We Keep Coding

Function that returns the length of the longest run of repetition in a given list

I'm trying to write a function that returns the length of the longest run of repetition in a given list
Here is my code:
def longest_repetition(a):
longest = 0
j = 0
run2 = 0
while j <= len(a)-1:
for i in a:
run = a.count(a[j] == i)
if run == 1:
run2 += 1
if run2 > longest:
longest = run2
j += 1
run2 = 0
return longest
print(longest_repetition([4,1,2,4,7,9,4]))
print(longest_repetition([5,3,5,6,9,4,4,4,4]))
3
0
The first test function works fine, but the second test function is not counting at all and I'm not sure why. Any insight is much appreciated
Just noticed that the question I was given and the expected results are not consistent. So what I'm basically trying to do is find the most repeated element in a list and the output would be the number of times it is repeated. That said, the output for the second test function should be 4 because the element '4' is repeated four times (elements are not required to be in one run as implied in my original question)

First of all, let's check if you were consistent with your question (function that returns the length of the longest run of repetition):
e.g.:
a = [4,1,2,4,7,9,4]
b = [5,3,5,6,9,4,4,4,4]
(assuming, you are only checking single position, e.g. c = [1,2,3,1,2,3] could have one repetition of sequence 1,2,3 - i am assuming that is not your goal)
So:
for a, there is no repetitions of same value, therefore length equals 0
for b, you have one, quadruple repetition of 4, therefore length equals 4
First, your max_amount_of_repetitions=0 and current_repetitions_run=0' So, what you need to do to detect repetition is simply check if value of n-1'th and n'th element is same. If so, you increment current_repetitions_run', else, you reset current_repetitions_run=0.
Last step is check if your current run is longest of all:
max_amount_of_repetitions= max(max_amount_of_repetitions, current_repetitions_run)
to surely get both n-1 and n within your list range, I'd simply start iteration from second element. That way, n-1 is first element.
for n in range(1,len(a)):
if a[n-1] == a[n]:
print("I am sure, you can figure out the rest")

you can use hash to calculate the frequency of the element and then get the max of frequencies.
using functional approach
from collections import Counter
def longest_repitition(array):
return max(Counter(array).values())
other way, without using Counter
def longest_repitition(array):
freq = {}
for val in array:
if val not in freq:
freq[val] = 0
freq[val] += 1
values = freq.values()
return max(values)

How can I count sequences that meet these constraints?

I am trying to count permutations of a sequence of I and O symbols, representing e.g. people entering (I for "in") and leaving (O for "out") a room. For a given n many I symbols, there should be exactly as many O symbols, giving a total length of 2*n for the sequence. Also, at any point in a valid permutation, the number of O symbols must be less than or equal to the number of I symbols (since it is not possible for someone to leave the room when it is empty).
Additionally, I have some initial prefix of I and O symbols, representing people who previously entered or left the room. The output should only count sequences starting with that prefix.
For example, for n=1 and an initial state of '', the result should be 1 since the only valid sequence is IO; for n=3 and an initial state of II, the possible permutations are
IIIOOO
IIOIOO
IIOOIO
for a result of 3. (There are five ways for three people to enter and leave the room, but the other two involve the first person leaving immediately.)
I'm guessing the simplest way to solve this is using itertools.permutations. This is my code so far:
n=int(input()) ##actual length will be 2*n
string=input()
I_COUNT=string.count("I")
O_COUNT=string.count("O")
if string[0]!="I":
sys.exit()
if O_COUNT>I_COUNT:
sys.exit()
perms = [''.join(p) for p in permutations(string)]
print(perms)
the goal is to get the permutation for whatever is left out of the string and append it to the user's input, so how can I append user's input to the remaining length of the string and get the count for permutation?

#cache
def count_permutations(ins: int, outs: int):
# ins and outs are the remaining number of ins and outs to process
assert outs >= ins
if ins == 0 :
# Can do nothing but output "outs"
return 1
elif outs == ins:
# Your next output needs to be an I else you become unbalanced
return count_permutations(ins - 1, outs)
else:
# Your. next output can either be an I or an O
return count_permutations(ins - 1, outs) + count_permutations(ins, outs - 1)
If, say you have a total of 5 Is and 5 Os, and you've already output one I, then you want: count_permutations(4, 5).

