Develop Reference

Permutations without itertools for two values (using recursion!)

Stackoverflow, I am once again asking for your help.
I'm aware there are other threads about this but I'll explain what makes my assignment different.
Basically my function would get a list of 0s and 1s, and return all the possible orders for the string. For example for "0111" we will get "0111", "1011", "1101", "1110".
Here's my code:
def permutations(string):
if len(string) == 1:
return [string]
lst = []
for j in range(len(string)):
remaining_elements = ''.join([string[i] for i in range(len(string)) if i != j])
mini_perm = permutations(remaining_elements)
for perm in mini_perm:
new_str = string[j] + perm
if new_str not in lst:
lst.append(new_str)
return lst
The problem is when I run a string like "000000000011" it takes a very long time to process. There is supposed to be a more efficient way to do it because it's just two numbers. So I shouldn't be using the indexes?
Please help me if you can figure out a more efficient say to do this.
(I am allowed to use loops just have to use recursion as well!)

Here is an example for creating permutations with recursion that is more efficient:
def permute(string):
string = list(string)
n = len(string)
# Base conditions
# If length is 0 or 1, there is only 1 permutation
if n in [0, 1]:
return [string]
# If length is 2, then there are only two permutations
# Example: [1,2] and [2,1]
if n == 2:
return [string, string[::-1]]
res = []
# For every number in array, choose 1 number and permute the remaining
# by calling permute recursively
for i in range(n):
permutations = permute(string[:i] + string[i+1:])
for p in permutations:
res.append([''.join(str(n) for n in [string[i]] + p)])
return res
This should also work for permute('000000000011') - hope it helps!

You can also use collections.Counter with a recursive generator function:
from collections import Counter
def permute(d):
counts = Counter(d)
def get_permuations(c, s = []):
if len(s) == sum(counts.values()):
yield ''.join(s)
else:
for a, b in c.items():
for i in range(1, b+1):
yield from get_permuations({**c, a:b - i}, s+([a]*i))
return list(set(get_permuations(counts)))
print(permute("0111"))
print(permute("000000000011"))
Output:
['0111', '1110', '1101', '1011']
['010000100000', '100000000001', '010000001000', '000000100001', '011000000000', '100000000010', '001001000000', '000000011000', '100000001000', '100000100000', '100001000000', '001000100000', '100010000000', '000000001100', '000100000100', '010010000000', '000000000011', '000000100010', '101000000000', '110000000000', '100000010000', '000100001000', '000001001000', '000000000101', '000000100100', '010000000001', '001000000100', '001000000010', '000110000000', '000011000000', '000001100000', '000000110000', '001000000001', '000010001000', '000100100000', '000001000001', '000010000001', '001100000000', '000100000001', '001000001000', '010000000100', '010000010000', '000000010001', '001000010000', '010001000000', '100000000100', '100100000000', '000000001001', '010100000000', '000010100000', '010000000010', '000000001010', '000010000100', '001010000000', '000000010010', '000001000010', '000100000010', '000101000000', '000000010100', '000100010000', '000000000110', '000001000100', '000010010000', '000000101000', '000001010000', '000010000010']

posting an answer someone gave me. Thanks for your responses!:
def permutations(zeroes, ones, lst, perm):
if zeroes == 0 and ones == 0:
lst.append(perm)
return
elif zeroes < 0 or ones < 0:
return
permutations(zeroes - 1, ones, lst, perm + '0')
permutations(zeroes, ones - 1, lst, perm + '1')

Is there a way to check if a list is a sublist of another list? [duplicate]

I want to write a function that determines if a sublist exists in a larger list.
list1 = [1,0,1,1,1,0,0]
list2 = [1,0,1,0,1,0,1]
#Should return true
sublistExists(list1, [1,1,1])
#Should return false
sublistExists(list2, [1,1,1])
Is there a Python function that can do this?

Let's get a bit functional, shall we? :)
def contains_sublist(lst, sublst):
n = len(sublst)
return any((sublst == lst[i:i+n]) for i in xrange(len(lst)-n+1))
Note that any() will stop on first match of sublst within lst - or fail if there is no match, after O(m*n) ops

If you are sure that your inputs will only contain the single digits 0 and 1 then you can convert to strings:
def sublistExists(list1, list2):
return ''.join(map(str, list2)) in ''.join(map(str, list1))
This creates two strings so it is not the most efficient solution but since it takes advantage of the optimized string searching algorithm in Python it's probably good enough for most purposes.
If efficiency is very important you can look at the Boyer-Moore string searching algorithm, adapted to work on lists.
A naive search has O(n*m) worst case but can be suitable if you cannot use the converting to string trick and you don't need to worry about performance.

