My task is to create a recursive function in Python that takes a list and a value of 0 as its inputs and then adds up all of the odd numbers on the list and returns that value. Below is the code that I have and it keeps returning that the list index is out of range. No matter what I do I can not get it to work.
def addodds2(x,y):
total=0
a=x[y]
while y<len(x):
if a%2!=0:
total+=a
return(addodds2(x,y+1))
else:
return(addodds2(x,y+1))
return(total)
print(addodds2([3,2,4,7,2,4,1,3,2],0))
Since you are trying to solve this recursively, I don't think you want that while loop.
When you are trying to solve a problem recursively, you need two parts: you need a part that does some of the work, and you need a part that handles reaching the end of the work. This is the "basis case".
Often when solving problems like this, if you have a zero-length list you hit the basis case immediately. What should be the result for a zero-length list? I'd say 0.
So, here's the basic outline of a function to add together all the numbers in a list:
Check the length, and if you are already at the end or after the end, return 0. Otherwise, return the current item added to a recursive call (with the index value incremented).
Get that working, and then modify it so it only adds the odd values.
P.S. This seems like homework, so I didn't want to just give you the code. It's easier to remember this stuff if you actually figure it out yourself. Good luck!
Your code should be (the comments explain my corrections):
def addodds2(x,y):
total=0
if y<len(x): #you don't need a while there
a=x[y] #you have to do this operation if y<len(x), otherwise you would get the index error you are getting
if a%2!=0:
total+=a
return total+addodds2(x,y+1) #you have to sum the current total to the result returned by the addodds2() function (otherwise you would got 0 as the final result)
return total
print(addodds2([3,2,4,7,2,4,1,3,2],0))
while y<len(x)
So the last y which is smaller than len(x) is y = len(x) - 1, so it’s the very last item of the list.
addodds2(x,y+1)
Then you try to access the element after that item, which does not exist, so you get the IndexError.
This code can be very short and elegant:
def add_odds(lst, i=0):
try:
return (lst[i] if lst[i] % 2 == 0 else 0) + add_odds(lst, i+1)
except IndexError:
return 0
Note that, in a truly functional style, you wouldn't keep track of an index either. In Python, it would be rather inefficient, though, but recursion isn't recommended in Python anyway.
def add_odds2(lst):
try:
return (lst[-1] if lst[-1] % 2 == 0 else 0) + add_odds2(lst[:-1])
except IndexError:
return 0
To make it work with any kind of sequence, you can do the following:
def add_odds3(it):
it = iter(it)
try:
value = next(it)
return (value if value % 2 == 0 else 0) + add_odds3(it)
except StopIteration:
return 0
It's much more efficient, though there's not much sense in using an iterator recursively...
I realize that little of this is relevant for your (educational) purposes, but I just wanted to show (all of) you some nice Python. :)
Related
You are given an array of integers. You should find the sum of the integers with even indexes (0th, 2nd, 4th...). Then multiply this summed number and the final element of the array together. Don't forget that the first element has an index of 0.
For an empty array, the result will always be 0 (zero).
Input: A list of integers.
Output: The number as an integer.
Precondition: 0 ≤ len(array) ≤ 20
all(isinstance(x, int) for x in array)
all(-100 < x < 100 for x in array
result = 0
if array:
for element in array:
i = array.index(element)
if i%2 == 0:
result += element
else:
pass
else:
return 0
return result
Last_digit = array[-1]
final_result = result*Last_digit
return final_result
print(final_result)```
I've figured out the problem, that you've shared the array you're having problem with. Since you have this array :
[-37,-36,-19,-99,29,20,3,-7,-64,84,36,62,26,-76,55,-24,84,49,-65,41]
If you notice here, 84 appears twice, first at index 9 and then 16. The method you're using to get index of elements, .index returns the index of the first instance the element is found in the list.Therefore for the value of 84, the index is taken as 9 and not 16 which is an odd value, this does not add 84 to your sum. You should rather use enumerate for your code:
for idx, element in enumerate(array):
if idx %2 == 0:
result += element
First, I recommend reading the stackexchange guides on posting a well-formed question. You need to state what your goal is, what you've tried, what errors get thrown, and what the output should look like -- along with code examples and a minimal reproducible example as needed.
