I would like to know if my implementation is efficient.
I have tried to find the simplest and low complex solution to that problem using python.
def count_gap(x):
"""
Perform Find the longest sequence of zeros between ones "gap" in binary representation of an integer
Parameters
----------
x : int
input integer value
Returns
----------
max_gap : int
the maximum gap length
"""
try:
# Convert int to binary
b = "{0:b}".format(x)
# Iterate from right to lift
# Start detecting gaps after fist "one"
for i,j in enumerate(b[::-1]):
if int(j) == 1:
max_gap = max([len(i) for i in b[::-1][i:].split('1') if i])
break
except ValueError:
print("Oops! no gap found")
max_gap = 0
return max_gap
let me know your opinion.
I do realize that brevity does not mean readability nor efficiency.
However, ability to spell out solution in spoken language and implement it in Python in no time constitutes efficient use of my time.
For binary gap: hey, lets convert int into binary, strip trailing zeros, split at '1' to list, then find longest element in list and get this element lenght.
def binary_gap(N):
return len(max(format(N, 'b').strip('0').split('1')))
Your implementation converts the integer to a base two string then visits each character in the string. Instead, you could just visit each bit in the integer using << and &. Doing so will avoid visiting each bit twice (first to convert it to a string, then to check if if it's a "1" or not in the resulting string). It will also avoid allocating memory for the string and then for each substring you inspect.
You can inspect each bit of the integer by visiting 1 << 0, 1 << 1, ..., 1 << (x.bit_length).
For example:
def max_gap(x):
max_gap_length = 0
current_gap_length = 0
for i in range(x.bit_length()):
if x & (1 << i):
# Set, any gap is over.
if current_gap_length > max_gap_length:
max_gap_length = current_gap_length
current_gap_length = 0
else:
# Not set, the gap widens.
current_gap_length += 1
# Gap might end at the end.
if current_gap_length > max_gap_length:
max_gap_length = current_gap_length
return max_gap_length
def max_gap(N):
xs = bin(N)[2:].strip('0').split('1')
return max([len(x) for x in xs])
Explanation:
Both leading and trailing zeros are redundant with binary gap finding
as they are not bounded by two 1's (left and right respectively)
So step 1 striping zeros left and right
Then splitting by 1's yields all sequences of 0'z
Solution: The maximum length of 0's sub-strings
As suggested in the comments, itertools.groupby is efficient in grouping elements of an iterable like a string. You could approach it like this:
from itertools import groupby
def count_gap(x):
b = "{0:b}".format(x)
return max(len(list(v)) for k, v in groupby(b.strip("0")) if k == "0")
number = 123456
print(count_gap(number))
First we strip all zeroes from the ends, because a gap has to have on both ends a one. Then itertools.groupby groups ones and zeros and we extract the key (i.e. "0" or "1") together with a group (i.e. if we convert it into a list, it looks like "0000" or "11"). Next we collect the length for every group v, if k is zero. And from this we determine the largest number, i.e. the longest gap of zeroes amidst the ones.
I think the accepted answer dose not work when the input number is 32 (100000). Here is my solution:
def solution(N):
res = 0
st = -1
for i in range(N.bit_length()):
if N & (1 << i):
if st != -1:
res = max(res, i - st - 1)
st = i
return res
def solution(N):
# write your code in Python 3.6
count = 0
gap_list=[]
bin_var = format(N,"b")
for bit in bin_var:
if (bit =="1"):
gap_list.append(count)
count =0
else:
count +=1
return max(gap_list)
Here is my solution:
def solution(N):
num = binary = format(N, "06b")
char = str(num)
find=False
result, conteur=0, 0
for c in char:
if c=='1' and not find:
find = True
if find and c=='0':
conteur+=1
if c=='1':
if result<conteur:
result=conteur
conteur=0
return result
this also works:
def binary_gap(n):
max_gap = 0
current_gap = 0
# Skip the tailing zero(s)
while n > 0 and n % 2 == 0:
n //= 2
while n > 0:
remainder = n % 2
if remainder == 0:
# Inside a gap
current_gap += 1
else:
# Gap ends
if current_gap != 0:
max_gap = max(current_gap, max_gap)
current_gap = 0
n //= 2
return max_gap
Old question, but I would solve it using generators.