No function that I know of
def sublistExists(list, sublist):
for i in range(len(list)-len(sublist)+1):
if sublist == list[i:i+len(sublist)]:
return True #return position (i) if you wish
return False #or -1
As Mark noted, this is not the most efficient search (it's O(n*m)). This problem can be approached in much the same way as string searching.

My favourite simple solution is following (however, its brutal-force, so i dont recommend it on huge data):
>>> l1 = ['z','a','b','c']
>>> l2 = ['a','b']
>>>any(l1[i:i+len(l2)] == l2 for i in range(len(l1)))
True
This code above actually creates all possible slices of l1 with length of l2, and sequentially compares them with l2.
Detailed explanation
Read this explanation only if you dont understand how it works (and you want to know it), otherwise there is no need to read it
Firstly, this is how you can iterate over indexes of l1 items:
>>> [i for i in range(len(l1))]
[0, 1, 2, 3]
So, because i is representing index of item in l1, you can use it to show that actuall item, instead of index number:
>>> [l1[i] for i in range(len(l1))]
['z', 'a', 'b', 'c']
Then create slices (something like subselection of items from list) from l1 with length of2:
>>> [l1[i:i+len(l2)] for i in range(len(l1))]
[['z', 'a'], ['a', 'b'], ['b', 'c'], ['c']] #last one is shorter, because there is no next item.
Now you can compare each slice with l2 and you see that second one matched:
>>> [l1[i:i+len(l2)] == l2 for i in range(len(l1))]
[False, True, False, False] #notice that the second one is that matching one
Finally, with function named any, you can check if at least one of booleans is True:
>>> any(l1[i:i+len(l2)] == l2 for i in range(len(l1)))
True

The efficient way to do this is to use the Boyer-Moore algorithm, as Mark Byers suggests. I have done it already here: Boyer-Moore search of a list for a sub-list in Python, but will paste the code here. It's based on the Wikipedia article.
The search() function returns the index of the sub-list being searched for, or -1 on failure.
def search(haystack, needle):
"""
Search list `haystack` for sublist `needle`.
"""
if len(needle) == 0:
return 0
char_table = make_char_table(needle)
offset_table = make_offset_table(needle)
i = len(needle) - 1
while i < len(haystack):
j = len(needle) - 1
while needle[j] == haystack[i]:
if j == 0:
return i
i -= 1
j -= 1
i += max(offset_table[len(needle) - 1 - j], char_table.get(haystack[i]));
return -1
def make_char_table(needle):
"""
Makes the jump table based on the mismatched character information.
"""
table = {}
for i in range(len(needle) - 1):
table[needle[i]] = len(needle) - 1 - i
return table
def make_offset_table(needle):
"""
Makes the jump table based on the scan offset in which mismatch occurs.
"""
table = []
last_prefix_position = len(needle)
for i in reversed(range(len(needle))):
if is_prefix(needle, i + 1):
last_prefix_position = i + 1
table.append(last_prefix_position - i + len(needle) - 1)
for i in range(len(needle) - 1):
slen = suffix_length(needle, i)
table[slen] = len(needle) - 1 - i + slen
return table
def is_prefix(needle, p):
"""
Is needle[p:end] a prefix of needle?
"""
j = 0
for i in range(p, len(needle)):
if needle[i] != needle[j]:
return 0
j += 1
return 1
def suffix_length(needle, p):
"""
Returns the maximum length of the substring ending at p that is a suffix.
"""
length = 0;
j = len(needle) - 1
for i in reversed(range(p + 1)):
if needle[i] == needle[j]:
length += 1
else:
break
j -= 1
return length
Here is the example from the question:
def main():
list1 = [1,0,1,1,1,0,0]
list2 = [1,0,1,0,1,0,1]
index = search(list1, [1, 1, 1])
print(index)
index = search(list2, [1, 1, 1])
print(index)
if __name__ == '__main__':
main()
Output:
2
-1

Here is a way that will work for simple lists that is slightly less fragile than Mark's
def sublistExists(haystack, needle):
def munge(s):
return ", "+format(str(s)[1:-1])+","
return munge(needle) in munge(haystack)

def sublistExists(x, y):
occ = [i for i, a in enumerate(x) if a == y[0]]
for b in occ:
if x[b:b+len(y)] == y:
print 'YES-- SUBLIST at : ', b
return True
if len(occ)-1 == occ.index(b):
print 'NO SUBLIST'
return False
list1 = [1,0,1,1,1,0,0]
list2 = [1,0,1,0,1,0,1]
#should return True
sublistExists(list1, [1,1,1])
#Should return False
sublistExists(list2, [1,1,1])