However, I'll help you out anyway.
You have a dangling return at line 11:
else:
return 0
return result
This makes no sense, as you've already returned 0. This is also apparently a snippet from a function, no? Post the whole function. But based on the instructions, you could try this:
import random
array = random.sample(range(-100, 100), 20)
def etl_func(arr):
arrsum = 0
for i, val in enumerate(arr):
if i%2 == 0: arrsum += val
return (arrsum * arr[-1])
answer = etl_func(array)
print(answer)
Note that importing random and using array = random.sample(range(-100, 100), 20) are not necessary if you're already GIVEN an array to work with. They're included here just as an example.
Also note that it's unnecessary to use an else: pass. If the condition evaluates to true (i.e. i%2 == 0), the if block will be executed. If i%2 != 0, the loop will short circuit automatically and move to the next iteration. Adding else: pass is like telling someone sitting in your chair to sit in your chair. You're telling the program to do what it's already going to do anyway. There's nothing necessarily wrong with including the else: pass, if it really want to... but it's just adding lines of meaningless code, which nobody wants to deal with.
EDIT: I don't know whether you were supposed to write a function or just some code (back to the "ask a well-formed question" issue...), so I went with a function. It should be trivial to turn the function into just plain code -- but you want to get into the habit of writing good functions for reusability and modularity. Makes everything run more smoothly and elegantly, and makes troubleshooting much easier.
This function also works for the array mentioned in the comments to your original post.
In addition, if you need a direct replacement for your code (rather than a function... I'm not familiar with checkio or how your answers are supposed to be formatted), and you already have the array of integers stored in the variable array, try this:
arrsum = 0
for i, val in enumerate(array):
if i%2 == 0: arrsum += val
print(arrsum * array[-1])
Since your question didn't say anything about using or defining functions, return statements shouldn't appear anywhere. There's nothing to return unless you're writing a function.
A little background: I've been trying to code a "Sieve of Eratosthenes" algorithm. At the request of some fine (and very patient) programmers on the StackOverflow Python chatroom, I did some reading on the enumerate() function and found a way to incorporate it into my code (yes, I'm very much a novice here). So far, my (workable; returns expected response) code looks like this:
def SieveErat(n):
numbers = [False]*2+[True]*(n-1)
for index, prime_candidate in enumerate(numbers):
if prime_candidate == True:
yield index
for x in xrange(index*index, n, index):
numbers[x] = False
primes = []
for x in SieveErat(150000):
primes.append(x)
print primes[10002]
Needless to say, the enumerate() function makes coding this much, much less awkward than whatever nested loops I had before. However, I fear that I'm not understanding something about enumerate(), because when I tried to shorten this code by including the appending into the function, I kept getting errors- namely,
File "SievErat.py", line 13
return numbers
SyntaxError: 'return' with argument inside generator
I've also tried appending all the True elements inside the list numbers to a initialized list primes, but found no luck.
Any hints or advice would be very much welcomed.
This has nothing to do with enumerate you are trying to return something in a generator which before python 3.3 is illegal, and from 3.3+ it means something entirely different.
I'd recommend you leave your function a generator if you may use it without needing a list back, and if you want list results then just call list() on the return value:
primes = list(SieveErat(150000)) #this replaces loop with .append
But to understand what went wrong, if your function still has the yield statement in it then it must return a generator object, if you don't want it to return a generator object then remove the yield statement all together:
def SieveErat(n):
numbers = [False]*2+[True]*(n-1)
for index, prime_candidate in enumerate(numbers):
if prime_candidate == True:
#yield index #no yield statement if you want to return the numbers list
for x in xrange(index*index, n, index):
numbers[x] = False
return numbers #return at end
However this would then return a list of True and False instead of the numbers that are True, you can instead hold a separate list with all the prime numbers and .append to it everytime you would yield something:
def SieveErat(n):
numbers = [False]*2+[True]*(n-1)
result = [] #start with no results
for index, prime_candidate in enumerate(numbers):
if prime_candidate == True:
results.append(index) #instead of yield index
for x in xrange(index*index, n, index):
numbers[x] = False
return results
But this feels like a step backwards from a generator, personally I'd just keep what you have posted and cast the result to a list.