I'm guessing the simplest way to solve this is using itertools.permutations
Sadly, this will not be very helpful. The problem is that itertools.permutations does not care about the value of the elements it's permuting; it treats them as all distinct regardless. So if you have 6 input elements, and ask for length-6 permutations, you will get 720 results, even if all the inputs are the same.
itertools.combinations has the opposite issue; it doesn't distinguish any elements. When it selects some elements, it only puts those elements in the order they initially appeared. So if you have 6 input elements and ask for length-6 combinations, you will get 1 result - the original sequence.
Presumably what you wanted to do is generate all the distinct ways of arranging the Is and Os, then take out the invalid ones, then count what remains. This is possible, and the itertools library can help with the first step, but it is not straightforward.
It will be simpler to use a recursive algorithm directly. The general approach is as follows:
At any given time, we care about how many people are in the room and how many people must still enter. To handle the prefix, we simply count how many people are in the room right now, and subtract that from the total number of people in order to determine how many must still enter. I leave the input handling as an exercise.
To determine that count, we count up the ways that involve the next action being I (someone comes in), plus the ways that involve the next action being O (someone leaves).
If everyone has entered, there is only one way forward: everyone must leave, one at a time. This is a base case.
Otherwise, it is definitely possible for someone to come in. We recursively count the ways for everyone else to enter after that; in the recursive call, there is one more person in the room, and one fewer person who must still enter.
If there are still people who have to enter, and there is also someone in the room right now, then it is also possible for someone to leave first. We recursively count the ways for others to enter after that; in the recursive call, there is one fewer person in the room, and the same number who must still enter.
This translates into code fairly directly:
def ways_to_enter(currently_in, waiting):
if waiting == 0:
return 1
result = ways_to_enter(currently_in + 1, waiting - 1)
if currently_in > 0:
result += ways_to_enter(currently_in - 1, waiting)
return result
Some testing:
>>> ways_to_enter(0, 1) # n = 1, prefix = ''
1
>>> ways_to_enter(2, 1) # n = 3, prefix = 'II'; OR e.g. n = 4, prefix = 'IIOI'
3
>>> ways_to_enter(0, 3) # n = 3, prefix = ''
5
>>> ways_to_enter(0, 14) # takes less than a second on my machine
2674440
We can improve the performance for larger values by decorating the function with functools.cache (lru_cache prior to 3.9), which will memoize results of the previous recursive calls. The more purpose-built approach is to use dynamic programming techniques: in this case, we would initialize 2-dimensional storage for the results of ways_to_enter(x, y), and compute those values one at a time, in such a way that the values needed for the "recursive calls" have already been done earlier in the process.
That direct approach would look something like:
def ways_to_enter(currently_in, waiting):
# initialize storage
results = [[0] * currently_in for _ in waiting]
# We will iterate with `waiting` as the major axis.
for w, row in enumerate(results):
for c, column in enumerate(currently_in):
if w == 0:
value = 1
else:
value = results[w - 1][c + 1]
if c > 0:
value += results[w][c - 1]
results[w][c] = value
return results[-1][-1]

The product() function from itertools will allow you to generate all the possible sequences of 'I' and 'O' for a given length.
From that list, you can filter by the sequences that start with the user-supplied start_seq.
From that list, you can filter by the sequences that are valid, given your rules of the number and order of the 'I's and 'O's:
from itertools import product
def is_valid(seq):
'''Evaluates a sequence I's and O's following the rules that:
- there cannot be more outs than ins
- the ins and outs must be balanced
'''
_in, _out = 0, 0
for x in seq:
if x == 'I':
_in += 1
else:
_out += 1
if (_out > _in) or (_in > len(seq)/2):
return False
return True
# User inputs...
start_seq = 'II'
assert start_seq[0] != 'O', 'Starting sequence cannot start with an OUT.'
n = 3
total_len = n*2
assert len(start_seq) < total_len, 'Starting sequence is at least as big as total number, nothing to iterate.'
# Calculate all possible sequences that are total_len long, as tuples of 'I' and 'O'
seq_tuples = product('IO', repeat=total_len)
# Convert tuples to strings, e.g., `('I', 'O', 'I')` to `'IOI'`
sequences = [''.join(seq_tpl) for seq_tpl in seq_tuples]
# Filter for sequences that start correctly
sequences = [seq for seq in sequences if seq.startswith(start_seq)]
# Filter for valid sequences
sequences = [seq for seq in sequences if is_valid(seq)]
print(sequences)
and I get:
['IIIOOO', 'IIOIOO', 'IIOOIO']

Not very elegant perhaps but this certainly seems to fulfil the brief:
from itertools import permutations
def isvalid(start, p):
for c1, c2 in zip(start, p):
if c1 != c2:
return 0
n = 0
for c in p:
if c == 'O':
if (n := n - 1) < 0:
return 0
else:
n += 1
return 1
def calc(n, i):
s = i + 'I' * (n - i.count('I'))
s += 'O' * (n * 2 - len(s))
return sum(isvalid(i, p) for p in set(permutations(s)))
print(calc(3, 'II'))
print(calc(3, 'IO'))
print(calc(3, 'I'))
print(calc(3, ''))
Output:
3
2
5
5

def solve(string,n):
countI =string.count('I')
if countI==n:
return 1
countO=string.count('O')
if countO > countI:
return 0
k= solve(string + 'O',n)
h= solve(string + 'I',n)
return k+h
n= int(input())
string=input()
print(solve(string,n))