Might as well throw in a recursive version of #NasBanov's solution
def foo(sub, lst):
'''Checks if sub is in lst.
Expects both arguments to be lists
'''
if len(lst) < len(sub):
return False
return sub == lst[:len(sub)] or foo(sub, lst[1:])

def sublist(l1,l2):
if len(l1) < len(l2):
for i in range(0, len(l1)):
for j in range(0, len(l2)):
if l1[i]==l2[j] and j==i+1:
pass
return True
else:
return False

I know this might not be quite relevant to the original question but it might be very elegant 1 line solution to someone else if the sequence of items in both lists doesn't matter. The result below will show True if List1 elements are in List2 (regardless of order). If the order matters then don't use this solution.
List1 = [10, 20, 30]
List2 = [10, 20, 30, 40]
result = set(List1).intersection(set(List2)) == set(List1)
print(result)
Output
True

if iam understanding this correctly, you have a larger list, like :
list_A= ['john', 'jeff', 'dave', 'shane', 'tim']
then there are other lists
list_B= ['sean', 'bill', 'james']
list_C= ['cole', 'wayne', 'jake', 'moose']
and then i append the lists B and C to list A
list_A.append(list_B)
list_A.append(list_C)
so when i print list_A
print (list_A)
i get the following output
['john', 'jeff', 'dave', 'shane', 'tim', ['sean', 'bill', 'james'], ['cole', 'wayne', 'jake', 'moose']]
now that i want to check if the sublist exists:
for value in list_A:
value= type(value)
value= str(value).strip('<>').split()[1]
if (value == "'list'"):
print "True"
else:
print "False"
this will give you 'True' if you have any sublist inside the larger list.

Any alternate to slice sling of integers?

I am attempting to make a recursive function that adds the two last numbers until there are none left. For example:
sumDigits(239)
would equate to:
2+3+9=14
It is difficult because the input must be an integer, which cannot be sliced without converting it. I decided to try to turn it into a lists because I thought the pop() method would be useful for this. It appears as though this approach is not working. Any suggestions?
EXECUTION:
>>> sumDigits('234')
9
>>> sumDigits('2343436432424')
8
>>>
CODE:
def sumDigits(n):
l1 = list(str(n))
if len(l1) > 1:
a = int(l1.pop())
b = int(l1.pop())
l1.append(str(a+b))
return sumDigits(int(''.join(l1)))
else:
return n

With functional tools like reduce() the problem is solved by
from functools import reduce
def sumDigits(n):
return reduce((lambda x, y: int(x) + int(y)), list(str(n)))

Instead of passing a string you should pass a list of integers:
def sumDigits(l1):
if len(l1) > 1:
a = l1.pop()
b = l1.pop()
l1.append(a+b)
return sumDigits(l1)
else:
return l1[0]
print sumDigits([2,3, 4])
print sumDigits([2, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 6, 4, 3, 2, 4, 2, 4])
The problem with your approach is that:
'23434364324|24|' -> '2343436432|46|' -> '2343436432 | 10',
here now pop will return 0 and 1, instead of 2 and 10 as you would've expected. Hence the wrong output.
Simple solution:
>>> s = '2343436432424'
>>> sum(int(x) for x in s)
44

Since everybody seems intent on solving your homework for you, here's the elegant recursive solution.
def sumDigits(n):
if n < 10:
return n
return n % 10 + sumDigits(n / 10)

EDIT
The simple solution is:
def sumDigits(n):
return sum(int(i) for i in str(n))
Upon your answer of my comment the below solution is not applicable.
def sumDigits(n):
n = [int(i) for i in str(n)]
return sumDigitsRec(n)
def sumDigitsRec(li):
if len(li) > 1:
li[-1] += li.pop()
return sumDigits(''.join(str(i) for i in li))
else:
return li[0]

As strings:
def sumDigits(n):
answer = 0
for num in n:
answer += int(num)
return answer
Without slicing, using only an integer input:
def sumDigits(n):
answer = 0
while n:
answer += n%10
n /= 10
return answer

If I understand your question correctly, you want to stop summing the digits when the sum is a 2 digit number. I think the bug in your program is that you need if len(l1) > 2: not if len(l1) > 1: to make sure you don't recurse when you have just 2 digits.

you can do it recursively in this way:
def sumDigits(n,s=0):
if len(n) == 0:
return s
else:
return sumDigits(n[:-1],s+int(n[-1]))
if you want simpler and pytonic way (not recursive) you can do this
>>> s = 2343436432424
>>> sum(map(int,str(s)))
44

All the solutions provided failed to meet the prereqs which were stated in the problem description. This is the correct answer:
Use **kwargs and exceptions to utilize holding variables in recursion function.
For example:
def recursionFunc(x, **kwargs):
try:
count = kwargs['count']
except:
count = 0
#Code down here to add num from x to count
#remove last index on every iteration from x
#etc
return recursionFunc(x, count = count)

It's working fine, as the following check will show:
>>> 2343436432424 % 9
8
If you didn't mean for it to be called recursively then just don't do so, i.e. stop checking the length and just return the sum.