Please tell me why this sort function for Python isnt working :)
def sort(list):
if len(list)==0:
return list
elif len(list)==1:
return list
else:
for b in range(1,len(list)):
if list[b-1]>list[b]:
print (list[b-1])
hold = list[b-1]
list[b-1]=list[b]
list[b] = hold
a = [1,2,13,131,1,3,4]
print (sort(a))
It looks like you're attempting to implement a neighbor-sort algorithm. You need to repeat the loop N times. Since you only loop through the array once, you end up with the largest element being in its place (i.e., in the last index), but the rest is left unsorted.
You could debug your algorithm on your own, using pdb.
Or, you could use python's built-in sorting.
Lets take a look at you code. Sort is a built in Python function (at least I believe it is the same for both 2.7 and 3.X) So when you are making your own functions try to stay away from name that function with inbuilt functions unless you are going to override them (Which is a whole different topic.) This idea also applies to the parameter that you used. list is a type in the python language AKA you will not be able to use that variable name. Now for some work on your code after you change all the variables and etc...
When you are going through your function you only will swap is the 2 selected elements are next to each other when needed. This will not work with all list combinations. You have to be able to check that the current i that you are at is in the correct place. So if the end element is the lowest in the List then you have to have it swap all the way to the front of the list. There are many ways of sorting (ie. Quick sort, MergeSort,Bubble Sort) and this isnt the best way... :) Here is some help:
def sortThis(L):
if (len(L) == 0 or len(L) == 1):
return list
else:
for i in range(len(L)):
value = L[i]
j = i - 1
while (j >= 0) and (L[j] > value):
L[j+1] = L[j]
j -= 1
L[j+1] = value
a = [1,2,13,131,1,3,4]
sortThis(a)
print a
Take a look at this for more sorting Fun: QuickSort MergeSort
If it works, it would be the best sorting algotithm in the world (O(n)). Your algorithm only puts the greatest element at the end of the list. you have to apply recursively your function to list[:-1].
You should not use python reserved words
I am trying to write a recursive function that does a Boolean check if a list is sorted. return true if list is sorted and false if not sorted. So far I am trying to understand if I have the 'base case' correct (ie, my first 'if' statement):
def isSorted(L, i=[]):
if L[i] > L[i + 1]:
return false
else:
return true
Am I correct with my initial if "L[i] > L[i + 1]:" as base case for recursion?
Assuming my 'base case' is correct I am not sure how to recursively determine if the list is sorted in non-descending order.
here is what I came up with. I designate the default list to 0; first check to see if first item is the last item. if not, should check each item until it reaches the end of the list.
def isSorted(L):
# Base case
if len(L) == 1:
return True
return L[0] <= L[1] and isSorted(L[1:])
This is how I would start. Write a function with the following signature:
function isSorted(currentIndex, collection)
Inside the function, check to see if currentIndex is at the end of the collection. If it is, return true.
Next, check to see if collection[index] and collection[index+1] are sorted correctly.
If they aren't, return false
If they are, return isSorted(currentIndex+1, collection)
Warning: this is a horrible use for recursion
No, the base case will be when you reach the end of the list, in which case you return true.
Otherwise, if the two elements you are looking at are out of order return false.
Otherwise, return the result of a recursive call on the next elements down the list.
I agree with #MStodd: recursion is not the way to solve this problem in Python. For a very long list, Python may overflow its stack! But for short lists it should be okay, and if your teacher gave you this problem, you need to do it this way.
Here is how you should think about this problem. Each recursive call you should do one of three things: 0) return False because you have found that the list is not sorted; 1) return True because you have reached your base case; 2) break the work down and make the remaining problem smaller somehow, until you reach your base case. The base case is the case where the work cannot be broken down any further.
Here is a broad outline:
def recursive_check(lst, i):
# check at the current position "i" in list
# if check at current position fails, return False
# update current position i
# if i is at the end of the string, and we cannot move it any more, we are done checking; return true
# else, if i is not at the end of the string yet, return the value returned by a recursive call to this function
For example, here is a function that checks to see if there is a character '#' in the string. It should return True if there is no # anywhere in the string.
def at_check(s, i):
if s[i] == '#':
return False
i += 1
if i >= len(s):
return True
else:
return at_check(s, i)
I wrote the above exactly like the outline I gave above. Here is a slightly shorter version that does the same things, but not in exactly the same order.
def at_check(s, i=0):
if i >= len(s):
return True
if s[i] == '#':
return False
return at_check(s, i+1)
EDIT: notice that I put i=0 in the arguments to at_check(). This means that the "default" value of i will be 0. The person calling this function can just call at_check(some_string) and not explicitly pass in a 0 for the first call; the default argument will provide that first 0 argument.
