We Keep Coding

how to make sure that two numbers next to each other in a list are different

I have a simple code that generates a list of random numbers.
x = [random.randrange(0,11) for i in range(10)]
The problem I'm having is that, since it's random, it sometimes produces duplicate numbers right next to each other. How do I change the code so that it never happens? I'm looking for something like this:
[1, 7, 2, 8, 7, 2, 8, 2, 6, 5]
So that every time I run the code, all the numbers that are next to each other are different.

x = []
while len(x) < 10:
r = random.randrange(0,11)
if not x or x[-1] != r:
x.append(r)
x[-1] contains the last inserted element, which we check not to be the same as the new random number. With not x we check that the array is not empty, as it would generate a IndexError during the first iteration of the loop

Here's an approach that doesn't rely on retrying:
>>> import random
>>> x = [random.choice(range(12))]
>>> for _ in range(9):
... x.append(random.choice([*range(x[-1]), *range(x[-1]+1, 12)]))
...
>>> x
[6, 2, 5, 8, 1, 8, 0, 4, 6, 0]
The idea is to choose each new number by picking from a list that excludes the previously picked number.
Note that having to re-generate a new list to pick from each time keeps this from actually being an efficiency improvement. If you were generating a very long list from a relatively short range, though, it might be worthwhile to generate different pools of numbers up front so that you could then select from the appropriate one in constant time:
>>> pool = [[*range(i), *range(i+1, 3)] for i in range(3)]
>>> x = [random.choice(random.choice(pool))]
>>> for _ in range(10000):
... x.append(random.choice(pool[x[-1]]))
...
>>> x
[0, 2, 0, 2, 0, 2, 1, 0, 1, 2, 0, 1, 2, 1, 0, ...]

O(n) solution by adding to the last element randomly from [1,stop) modulo stop
import random
x = [random.randrange(0,11)]
x.extend((x[-1]+random.randrange(1,11)) % 11 for i in range(9))
x
Output
[0, 10, 4, 5, 10, 1, 4, 8, 0, 9]

from random import randrange
from itertools import islice, groupby
# Make an infinite amount of randrange's results available
pool = iter(lambda: randrange(0, 11), None)
# Use groupby to squash consecutive values into one and islice to at most 10 in total
result = [v for v, _ in islice(groupby(pool), 10)]

Function solution that doesn't iterate to check for repeats, just checks each add against the last number in the list:
import random
def get_random_list_without_neighbors(lower_limit, upper_limit, length):
res = []
# add the first number
res.append(random.randrange(lower_limit, upper_limit))
while len(res) < length:
x = random.randrange(lower_limit, upper_limit)
# check that the new number x doesn't match the last number in the list
if x != res[-1]:
res.append(x)
return res
>>> print(get_random_list_without_neighbors(0, 11, 10)
[10, 1, 2, 3, 1, 8, 6, 5, 6, 2]

def random_sequence_without_same_neighbours(n, min, max):
x = [random.randrange(min, max + 1)]
uniq_value_count = max - min + 1
next_choises_count = uniq_value_count - 1
for i in range(n - 1):
circular_shift = random.randrange(0, next_choises_count)
x.append(min + (x[-1] + circular_shift + 1) % uniq_value_count)
return x
random_sequence_without_same_neighbours(n=10, min=0, max=10)

It's not to much pythonic but you can do something like this
import random
def random_numbers_generator(n):
"Generate a list of random numbers but without two duplicate numbers in a row "
result = []
for _ in range(n):
number = random.randint(1, n)
if result and number == result[-1]:
continue
result.append(number)
return result
print(random_numbers_generator(10))
Result:
3, 6, 2, 4, 2, 6, 2, 1, 4, 7]

How to improve time complexity of remove all multiplicands from array or list?

I am trying to find elements from array(integer array) or list which are unique and those elements must not divisible by any other element from same array or list.
You can answer in any language like python, java, c, c++ etc.
I have tried this code in Python3 and it works perfectly but I am looking for better and optimum solution in terms of time complexity.
assuming array or list A is already sorted and having unique elements
A = [2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16]
while i<len(A)-1:
while j<len(A):
if A[j]%A[i]==0:
A.pop(j)
else:
j+=1
i+=1
j=i+1
For the given array A=[2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16] answer would be like ans=[2,3,5,7,11,13]
another example,A=[4,5,15,16,17,23,39] then ans would be like, ans=[4,5,17,23,39]
ans is having unique numbers
any element i from array only exists if (i%j)!=0, where i!=j

I think it's more natural to do it in reverse, by building a new list containing the answer instead of removing elements from the original list. If I'm thinking correctly, both approaches do the same number of mod operations, but you avoid the issue of removing an element from a list.
A = [2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16]
ans = []
for x in A:
for y in ans:
if x % y == 0:
break
else: ans.append(x)
Edit: Promoting the completion else.