This is a dynamic programming problem.
Given the number of in and out operations remaining, we do one of the following:
If we're out of either ins or outs, we can only use operations of the other type. There is only one possible assignment.
If we have an equal number of ins or outs, we must use an in operation according to the constraints of the problem.
Finally, if we have more ins than outs, we can perform either operation. The answer, then, is the sum of the number of sequences if we choose to use an in operation plus the number of sequences if we choose to use an out operation.
This runs in O(n^2) time, although in practice the following code snippet can be made faster using a 2D-list rather than the cache annotation (I've used #cache in this case to make the recurrence easier to understand).
from functools import cache
#cache
def find_permutation_count(in_remaining, out_remaining):
if in_remaining == 0 or out_remaining == 0:
return 1
elif in_remaining == out_remaining:
return find_permutation_count(in_remaining - 1, out_remaining)
else:
return find_permutation_count(in_remaining - 1, out_remaining) + find_permutation_count(in_remaining, out_remaining - 1)
print(find_permutation_count(3, 3)) # prints 5

The number of such permutations of length 2n is given by the n'th Catalan number. Wikipedia gives a formula for Catalan numbers in terms of central binomial coefficients:
from math import comb
def count_permutations(n):
return comb(2*n,n) // (n+1)
for i in range(1,10):
print(i, count_permutations(i))
# 1 1
# 2 2
# 3 5
# 4 14
# 5 42
# 6 132
# 7 429
# 8 1430
# 9 4862

most efficient way to iterate over a large array looking for a missing element in Python

I was trying an online test. the test asked to write a function that given a list of up to 100000 integers whose range is 1 to 100000, would find the first missing integer.
for example, if the list is [1,4,5,2] the output should be 3.
I iterated over the list as follow
def find_missing(num)
for i in range(1, 100001):
if i not in num:
return i
the feedback I receives is the code is not efficient in handling big lists.
I am quite new and I couldnot find an answer, how can I iterate more efficiently?

The first improvement would be to make yours linear by using a set for the repeated membership test:
def find_missing(nums)
s = set(nums)
for i in range(1, 100001):
if i not in s:
return i
Given how C-optimized python sorting is, you could also do sth like:
def find_missing(nums)
s = sorted(set(nums))
return next(i for i, n in enumerate(s, 1) if i != n)
But both of these are fairly space inefficient as they create a new collection. You can avoid that with an in-place sort:
from itertools import groupby
def find_missing(nums):
nums.sort() # in-place
return next(i for i, (k, _) in enumerate(groupby(nums), 1) if i != k)

For any range of numbers, the sum is given by Gauss's formula:
# sum of all numbers up to and including nums[-1] minus
# sum of all numbers up to but not including nums[-1]
expected = nums[-1] * (nums[-1] + 1) // 2 - nums[0] * (nums[0] - 1) // 2
If a number is missing, the actual sum will be
actual = sum(nums)
The difference is the missing number:
result = expected - actual
This compulation is O(n), which is as efficient as you can get. expected is an O(1) computation, while actual has to actually add up the elements.
A somewhat slower but similar complexity approach would be to step along the sequence in lockstep with either a range or itertools.count:
for a, e in zip(nums, range(nums[0], len(nums) + nums[0])):
if a != e:
return e # or break if not in a function
Notice the difference between a single comparison a != e, vs a linear containment check like e in nums, which has to iterate on average through half of nums to get the answer.

You can use Counter to count every occurrence of your list. The minimum number with occurrence 0 will be your output. For example:
from collections import Counter
def find_missing():
count = Counter(your_list)
keys = count.keys() #list of every element in increasing order
main_list = list(range(1:100000)) #the list of values from 1 to 100k
missing_numbers = list(set(main_list) - set(keys))
your_output = min(missing_numbers)
return your_output

How to find number of ways that the integers 1,2,3 can add up to n?

