937456435688527675040625802564660517371780402481729089536555417949051
89040387984007925516929592259308032263477520968962323987332247116164299644090653
3187938298969649928516003704476137795166849228875L
from itertools import imap, islice, repeat
fibgen = lambda:(lambda x=[0,1]: imap((lambda x: (lambda setx=x.__setitem__, x0_temp=x[0]: (x[1], setx(0, x[1]), setx(1, x0_temp+x[1]))[0])()), repeat(x)))()
>>> list(islice(fibgen(),12))
[1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144]
def fib(n):
x =[0,1]
for i in range(n):
x=[x[1],x[0]+x[1]]
return x[0]
take the cue from Jason S, i think my version have a better understanding.
Starting Python 3.8, and the introduction of assignment expressions (PEP 572) (:= operator), we can use and update a variable within a list comprehension:
fib = lambda n,x=(0,1):[x := (x[1], sum(x)) for i in range(n+1)][-1][0]
This:
Initiates the duo n-1 and n-2 as a tuple x=(0, 1)
As part of a list comprehension looping n times, x is updated via an assignment expression (x := (x[1], sum(x))) to the new n-1 and n-2 values
Finally, we return from the last iteration, the first part of the x
To solve this problem I got inspired by a similar question here in Stackoverflow Single Statement Fibonacci, and I got this single line function that can output a list of fibonacci sequence. Though, this is a Python 2 script, not tested on Python 3:
(lambda n, fib=[0,1]: fib[:n]+[fib.append(fib[-1] + fib[-2]) or fib[-1] for i in range(n-len(fib))])(10)
assign this lambda function to a variable to reuse it:
fib = (lambda n, fib=[0,1]: fib[:n]+[fib.append(fib[-1] + fib[-2]) or fib[-1] for i in range(n-len(fib))])
fib(10)
output is a list of fibonacci sequence:
[0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34]
I don't know if this is the most pythonic method but this is the best i could come up with:->
Fibonacci = lambda x,y=[1,1]:[1]*x if (x<2) else ([y.append(y[q-1] + y[q-2]) for q in range(2,x)],y)[1]
The above code doesn't use recursion, just a list to store the values.
My 2 cents
# One Liner
def nthfibonacci(n):
return long(((((1+5**.5)/2)**n)-(((1-5**.5)/2)**n))/5**.5)
OR
# Steps
def nthfibonacci(nth):
sq5 = 5**.5
phi1 = (1+sq5)/2
phi2 = -1 * (phi1 -1)
n1 = phi1**(nth+1)
n2 = phi2**(nth+1)
return long((n1 - n2)/sq5)
Why not use a list comprehension?
from math import sqrt, floor
[floor(((1+sqrt(5))**n-(1-sqrt(5))**n)/(2**n*sqrt(5))) for n in range(100)]
Without math imports, but less pretty:
[int(((1+(5**0.5))**n-(1-(5**0.5))**n)/(2**n*(5**0.5))) for n in range(100)]
import math
sqrt_five = math.sqrt(5)
phi = (1 + sqrt_five) / 2
fib = lambda n : int(round(pow(phi, n) / sqrt_five))
print([fib(i) for i in range(1, 26)])
single line lambda fibonacci but with some extra variables
Similar:
def fibonacci(n):
f=[1]+[0]
for i in range(n):
f=[sum(f)] + f[:-1]
print f[1]
A simple Fibonacci number generator using recursion
fib = lambda x: 1-x if x < 2 else fib(x-1)+fib(x-2)
print fib(100)
This takes forever to calculate fib(100) in my computer.
There is also closed form of Fibonacci numbers.
fib = lambda n: int(1/sqrt(5)*((1+sqrt(5))**n-(1-sqrt(5))**n)/2**n)
print fib(50)
This works nearly up to 72 numbers due to precision problem.
Lambda with logical operators
fibonacci_oneline = lambda n = 10, out = []: [ out.append(i) or i if i <= 1 else out.append(out[-1] + out[-2]) or out[-1] for i in range(n)]
here is how i do it ,however the function returns None for the list comprehension line part to allow me to insert a loop inside ..
so basically what it does is appending new elements of the fib seq inside of a list which is over two elements
>>f=lambda list,x :print('The list must be of 2 or more') if len(list)<2 else [list.append(list[-1]+list[-2]) for i in range(x)]
>>a=[1,2]
>>f(a,7)
You can generate once a list with some values and use as needed:
fib_fix = []
fib = lambda x: 1 if x <=2 else fib_fix[x-3] if x-2 <= len(fib_fix) else (fib_fix.append(fib(x-2) + fib(x-1)) or fib_fix[-1])
fib_x = lambda x: [fib(n) for n in range(1,x+1)]
fib_100 = fib_x(100)
than for example:
a = fib_fix[76]