The only time we really need to add one to i is when we are recursively calling the function. The part where we add 1 is the important "breaking down the work" part. The part of the string we haven't checked yet is the part after i, and that part gets smaller with each call. I don't know if you have learned about "slicing" yet, but we could use "slicing" to actually make the string get smaller and smaller with each call. Here is a version that works that way; ignore it if you don't know slicing yet.
def at_check(s):
if s == '': # empty string
return True
if s[-1] == '#': # is last character '#'?
return False
return at_check(s[:-1]) # recursive call with string shortened by 1
In this version, an empty string is the basis case. An empty string does not contain #, so we return True. Then if the last character is # we can return False; but otherwise we chop off the last character and recursively call the function. Here, we break the work down by literally making the string get shorter and shorter until we are done. But adding 1 to the index variable, and moving the index through the string, would be the same thing.
Study these examples, until you get the idea of using recursion to break down the work and make some progress on each recursive call. Then see if you can figure out how to apply this idea to the problem of finding whether a list is sorted.
Good luck!
So I'm trying to learn python on my own, and am doing coding puzzles. I came across one that pretty much ask for the best position to stand in line to win a contest. The person running the contest gets rid of people standing in odd number positions.
So for example if 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
It would get rid of the odd positions leaving 2, 4
Would get rid of the remaining odd positions leaving 4 as the winner.
When I'm debugging the code seems to be working, but it's returning [1,2,3,4,5] instead of the expected [4]
Here is my code:
def findWinner(contestants):
if (len(contestants) != 1):
remainingContestants = []
for i, contestant in enumerate(contestants, 1):
if (isEven(i)):
remainingContestants.append(contestant)
findWinner(remainingContestants)
return contestants
Am I not seeing a logic error or is there something else that I'm not seeing?
You must return the value from the recurse function to the caller function:
return findWinner(remainingContestants)
else you would return just the original value without any changes.
def findWinner(contestants):
if (len(contestants) != 1):
remainingContestants = []
for i, contestant in enumerate(contestants, 1):
if (isEven(i)):
remainingContestants.append(contestant)
return findWinner(remainingContestants) # here the value must be return
return contestants # without the return above, it will just return this value(original)
How about this:
def findWinner(contestants):
return [contestants[2**int(math.log(len(contestants),2))-1]]
I know its not what the questions really about but I had to =P. I cant just look at all that work for finding the greatest power of 2 less than contestants and not point it out.
or if you don't like the 'artificial' solution and would like to actually perform the process:
def findWinner2(c):
while len(c) > 1:
c = [obj for index, obj in enumerate(c, 1) if index % 2 == 0] #or c = c[1::2] thanks desfido
return c
you shold use
return findWinner(remaingContestants)
otherwise, of course, your list will never be updated and so your func is gonna always return containts
however, see the PEP8 for style guide on python code: http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/
the func isEven is probably an overkill...just write
if not num % 2
finally, recursion in python isn't recommended; make something like
def find_winner(alist):
while len(alist) > 1:
to_get_rid = []
for pos, obj in enumerate(alist, 1):
if pos % 2:
to_get_rid.append(obj)
alist = [x for x in alist if not (x in to_get_rid)]
return alist
Is there a reason you're iterating over the list instead of using a slice? Doesn't seem very python-y to not use them to me.
Additionally, you might want to do something sensible in the case of an empty list. You'll currently go into an infinite loop.
I'd write your function as
def findWinner(contestants):
if not contestants:
raise Exception
if len(contestants)==1:
return contestants[0]
return findWinner(contestants[1::2])
(much as #jon_darkstar's point, this is a bit tangential to the question you are explicitly asking, but still a good practice to engage in over what you're doing)
You are missing a return at the line where you call "findWinner"