Related
Let's say I have a vector a = [1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 0, 5, 6, 7, 8, 0, 9, 0] and I want to split it to smaller vectors based on a condition depending on value in that array. E.g. value being zero.
Thus I want to obtain vector of following vectors
[1, 0]
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 0]
[5, 6, 7, 8, 0]
[9, 0]
So far this was working for me as a naive solution, but it loses the type.
function split_by_λ(a::Vector, λ)
b = []
temp = []
for i in a
push!(temp, i)
if λ(i)
push!(b, temp)
temp = []
end
end
b
end
split_by_λ(a, isequal(0))
Then I tried to play with ranges, which feels a bit more idiomatic, and does not lose the type.
function split_by_λ(a::Vector, λ)
idx = findall(λ, a)
ranges = [(:)(i==1 ? 1 : idx[i-1]+1, idx[i]) for i in eachindex(idx)]
map(x->a[x], ranges)
end
split_by_λ(a, isequal(0))
but it still feels very cumbersome regarding it's a rather simple task.
Is there something I'm missing, some easier way?
Maybe someone has a shorter idea but here is mine:
julia> inds = vcat(0,findall(==(0),a),length(a))
julia> getindex.(Ref(a), (:).(inds[1:end-1].+1,inds[2:end]))
5-element Array{Array{Int64,1},1}:
[1, 0]
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 0]
[5, 6, 7, 8, 0]
[9, 0]
[]
Or if you want to avoid copying a
julia> view.(Ref(a), (:).(inds[1:end-1].+1,inds[2:end]))
5-element Array{SubArray{Int64,1,Array{Int64,1},Tuple{UnitRange{Int64}},true},1}:
[1, 0]
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 0]
[5, 6, 7, 8, 0]
[9, 0]
0-element view(::Array{Int64,1}, 16:15) with eltype Int64
Pretty much the same as Przemyslaw's answer, but maybe less cryptic dense:
function split_by(λ, a::Vector)
first, last = firstindex(a), lastindex(a)
splits = [first-1; findall(λ, a); last]
s1, s2 = #view(splits[1:end-1]), #view(splits[2:end])
return [view(a, i1+1:i2) for (i1, i2) in zip(s1, s2)]
end
Also, I changed the signature to the conventional one of "functions first", which allows you to use do-blocks. Additionally, this should work with offset indexing.
One could surely get rid of the intermediate allocations, but I think that gets ugly without yield:
function split_by(λ, a::Vector)
result = Vector{typeof(view(a, 1:0))}()
l = firstindex(a)
r = firstindex(a)
while r <= lastindex(a)
if λ(a[r])
push!(result, #view(a[l:r]))
l = r + 1
end
r += 1
end
push!(result, #view(a[l:end]))
return result
end
Extract all consecutive repetitions in a given list:
list1 = [1,2,2,3,3,3,3,4,5,5]
It should yield a list like this
[[2,2],[3,3,3,3],[5,5]]
I tried the code below. I know it is not the proper way to solve this problem but I could not manage how to solve this.
list1 = [1,2,2,3,3,3,3,4,5,5]
list2 = []
for i in list1:
a = list1.index(i)
if list1[a] == list1[a+1]:
list2.append([i,i])
print(list2)
You can use this to achieve it. There are "easier" solutions using itertools and groupby to get the same result, this is how to do it "by hand":
def FindInnerLists(l):
'''reads a list of int's and groups them into lists of same int value'''
result = []
allResults = []
for n in l:
if not result or result[0] == n: # not result == empty list
result.append(n)
if result[0] != n: # number changed, so we copy the list over into allResults
allResults.append(result[:])
result = [n] # and add the current to it
# edge case - if result contains elements, add them as last item to allResults
if result:
allResults.append(result[:])
return allResults
myl = [2, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 7, 1, 1, 1,2,2,2,2,2]
print(FindInnerLists(myl))
Output (works for 2.6 and 3.x):
[[2], [1], [2], [1, 1, 1, 1], [2, 2, 2], [1], [2], [7], [1, 1, 1], [2, 2, 2, 2, 2]]
Another way to do it:
list1 = [1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5, 5]
result = [[object()]] # initiate the result with object() as a placeholder
for element in list1: # iterate over the rest...
if result[-1][0] != element: # the last repeated element does not match the current
if len(result[-1]) < 2: # if there was less than 2 repeated elements...
result.pop() # remove the last element
result.append([]) # create a new result entry for future repeats
result[-1].append(element) # add the current element to the end of the results
if len(result[-1]) < 2: # finally, if the last element wasn't repeated...
result.pop() # remove it
print(result) # [[2, 2], [3, 3, 3, 3], [5, 5]]
And you can use it on any kind of a list, not just numerical.