from itertools import dropwhile
# a generator that returns binary
# representation of the input
def getBinary(N):
while N:
yield N%2
N //= 2
def longestGap(N):
longestGap = 0
currentGap = 0
# we want to discard the initial 0's in the binary
# representation of the input
for i in dropwhile(lambda x: not x, getBinary(N)):
if i:
# a new gap is found. Compare to the maximum
longestGap = max(currentGap, longestGap)
currentGap = 0
else:
# extend the previous gap or start a new one
currentGap+=1
return longestGap
Can be done using strip() and split() function :
Steps:
Convert to binary (Remove first two characters )
Convert int to string
Remove the trailing and starting 0 and 1 respectively
Split with 1 from the string to find the subsequences of strings
Find the length of the longest substring
Second strip('1') is not mandatory but it will decrease the cases to be checked and will improve the time complexity
Worst case T
def solution(N):
return len(max(bin(N)[2:].strip('0').strip('1').split('1')))
Solution using bit shift operator (100%). Basically the complexity is O(N).
def solution(N):
# write your code in Python 3.6
meet_one = False
count = 0
keep = []
while N:
if meet_one and N & 1 == 0:
count+=1
if N & 1:
meet_one = True
keep.append(count)
count = 0
N >>=1
return max(keep)
def solution(N):
# write your code in Python 3.6
iterable_N = "{0:b}".format(N)
max_gap = 0
gap_positions = []
for index, item in enumerate(iterable_N):
if item == "1":
if len(gap_positions) > 0:
if (index - gap_positions[-1]) > max_gap:
max_gap = index - gap_positions[-1]
gap_positions.append(index)
max_gap -= 1
return max_gap if max_gap >= 0 else 0
this also works:
def solution(N):
bin_num = str(bin(N)[2:])
list1 = bin_num.split('1')
max_gap =0
if bin_num.endswith('0'):
len1 = len(list1) - 1
else:
len1 = len(list1)
if len1 != 0:
for i in range(len1):
if max_gap < len(list1[i]):
max_gap = len(list1[i])
return max_gap
def solution(number):
bits = [int(digit) for digit in bin(number)[2:]]
occurences = [i for i, bit in enumerate(bits) if(bit==1)]
res = [occurences[counter+1]-a-1 for counter, a in enumerate(occurences) if(counter+1 < len(occurences))]
if(not res):
print("Gap: 0")
else:
print("Gap: ", max(res))
number = 1042
solution(number)
This works
def solution(number):
# convert number to binary then strip trailing zeroes
binary = ("{0:b}".format(number)).strip("0")
longest_gap = 0
current_gap = 0
for c in binary:
if c is "0":
current_gap = current_gap + 1
else:
current_gap = 0
if current_gap > longest_gap:
longest_gap = current_gap
return longest_gap
def max_gap(N):
bin = '{0:b}'.format(N)
binary_gap = []
bin_list = [bin[i:i+1] for i in range(0, len(bin), 1)]
for i in range(len(bin_list)):
if (bin_list[i] == '1'):
# print(i)
# print(bin_list[i])
# print(binary_gap)
gap = []
for j in range(len(bin_list[i+1:])):
# print(j)
# print(bin_list[j])
if(bin_list[i+j+1]=='1'):
binary_gap.append(j)
# print(j)
# print(bin_list[j])
# print(binary_gap)
break
elif(bin_list[i+j+1]=='0'):
# print(i+j+1)
# print(bin_list[j])
# print(binary_gap)
continue
else:
# print(i+j+1)
# print(bin_list[i+j])
# print(binary_gap)
break
else:
# print(i)
# print(bin_list[i])
# print(binary_gap)
binary_gap.append(0)
return max(binary_gap)
pass
def find(s, ch):
return [i for i, ltr in enumerate(s) if ltr == ch]
def solution(N):
get_bin = lambda x: format(x, 'b')
binary_num = get_bin(N)
print(binary_num)
binary_str = str(binary_num)
list_1s = find(binary_str,'1')
diffmax = 0
for i in range(len(list_1s)-1):
if len(list_1s)<1:
diffmax = 0
break
else:
diff = list_1s[i+1] - list_1s[i] - 1
if diff > diffmax:
diffmax = diff
return diffmax
pass
def solution(N: int) -> int:
binary = bin(N)[2:]
longest_gap = 0
gap = 0
for char in binary:
if char == '0':
gap += 1
else:
if gap > longest_gap:
longest_gap = gap
gap = 0
return longest_gap
Here's a solution using iterators and generators that will handle edge cases such as the binary gap for the number 32 (100000) being 0 and the binary gap for 0 being 0. It doesn't create a list, instead relying on iterating and processing elements of the bit string one step at a time for a memory efficient solution.
def solution(N):
def counter(n):
count = 0
preceeding_one = False
for x in reversed(bin(n).lstrip('0b')):
x = int(x)
if x == 1:
count = 0
preceeding_one = True
yield count
if preceeding_one and x == 0:
count += 1
yield count
yield count
return(max(counter(N)))
Here is one more that seems to be easy to understand.
def count_gap(x):
binary_str = list(bin(x)[2:].strip('0'))
max_gap = 0
n = len(binary_str)
pivot_point = 0
for i in range(pivot_point, n):
zeros = 0
for j in range(i + 1, n):
if binary_str[j] == '0':
zeros += 1
else:
pivot_point = j
break
max_gap = max(max_gap, zeros)
return max_gap
This is really old, I know. But here's mine:
def solution(N):
gap_list = [len(gap) for gap in bin(N)[2:].strip("0").split("1") if gap != ""]
return max(gap_list) if gap_list else 0
Here is another efficient solution. Hope it may helps you. You just need to pass any number in function and it will return longest Binary gap.
def LongestBinaryGap(num):
n = int(num/2)
bin_arr = []
for i in range(0,n):
if i == 0:
n1 = int(num/2)
bin_arr.append(num%2)
else:
bin_arr.append(n1%2)
n1 = int(n1/2)
if n1 == 0:
break
print(bin_arr)
result = ""
count = 0
count_arr = []
for i in bin_arr:
if result == "found":
if i == 0:
count += 1
else:
if count > 0:
count_arr.append(count)
count = 0
if i == 1:
result = 'found'
else:
pass
if len(count_arr) == 0:
return 0
else:
return max(count_arr)
print(LongestBinaryGap(1130)) # Here you can pass any number.
My code in python 3.6 scores 100
Get the binary Number .. Get the positions of 1
get the abs differennce between 1.. sort it
S = bin(num).replace("0b", "")
res = [int(x) for x in str(S)]
print(res)
if res.count(1) < 2 or res.count(0) < 1:
print("its has no binary gap")
else:
positionof1 = [i for i,x in enumerate(res) if x==1]
print(positionof1)
differnce = [abs(j-i) for i,j in zip(positionof1, positionof1[1:])]
differnce[:] = [differnce - 1 for differnce in differnce]
differnce.sort()
print(differnce[-1])
def solution(N):
return len(max(bin(N).strip('0').split('1')[1:]))
def solution(N):
maksimum = 0
zeros_list = str(N).split('1')
if zeros_list[-1] != "" :
zeros_list.pop()
for item in zeros_list :
if len(item) > maksimum :
maksimum = len(item)
return(maksimum)
def solution(N):
# Convert the number to bin
br = bin(N).split('b')[1]
sunya=[]
groupvalues=[]
for i in br:
count = i
if int(count) == 1:
groupvalues.append(len(sunya))
sunya=[]
if int(count) == 0:
sunya.append('count')
return max(groupvalues)
def solution(N):
bin_num = str(bin(N)[2:])
bin_num = bin_num.rstrip('0')
bin_num = bin_num.lstrip('0')
list1 = bin_num.split('1')
max_gap = 0
for i in range(len(list1)):
if len(list1[i]) > max_gap:
max_gap = len(list1[i])
return (max_gap)
Related
In this problem, I'm given an array(list) strarr of strings and an integer k. My task is to return the first longest string consisting of k consecutive strings taken in the array. My code passed all the sample tests from CodeWars but can't seem to pass the random tests.