Find the nth lucky number generated by a sieve in Python

I'm trying to make a program in Python which will generate the nth lucky number according to the lucky number sieve. I'm fairly new to Python so I don't know how to do all that much yet. So far I've figured out how to make a function which determines all lucky numbers below a specified number:
def lucky(number):
l = range(1, number + 1, 2)
i = 1
while i < len(l):
del l[l[i] - 1::l[i]]
i += 1
return l
Is there a way to modify this so that I can instead find the nth lucky number? I thought about increasing the specified number gradually until a list of the appropriate length to find the required lucky number was created, but that seems like a really inefficient way of doing it.
Edit: I came up with this, but is there a better way?
def lucky(number):
f = 2
n = number * f
while True:
l = range(1, n + 1, 2)
i = 1
while i < len(l):
del l[l[i] - 1::l[i]]
i += 1
if len(l) >= number:
return l[number - 1]
f += 1
n = number * f

I came up with this, but is there a better way?
Truth is, there will always be a better way, the remaining question being: is it good enough for your need?
One possible improvement would be to turn all this into a generator function. That way, you would only compute new values as they are consumed. I came up with this version, which I only validated up to about 60 terms:
import itertools
def _idx_after_removal(removed_indices, value):
for removed in removed_indices:
value -= value / removed
return value
def _should_be_excluded(removed_indices, value):
for j in range(len(removed_indices) - 1):
value_idx = _idx_after_removal(removed_indices[:j + 1], value)
if value_idx % removed_indices[j + 1] == 0:
return True
return False
def lucky():
yield 1
removed_indices = [2]
for i in itertools.count(3, 2):
if not _should_be_excluded(removed_indices, i):
yield i
removed_indices.append(i)
removed_indices = list(set(removed_indices))
removed_indices.sort()
If you want to extract for example the 100th term from this generator, you can use itertools nth recipe:
def nth(iterable, n, default=None):
"Returns the nth item or a default value"
return next(itertools.islice(iterable, n, None), default)
print nth(lucky(), 100)
I hope this works, and there's without any doubt more room for code improvement (but as stated previously, there's always room for improvement!).

With numpy arrays, you can make use of boolean indexing, which may help. For example:
>>> a = numpy.arange(10)
>>> print a
[0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9]
>>> print a[a > 3]
[4 5 6 7 8 9]
>>> mask = np.array([True, False, True, False, True, False, True, False, True, False])
>>> print a[mask]
[0 2 4 6 8]
Here is a lucky number function using numpy arrays:
import numpy as np
class Didnt_Findit(Exception):
pass
def lucky(n):
'''Return the nth lucky number.
n --> int
returns int
'''
# initial seed
lucky_numbers = [1]
# how many numbers do you need to get to n?
candidates = np.arange(1, n*100, 2)
# use numpy array boolean indexing
next_lucky = candidates[candidates > lucky_numbers[-1]][0]
# accumulate lucky numbers till you have n of them
while next_lucky < candidates[-1]:
lucky_numbers.append(next_lucky)
#print lucky_numbers
if len(lucky_numbers) == n:
return lucky_numbers[-1]
mask_start = next_lucky - 1
mask_step = next_lucky
mask = np.array([True] * len(candidates))
mask[mask_start::mask_step] = False
#print mask
candidates = candidates[mask]
next_lucky = candidates[ candidates > lucky_numbers[-1]][0]
raise Didnt_Findit('n = ', n)
>>> print lucky(10)
33
>>> print lucky(50)
261
>>> print lucky(500)
3975
Checked mine and #icecrime's output for 10, 50 and 500 - they matched.
Yours is much faster than mine and scales better with n.

n=input('enter n ')
a= list(xrange(1,n))
x=a[1]
for i in range(1,n):
del a[x-1::x]
x=a[i]
l=len(a)
if i==l-1:
break
print "lucky numbers till %d" % n
print a
lets do this with an example.lets print lucky numbers till 100
put n=100
firstly a=1,2,3,4,5....100
x=a[1]=2
del a[1::2] leaves
a=1,3,5,7....99
now l=50
and now x=3
then del a[2::3] leaving a =1,3,7,9,13,15,.....
and loop continues till i==l-1

counting odd numbers in a list python

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))