This would work:
list1 = [1,2,2,3,3,3,3,4,5,5]
res = []
add = True
last = [list1[0]]
for elem in list1[1:]:
if last[-1] == elem:
last.append(elem)
if add:
res.append(last)
add = False
else:
add = True
last = [elem]
print(res)
Output:
[[2, 2], [3, 3, 3, 3], [5, 5]]
What is julian way to do yield (and yield from) as python do?
Edit: I will try to add small example in python.
Think 4x4 chess board. Find every N moves long path chess king could do. Don't waste memory -> make generator of every path.
if we sign every position with numbers:
0 1 2 3
4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11
12 13 14 16
point 0 has 3 neighbors (1, 4, 5). We could find table for every neighbors for every point:
NEIG = [[1, 4, 5], [0, 2, 4, 5, 6], [1, 3, 5, 6, 7], [2, 6, 7], [0, 1, 5, 8, 9], [0, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10], [1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11], [2, 3, 6, 10, 11], [4, 5, 9, 12, 13], [4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14], [5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15], [6, 7, 10, 14, 15], [8, 9, 13], [8, 9, 10, 12, 14], [9, 10, 11, 13, 15], [10, 11, 14]]
Recursive function (generator) which enlarge given path from list of points or from generator of (generator of ...) points:
def enlarge(path):
if isinstance(path, list):
for i in NEIG[path[-1]]:
if i not in path:
yield path[:] + [i]
else:
for i in path:
yield from enlarge(i)
Function (generator) which give every path with given length
def paths(length):
steps = ([i] for i in range(16)) # first steps on every point on board
for _ in range(length-1):
nsteps = enlarge(steps)
steps = nsteps
yield from steps
We could see that there is 905776 paths with length 10:
sum(1 for i in paths(10))
Out[89]: 905776
In ipython we could timeit:
%timeit sum(1 for i in paths(10))
1.21 s ± 15.1 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1 loop each)
My julia implementation is ugly and much more complicated. And it seems to be slower.
Check out ResumableFunctions.jl
from the README
using ResumableFunctions
#resumable function fibonnaci(n::Int) :: Int
a = 0
b = 1
for i in 1:n-1
#yield a
a, b = b, a+b
end
a
end
for fib in fibonnaci(10)
println(fib)
end
You can use Julia Iterators.
struct Fibonacci
last::Int64
end
function Base.iterate(fibo::Fibonacci)
return 1, (1, 1, 2) # the first output, and the next iteration state
end
function Base.iterate(fibo::Fibonacci, state)
i, a, b = state
if i ≤ fibo.last
return a, (i + 1, b, a + b) # the output, and the next iteration state
end
end
You can then use it like this:
for i in Fibonacci(10)
print(i, " ")
end
Which outputs:
1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89
This can result in excellent performance, but it is often a bit verbose, and it's also tricky to decide on what iteration state to use, and how to find the next element given that state. In your chess example, I would avoid this approach, but in other cases it can come in really handy.
You can use Channels:
function fibo(n)
Channel() do ch
a, b = 0, 1
for _ in 1:n
a, b = b, a + b
put!(ch, a)
end
end
end
Use it like this:
for val in fibo(10)
print(val, " ")
end
Which outputs:
1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55
To get the yield from behavior, you can just use a for loop. For example, to get the Fibonacci sequence r times:
function repeat_fibo(r, n)
Channel() do ch
for _ in 1:r
for val in fibo(n)
put!(ch, val)
end
end
end
end
For more details, see the docs.
Note that the ResumableFunctions.jl library has some benchmarks showing that their solution is significantly faster than using Channels (see #gggg's answer). Perhaps Channel performance will improve in future Julia versions.
To get better Channel performance, you should set the channel's element type and the channel's size: for example, use Channel{Int64}(100) instead of Channel().