Here's the link to the problem.
I did it in two days. I found the max consecutively combined string first. Here's the code for that.
strarr = []
def longest_consec(strarr, k):
strarr.append('')
length = len(strarr)
cons_list = []
end = k
start = 0
freq = -length/2
final_string = []
largest = max(strarr, key=len, default='')
if k == 1:
return largest
elif 1 < k < length:
while(freq <= 1):
cons_list.append(strarr[start:end])
start += k-1
end += k-1
freq += 1
for index in cons_list:
final_string.append(''.join(index))
return max(final_string, key=len, default='')
else:
return ""
Since that didn't pass all the random tests, I compared the combined k strings on both sides of the single largest string. But, this way, the code doesn't account for the case when the single largest string is in the middle. Please help.
strarr = []
def longest_consec(strarr, k):
strarr.append('')
length = len(strarr)
largest = max(strarr, key=len, default='')
pos = int(strarr.index(largest))
if k == 1:
return largest
elif 1 < k < length:
prev_string = ''.join(strarr[pos+1-k:pos+1])
next_string = ''.join(strarr[pos:pos+k])
if len(prev_string) >= len(next_string):
res = prev_string
else:
res = next_string
return res
else:
return ""
print(longest_consec(["zone", "abigail", "theta", "form", "libe"], 2))
Let's start from the first statement of your function:
if k == 1:
while(p <= 1):
b.append(strarr[j:i])
j += 1
i += 1
p += 1
for w in b:
q.append(''.join(w))
return max(q, key=len)
Here q is finally equal strarr so you can shorten this code to:
if k == 1:
return max(strarr, key=len)
I see that second statement's condition checks if k value is between 1 and length of string array inclusive:
elif k > 1 and k <= 2*a:
...
If you want no errors remove equality symbol, last element of every array has index lesser than its length (equal exactly length of it minus 1).
Ceiling and division is not necessary in a definition, so you can shorten this:
a = ceil(len(strarr)/2)
into this:
a = len(strarr)
then your elif statement may look like below:
elif 1 < k < a: # Same as (k > 1 and k < a)
...
again, I see you want to concatenate (add) the longest string to k next strings using this code:
while(p <= 1):
b.append(strarr[j:i])
j += k-1
i += k-1
p += 1
for w in b:
q.append(''.join(w))
return max(q, key=len)
the more clearer way of doing this:
longest = max(strarr, key=len) # Longest string in array.
index = 0 # Index of the current item.
for string in strarr:
# If current string is equal the longest one ...
if string == longest:
# Join 'k' strings from current index (longest string index).
return ''.join(strarr[index:index + k])
index += 1 # Increase current index.
And the last statement which is:
elif k > 2*a or k<1:
return ""
if all previous statements failed then value is invalid so you can instead write:
return "" # Same as with else.
Now everything should work. I advice you learning the basics (especially lists, strings and slices), and please name your variables wisely so they are more readable.