This algorithm will perform much faster:
A = [2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16]
if (A[-1]-A[0])/A[0] > len(A)*2:
result = list()
for v in A:
for f in result:
d,m = divmod(v,f)
if m == 0: v=0;break
if d<f: break
if v: result.append(v)
else:
retain = set(A)
minMult = 1
maxVal = A[-1]
for v in A:
if v not in retain : continue
minMult = v*2
if minMult > maxVal: break
if v*len(A)<maxVal:
retain.difference_update([m for m in retain if m >= minMult and m%v==0])
else:
retain.difference_update(range(minMult,maxVal,v))
if maxVal%v == 0:
maxVal = max(retain)
result = list(retain)
print(result) # [2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13]
In the spirit of the sieve of Eratostenes, each number that is retained, removes its multiples from the remaining eligible numbers. Depending on the magnitude of the highest value, it is sometimes more efficient to exclude multiples than check for divisibility. The divisibility check takes several times longer for an equivalent number of factors to check.
At some point, when the data is widely spread out, assembling the result instead of removing multiples becomes faster (this last addition was inspired by Imperishable Night's post).
TEST RESULTS
A = [2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16] (100000 repetitions)
Original: 0.55 sec
New: 0.29 sec
A = list(range(2,5000))+[9697] (100 repetitions)
Original: 3.77 sec
New: 0.12 sec
A = list(range(1001,2000))+list(range(4000,6000))+[9697**2] (10 repetitions)
Original: 3.54 sec
New: 0.02 sec

I know that this is totally insane but i want to know what you think about this:
A = [4,5,15,16,17,23,39]
prova=[[x for x in A if x!=y and y%x==0] for y in A]
print([A[idx] for idx,x in enumerate(prova) if len(prova[idx])==0])
And i think it's still O(n^2)

If you care about speed more than algorithmic efficiency, numpy would be the package to use here in python:
import numpy as np
# Note: doesn't have to be sorted
a = [2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 16, 29, 29]
a = np.unique(a)
result = a[np.all((a % a[:, None] + np.diag(a)), axis=0)]
# array([2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 29])
This divides all elements by all other elements and stores the remainder in a matrix, checks which columns contain only non-0 values (other than the diagonal), and selects all elements corresponding to those columns.

This is O(n*M) where M is the max size of an integer in your list. The integers are all assumed to be none negative. This also assumes your input list is sorted (came to that assumption since all lists you provided are sorted).
a = [4, 7, 7, 8]
# a = [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16]
# a = [4, 5, 15, 16, 17, 23, 39]
M = max(a)
used = set()
final_list = []
for e in a:
if e in used:
continue
else:
used.add(e)
for i in range(e, M + 1):
if not (i % e):
used.add(i)
final_list.append(e)
print(final_list)
Maybe this can be optimized even further...
If the list is not sorted then for the above method to work, one must sort it. The time complexity will then be O(nlogn + Mn) which equals to O(nlogn) when n >> M.

Python loop to calculate sum of elements in a list except 13

I am trying to write a function that iterates through a list to return the sum of the integer elements in the list. However if there is a 13 in the list, it needs to exclude the 13 and whatever comes right after it from the sum. So far I have come up with the following code. This works for almost all cases except when there are two 13's back to back. It only excludes the two 13's instead of the two 13's plus whatever is after the second 13. For example, when I call the function with print(sum13([13, 13, 2, 13, 1, 5, 6, 13])), instead of giving the output of 11 it gives 13. Any help is appreciated.
def sum13(nums):
while 13 in nums:
index13 = nums.index(13)
nums = nums[0:index13]+nums[index13+2:]
return sum(nums)

The idiomatic way of doing something like this is to keep track of the previous variable, for example:
def sum13(nums):
prev = None
my_sum = 0
for ele in nums:
if ele != 13 and prev != 13:
my_sum += ele
prev = ele
return my_sum
if __name__ == "__main__":
print(sum13([1,2,13,3,4]))
print(sum13([13, 13, 2, 13, 1, 5, 6, 13]))
Result:
7
11

You can do it functionally:
def sum13(nums):
return sum(current
for current, following
in zip(nums, [None] + nums[:-1])
if current != 13 and following != 13)
"Gimme a sum of all numbers that are not 13, and whose next number is not 13".

You could use a slice to determine whether a 13 precedes a number:
def sum13(nums):
sum_ = 0
for index, elem in enumerate(nums):
if 13 not in nums[max(index-1, 0):index+1]:
sum_ += elem
return sum_
The max is needed only for the first element, being that i-1 would be 0-1, so the slice would be [-1:1], which is empty. You can even cut it down to one line, if you really wanted to:
sum(e for i, e in enumerate(nums) if 13 not in nums[max(i-1, 0):i+1])

Because generators need love too:
l = [13, 13, 2, 13, 1, 5, 6, 13]
def sanitize(list):
il = iter(list)
for e in il:
while e == 13:
e = next(il)
if e != 13:
e = next(il)
yield e
print(sum(sanitize(l)))
The idea being that you clean up your list first and then sum it up.