Here's a Julia implementation of your chess problem using Channels:
NEIG = [[1, 4, 5], [0, 2, 4, 5, 6], [1, 3, 5, 6, 7], [2, 6, 7], [0, 1, 5, 8, 9],
[0, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10], [1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11], [2, 3, 6, 10, 11],
[4, 5, 9, 12, 13], [4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14],
[5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15], [6, 7, 10, 14, 15], [8, 9, 13],
[8, 9, 10, 12, 14], [9, 10, 11, 13, 15], [10, 11, 14]]
function paths(start, length)
Channel{Vector{Int64}}(100) do ch
if length == 1
put!(ch, [start])
else
for path in paths(start, length - 1)
for next_step in NEIG[path[end] + 1]
next_step in path || put!(ch, [path; next_step])
end
end
end
end
end
function paths(length)
Channel{Vector{Int64}}(100) do ch
for start in 0:15
for path in paths(start, length)
put!(ch, path)
end
end
end
end
You can count all the paths of length 10 much like in Python:
sum(1 for _ in paths(10))
You can also time it:
#time sum(1 for _ in paths(10))
On my machine this takes about 4 seconds. There are probably ways to optimize this further, but this does show that Channel performance still has some room for improvement.
Getting right to the gist of the problem:
In how many ways can we add k positive integers to reach a sum of exactly n if each number is smaller or equal to given number m?
The problem is solvable with dynamic programming but I am stuck because I cannot find the optimal substructure or recursion for the solution.
Here's a simple function in Python 3 that should fit your description. I assume that 0 is not an acceptable value but it's a trivial change if it is.
def howMany(k, n, m):
def sub(pos, currentSum, path):
if currentSum == n and pos == k: # reached the sum, print result and increase counter by 1
print(path)
return 1
elif currentSum < n and pos < k: # still worth trying
count = 0
for i in range(1, m):
count += sub(pos + 1, currentSum + i, path+[i])
return count
else: # abort
return 0
return sub(0, 0, [])
print(howMany(3, 10, 6))
yields
[1, 4, 5]
[1, 5, 4]
[2, 3, 5]
[2, 4, 4]
[2, 5, 3]
[3, 2, 5]
[3, 3, 4]
[3, 4, 3]
[3, 5, 2]
[4, 1, 5]
[4, 2, 4]
[4, 3, 3]
[4, 4, 2]
[4, 5, 1]
[5, 1, 4]
[5, 2, 3]
[5, 3, 2]
[5, 4, 1]
18
It could be optimised but that would obfuscate the logic at this stage.
I'm almost a complete programming beginner and I've started to go through a Swift ebook from Apple.
The things I read are pretty clear, but once you start to experiment things get tricky :).
I'm stuck with the experiment in the Control Flow section. Here is the initial code:
let interestingNumbers = [
"Prime": [2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13],
"Fibonacci": [1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8],
"Square": [1, 4, 9, 16, 25],
]
var largest = 0
for (kind, numbers) in interestingNumbers {
for number in numbers {
if number > largest {
largest = number
}
}
}
largest
And here is the task:
Add another variable to keep track of which kind of number was the
largest, as well as what that largest number was.
As I understand, they want me to add up all the values in each number kind (get a total sum for Prime, Fibonacci and Square) and then compare the result to show the largest result.
But I can't figure out the syntax.
Can someone share any advice on how to tackle this experiment?
Maybe I'm not understanding the problem?
They're just asking you to keep track of which number category the largest number belongs to:
let interestingNumbers = [
"Prime": [2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13],
"Fibonacci": [1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8],
"Square": [1, 4, 9, 16, 25],
]
var largest = 0
var largestkind = ""
for (kind, numbers) in interestingNumbers {
for number in numbers {
if number > largest {
largest = number
largestkind = kind
}
}
}
largest
largestkind
Alternately you can use closure to make the tasks simpler.
The for loop calculate the sum of each series.
The final reduce finds the series tuple that contains maximum number.
let interestingNumbers = [
"Prime": [2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13],
"Fibonacci": [1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8],
"Square": [1, 4, 9, 16, 25],
]
var sums = Array<(String, Int)>()
for (kind, numbers) in interestingNumbers {
sums = sums + [(kind, numbers.reduce(0, +))]
}
let maxSeries = sums.reduce(("", Int.min), { $0.1 > $1.1 ? $0 : $1 })
println(sums)
println(maxSeries)
Here it from playground using Xcode 8.3 and Swift 3.0
let interestingNumbers = [
"Prime": [2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13],
"Fibonacci": [1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8],
"Square": [1, 4, 9, 16, 25],
]
let largest = interestingNumbers.map{$0.value}.flatMap{$0}.max()
print(largest)
Optional(25)