You can try this as well
this has passed all the test cases on the platform you suggested.
def longest_consec(strarr, k):
i = 0
max_ = ""
res = ""
if (k<=0) or (k>len(strarr)):
return ""
while i<=(len(strarr)-k):
start = "".join(strarr[i:i+k])
max_ = max(max_, start, key=len)
if max_==start:
res=strarr[i:i+k]
i+=1
return max_
#output: ["zone", "abigail", "theta", "form", "libe", "zas", "theta", "abigail"], 2 -> abigailtheta
#output: ["zones", "abigail", "theta", "form", "libe", "zas", "theta", "abigail"],2 -> zonesabigail
I wrote the following code. It should return to me the length of the longest subscript in a string without a repeat in letters.
def lengthOfLongestSubstring(s):
lst = []
y = 0
final = 0
count = len(s)
while len(s) > 0:
s = s[y:]
for i in range(len(s)):
if s[i] in lst:
y += 1
count = len(lst)
lst =[]
break
else:
lst.append(s[i])
if count > final:
final=count
return(final)
when entering the string "tmmzuxt" i expect to get an output of 5 (length of "mzuxt") but instead get 4. I have debugged to figure out the problem seems to be that my function skips over the second 'm' when indexing but I can't figure out why. Any suggestions?
Realized I somehow missed a line. Hope this makes more sense.
Your issue here is that you are modifying s while you are running your code.
Consider that in the first iteration, you are getting s = s[0:], so s will now be 'tmmzuxt'. In your next iteration, you are getting s = s[1:], from the modified s. This is still not a problem, because you just get 'mmzuxt'. However, in your third iteration, you are getting s = s[2:], which is now 'zuxt'.
So you need a different variable than s to hold the substring of s that you are actually testing.
here, in your code(line 7) you are updating your string value inside function, everytime your for loop iterates.
for e.g., after every break inside for loop. you string(which is "tmmzuxt") is becoming short and short.
i created a new variable which contains your original string.
def lengthOfLongestSubstring(s):
lst = []
y = 0
final = 0
count = len(s)
main_string = s;#change done here
while len(s) > 0:
s = main_string[y:] #change done here
for i in range(len(s)):
if s[i] in lst:
y += 1
count = len(lst)
lst =[]
break
else:
lst.append(s[i])
if count > final:
final =count
print(final)
return(final)
lengthOfLongestSubstring("tmmzuxt")
The main problem with your code is that you incremented y, even though it should only ever remove the first character. There is no need for a variable y. Try this:
def lengthOfLongestSubstring(s):
final = 0
while len(s) > 0:
count = len(s)
lst = []
for i in range(len(s)):
if s[i] in lst:
count = i - 1
break
lst.append(s[i])
if count > final:
final = count
s = s[1:]
return final
print(lengthOfLongestSubstring("tmmzuxt"))
Here is an edited code. removing #lst =[] and #break lines.
[Code]
def lengthOfLongestSubstring(s):
lst = []
y = 0
final = 0
count = len(s)
while len(s) > 0:
s = s[y:]
for i in range(len(s)):
if s[i] in lst:
y += 1
count = len(lst)
#lst =[]
#break
else:
lst.append(s[i])
if count > final:
final=count
return(final)
s="tmmzuxt"
print(lengthOfLongestSubstring(s))
[Output]
5
I'm not sure if I understand your code, or if the while loop is needed here, actually. Try this instead:
def lengthOfLongestSubstring(s):
max_length = 0
length = 0
previous = ''
for thisCharacter in s:
if thisCharacter != previous:
length += 1
else:
max_length = max(length, max_length)
length = 1
return max_length
I am trying to count the number of unique numbers in a sorted array using binary search. I need to get the edge of the change from one number to the next to count. I was thinking of doing this without using recursion. Is there an iterative approach?
def unique(x):
start = 0
end = len(x)-1
count =0
# This is the current number we are looking for
item = x[start]
while start <= end:
middle = (start + end)//2
if item == x[middle]:
start = middle+1
elif item < x[middle]:
end = middle -1
#when item item greater, change to next number
count+=1
# if the number
return count
unique([1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5])
Thank you.