Given a set of integers 1,2, and 3, find the number of ways that these can add up to n. (The order matters, i.e. say n is 5. 1+2+1+1 and 2+1+1+1 are two distinct solutions)
My solution involves splitting n into a list of 1s so if n = 5, A = [1,1,1,1,1]. And I will generate more sublists recursively from each list by adding adjacent numbers. So A will generate 4 more lists: [2,1,1,1], [1,2,1,1], [1,1,2,1],[1,1,1,2], and each of these lists will generate further sublists until it reaches a terminating case like [3,2] or [2,3]
Here is my proposed solution (in Python)
ways = []
def check_terminating(A,n):
# check for terminating case
for i in range(len(A)-1):
if A[i] + A[i+1] <= 3:
return False # means still can compute
return True
def count_ways(n,A=[]):
if A in ways:
# check if alr computed if yes then don't compute
return True
if A not in ways: # check for duplicates
ways.append(A) # global ways
if check_terminating(A,n):
return True # end of the tree
for i in range(len(A)-1):
# for each index i,
# combine with the next element and form a new list
total = A[i] + A[i+1]
print(total)
if total <= 3:
# form new list and compute
newA = A[:i] + [total] + A[i+2:]
count_ways(A,newA)
# recursive call
# main
n = 5
A = [1 for _ in range(n)]
count_ways(5,A)
print("No. of ways for n = {} is {}".format(n,len(ways)))
May I know if I'm on the right track, and if so, is there any way to make this code more efficient?
Please note that this is not a coin change problem. In coin change, order of occurrence is not important. In my problem, 1+2+1+1 is different from 1+1+1+2 but in coin change, both are same. Please don't post coin change solutions for this answer.
Edit: My code is working but I would like to know if there are better solutions. Thank you for all your help :)

The recurrence relation is F(n+3)=F(n+2)+F(n+1)+F(n) with F(0)=1, F(-1)=F(-2)=0. These are the tribonacci numbers (a variant of the Fibonacci numbers):
It's possible to write an easy O(n) solution:
def count_ways(n):
a, b, c = 1, 0, 0
for _ in xrange(n):
a, b, c = a+b+c, a, b
return a
It's harder, but possible to compute the result in relatively few arithmetic operations:
def count_ways(n):
A = 3**(n+3)
P = A**3-A**2-A-1
return pow(A, n+3, P) % A
for i in xrange(20):
print i, count_ways(i)

The idea that you describe sounds right. It is easy to write a recursive function that produces the correct answer..slowly.
You can then make it faster by memoizing the answer. Just keep a dictionary of answers that you've already calculated. In your recursive function look at whether you have a precalculated answer. If so, return it. If not, calculate it, save that answer in the dictionary, then return the answer.
That version should run quickly.

An O(n) method is possible:
def countways(n):
A=[1,1,2]
while len(A)<=n:
A.append(A[-1]+A[-2]+A[-3])
return A[n]
The idea is that we can work out how many ways of making a sequence with n by considering each choice (1,2,3) for the last partition size.
e.g. to count choices for (1,1,1,1) consider:
choices for (1,1,1) followed by a 1
choices for (1,1) followed by a 2
choices for (1) followed by a 3
If you need the results (instead of just the count) you can adapt this approach as follows:
cache = {}
def countwaysb(n):
if n < 0:
return []
if n == 0:
return [[]]
if n in cache:
return cache[n]
A = []
for last in range(1,4):
for B in countwaysb(n-last):
A.append(B+[last])
cache[n] = A
return A

Why my 2nd method is slower than my 1st method?

I was doing leetcode problem No. 387. First Unique Character in a String. Given a string, find the first non-repeating character in it and return it's index. If it doesn't exist, return -1.
Examples:
s = "leetcode"
return 0.
s = "loveleetcode",
return 2.
I wrote 2 algorithm:
Method 1
def firstUniqChar(s):
d = {}
L = len(s)
for i in range(L):
if s[i] not in d:
d[s[i]] = [i]
else:
d[s[i]].append(i)
M = L
for k in d:
if len(d[k])==1:
if d[k][0]<M:
M = d[k][0]
if M<L:
return M
else:
return -1
This is very intuitive, i.e., first create a count dictionary by looping over all the char in s (this can also be done using one line in collections.Counter), then do a second loop only checking those keys whose value is a list of length 1. I think as I did 2 loops, it must have some redundant computation. So I wrote the 2nd algorithm, which I think is better than the 1st one but in the leetcode platform, the 2nd one runs much slower than the 1st one and I couldn't figure out why.
Method 2
def firstUniqChar(s):
d = {}
L = len(s)
A = []
for i in range(L):
if s[i] not in d:
d[s[i]] = i
A.append(i)
else:
try:
A.remove(d[s[i]])
except:
pass
if len(A)==0:
return -1
else:
return A[0]
The 2nd one just loop once for all char in s

Your first solution is O(n), but your second solution is O(n^2), as method A.remove is looping over elements of A.

As others have said - using list.remove is quite expensive... Your use of collections.Counter is a good idea.
You need to scan the string once to find uniques. Then probably what's better is to sequentially scan it again and take the index of the first unique - that makes your potential code:
from collections import Counter
s = "loveleetcode"
# Build a set of unique values
unique = {ch for ch, freq in Counter(s).items() if freq == 1}
# re-iterate over the string until we first find a unique value or
# not - default to -1 if none found
first_index = next((ix for ix, ch in enumerate(s) if ch in unique), -1)
# 2