Edit: Even if the runtime benefit is negligent from o(n), what is my binary search missing? It's confusing when not looking for an actual item. How can I fix this?
Working code exploiting binary search (returns 3 for given example).
As discussed in comments, complexity is about O(k*log(n)) where k is number of unique items, so this approach works well when k is small compared with n, and might become worse than linear scan in case of k ~ n
def countuniquebs(A):
n = len(A)
t = A[0]
l = 1
count = 0
while l < n - 1:
r = n - 1
while l < r:
m = (r + l) // 2
if A[m] > t:
r = m
else:
l = m + 1
count += 1
if l < n:
t = A[l]
return count
print(countuniquebs([1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5]))
I wouldn't quite call it "using a binary search", but this binary divide-and-conquer algorithm works in O(k*log(n)/log(k)) time, which is better than a repeated binary search, and never worse than a linear scan:
def countUniques(A, start, end):
len = end-start
if len < 1:
return 0
if A[start] == A[end-1]:
return 1
if len < 3:
return 2
mid = start + len//2
return countUniques(A, start, mid+1) + countUniques(A, mid, end) - 1
A = [1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,3,4,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5]
print(countUniques(A,0,len(A)))
Gets accepted for all test cases unless the inputted string is too long. Why is this happening and can I make this solution recursively? Is this because python has recursion limits as a language (would this work in java?) or is there something else that's wrong?
class Solution:
def lengthOfLongestSubstring(self, s: str) -> int:
if len(s) == 0:
return 0
if len(s) == 1:
return 1
start = 0
index = 0
length = len(s)
list = []
strr = ""
listt = self.getSubstring(s,[],index,list,start,length)
for i in listt:
if len(i) > len(strr):
strr = i
print(len(strr))
return len(strr)
def getSubstring(self,s,keys,index,list,start,length):
#print("s",s)
#print("start",start)
#print("index",index)
#print("keys",keys)
#print("list",list)
if index == len(s)-1:
if s[index] in keys:
list.append(s[start:index])
#print(list)
return list
else:
list.append(s[start:index+1])
#print(list)
return list
if s[index] in keys:
list.append(s[start:index])
return self.getSubstring(s,[],start+1,list,start+1,length)
else:
keys.append(s[index])
return self.getSubstring(s,keys,index+1,list,start,length)
This code solves this problem in linear time, the explanation at https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/length-of-the-longest-substring-without-repeating-characters/ or you may check out https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/print-longest-substring-without-repeating-characters/ which is approximately the same:
NO_OF_CHARS = 256
def longestUniqueSubsttr(string):
n = len(string)
cur_len = 1 # To store the length of current substring
max_len = 1 # To store the result
prev_index = 0 # To store the previous index
i = 0
# Initialize the visited array as -1, -1 is used to indicate
# that character has not been visited yet.
visited = [-1] * NO_OF_CHARS
# Mark first character as visited by storing the index of
# first character in visited array.
visited[ord(string[0])] = 0
# Start from the second character. First character is already
# processed (cur_len and max_len are initialized as 1, and
# visited[str[0]] is set
for i in xrange(1, n):
prev_index = visited[ord(string[i])]
# If the currentt character is not present in the already
# processed substring or it is not part of the current NRCS,
# then do cur_len++
if prev_index == -1 or (i - cur_len > prev_index):
cur_len+= 1
# If the current character is present in currently considered
# NRCS, then update NRCS to start from the next character of
# previous instance.
else:
# Also, when we are changing the NRCS, we should also
# check whether length of the previous NRCS was greater
# than max_len or not.
if cur_len > max_len:
max_len = cur_len
cur_len = i - prev_index
# update the index of current character
visited[ord(string[i])] = i
# Compare the length of last NRCS with max_len and update
# max_len if needed
if cur_len > max_len:
max_len = cur_len
return max_len
# Driver program to test the above function
string = "ABDEFGABEF"
print "The input string is " + string
length = longestUniqueSubsttr(string)
print ("The length of the longest non-repeating character" +
" substring is " + str(length))
Recursive implementation would be like so in pseudocode:
function lengthOfLongestSubstring(s)
for each c in s
unique[c] = false
n = s.length()
max_len = 0
for i in range(0, n):
max_len = max(max_len, max_sub_str(s, i)
return max_len
function max_sub_str(s, i)
if (i >= s.length() || unique[s[i]]) return 0;
unique[s[i]] = 1;
int count = 1 + max_sub_str(s, i + 1);
unique[s[i]] = 0;
return count;
Im trying to solve the following Codewars problem: https://www.codewars.com/kata/sum-of-pairs/train/python
Here is my current implementation in Python:
def sum_pairs(ints, s):
right = float("inf")
n = len(ints)
m = {}
dup = {}
for i, x in enumerate(ints):
if x not in m.keys():
m[x] = i # Track first index of x using hash map.
elif x in m.keys() and x not in dup.keys():
dup[x] = i
for x in m.keys():
if s - x in m.keys():
if x == s-x and x in dup.keys():
j = m[x]
k = dup[x]
else:
j = m[x]
k = m[s-x]
comp = max(j,k)
if comp < right and j!= k:
right = comp
if right > n:
return None
return [s - ints[right],ints[right]]
The code seems to produce correct results, however the input can consist of array with up to 10 000 000 elements, so the execution times out for large inputs. I need help with optimizing/modifying the code so that it can handle sufficiently large arrays.
Your code inefficient for large list test cases so it gives timeout error. Instead you can do:
def sum_pairs(lst, s):
seen = set()
for item in lst:
if s - item in seen:
return [s - item, item]
seen.add(item)
We put the values in seen until we find a value that produces the specified sum with one of the seen values.
For more information go: Referance link
Maybe this code:
def sum_pairs(lst, s):
c = 0
while c<len(lst)-1:
if c != len(lst)-1:
x= lst[c]
spam = c+1
while spam < len(lst):
nxt= lst[spam]
if nxt + x== s:
return [x, nxt]
spam += 1
else:
return None
c +=1
lst = [5, 6, 5, 8]
s = 14
print(sum_pairs(lst, s))
Output:
[6, 8]
This answer unfortunately still times out, even though it's supposed to run in O(n^3) (since it is dominated by the sort, the rest of the algorithm running in O(n)). I'm not sure how you can obtain better than this complexity, but I thought I might put this idea out there.
def sum_pairs(ints, s):
ints_with_idx = enumerate(ints)
# Sort the array of ints
ints_with_idx = sorted(ints_with_idx, key = lambda (idx, num) : num)
diff = 1000000
l = 0
r = len(ints) - 1
# Indexes of the sum operands in sorted array
lSum = 0
rSum = 0
while l < r:
# Compute the absolute difference between the current sum and the desired sum
sum = ints_with_idx[l][1] + ints_with_idx[r][1]
absDiff = abs(sum - s)
if absDiff < diff:
# Update the best difference
lSum = l
rSum = r
diff = absDiff
elif sum > s:
# Decrease the large value
r -= 1
else:
# Test to see if the indexes are better (more to the left) for the same difference
if absDiff == diff:
rightmostIdx = max(ints_with_idx[l][0], ints_with_idx[r][0])
if rightmostIdx < max(ints_with_idx[lSum][0], ints_with_idx[rSum][0]):
lSum = l
rSum = r
# Increase the small value
l += 1
# Retrieve indexes of sum operands
aSumIdx = ints_with_idx[lSum][0]
bSumIdx = ints_with_idx[rSum][0]
# Retrieve values of operands for sum in correct order
aSum = ints[min(aSumIdx, bSumIdx)]
bSum = ints[max(aSumIdx, bSumIdx)]
if aSum + bSum == s:
return [aSum, bSum]
else:
return None