Try the below. Note that this is using nexted function to remove 13s, or a series of 13s and the number right after
def refine(nums, index_i):
while 13 in nums:
print(nums)
index = len(nums) - nums[::-1].index(13) - 1
if index == index_i -1:
nums = refine(nums[0:index] + nums[index+1:], index)
else:
nums = refine(nums[0:index] + nums[index+2:], index)
return nums
print( sum(refine([0, 13, 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 13, 7, 13, 13, 5, 6, 13], 0)) )
This will sum only [0, 2, 3, 4, 6]
However, this is assuming you have a small list to manage With large list, you might want to think of the performance of such manipulation

How to I write a recursive function for split even and odd indices of array?

This is question for my interview.
Write a recursive function that does the following:
Input: An array A of length N. N is an even number and N >= 2.
Output: A reordered array B. The first half of B contains A’s elements with even indices. The second half of B contains A’s elements with odd indices. Convention: the first index of an array is 0 (and thus it is an even number).
Input 1: [4, 8, 12, 16]
For this array, the indices and the values are as follows:
Index: 0, 1, 2, 3
Value: 4, 8, 12, 16
Thus, the output is as follows:
Expected output 1: [4, 12, 8, 16]
ADDITIONAL TEST CASE
Input 2: [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]
Expected output 2: [1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10]
TASK
Write a recursive function in a programming language of your choice (as if you are writing real code to be used on a production server) for the above problem
In addition to the main function, you are free to write helper functions (if needed)
The code should have as few lines as possible (but it should still be clear and readable)
Note: Your recursive function must show the 'spirit' of a recursive function (not just the recursive form of a for loop)
Here is my code:
def slove(array, deep=0):
'''para:
array: list input.
return: list.
!!!Do not set value for deep!!!'''
if len(array) > 2:
if deep > 0:
for i in xrange(0, len(array), 2):
array[i], array[i + 1] = array[i + 1], array[i]
left = array[0]
right = array[-1]
array = array[1:-1]
array = slove(array, deep + 1)
array.insert(0, left)
array.append(right)
return array
else:
array[0], array[-1] = array[-1], array[0]
return array
if __name__ == '__main__':
array = map(int, raw_input('Enter array with sep is space key: ').split(' '))
# array = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]
print slove(array)
He said that it is wrong because I use loop in program. He is correct? So how to solve it?

Why not just use slicing?
lst = [11,12,13,14,15,16]
lst[0::2] + lst[1::2]
Returns:
[11, 13, 15, 12, 14, 16]

This pseudocode function might help:
Let A[n] and B[n] be the 2 arrays where n is the size.
Then we will call the following method rearrange(0,0):
rearrange(int i, int j) {
b[j] = a[i];
b[j+n/2] = a[i+1];
if (j < n/2-1)
rearrange(i+2,j+1);
}
In this method, i jumps 2 times each therefore the odd items get stored in the first half of the output array. For the second half, j+n/2 saves the even items.

This is one (awkward) way to do it:
def even_odd_split(seq):
"""
>>> even_odd_split([4, 8, 12, 16])
[4, 12, 8, 16]
>>> even_odd_split([1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10])
[1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10]
"""
assert(len(seq) % 2 == 0)
assert(len(seq) > 1)
def _split(seq):
if len(seq) == 0: return [], []
a, b = _split(seq[2:])
return [seq[0]] + a, [seq[1]] + b
a, b = _split(seq)
return a + b
if __name__ == '__main__':
import doctest
doctest.testmod()

I would solve it like this:
def f(l):
if len(l) == 1:
# only one element left
return l
if len(l) % 2 == 0:
# length is even
return l[:1] + f(l[1:])
else:
# length is odd
return f(l[1:]) + l[:1]
Every invocation of the function removes one element from the list and either puts it at the beginning or at the end of the resulting list.
It does not produce the given “expected” outputs, because the elements of the list appear in another order than they appear in the input list, but it matches the specification… and also, I think it’s pretty simple.

How does one find the largest consecutive set of numbers in a list that are not necessarily adjacent?

For instance, if I have a list
[1,4,2,3,5,4,5,6,7,8,1,3,4,5,9,10,11]
This algorithm should return [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11].
To clarify, the longest list should run forwards. I was wondering what is an algorithmically efficient way to do this (preferably not O(n^2))?
Also, I'm open to a solution not in python since the algorithm is what matters.
Thank you.

Here is a simple one-pass O(n) solution:
s = [1,4,2,3,5,4,5,6,7,8,1,3,4,5,9,10,11,42]
maxrun = -1
rl = {}
for x in s:
run = rl[x] = rl.get(x-1, 0) + 1
print x-run+1, 'to', x
if run > maxrun:
maxend, maxrun = x, run
print range(maxend-maxrun+1, maxend+1)
The logic may be a little more self-evident if you think in terms of ranges instead of individual variables for the endpoint and run length:
rl = {}
best_range = xrange(0)
for x in s:
run = rl[x] = rl.get(x-1, 0) + 1
r = xrange(x-run+1, x+1)
if len(r) > len(best_range):
best_range = r
print list(best_range)

Not that clever, not O(n), could use a bit of optimization. But it works.
def longest(seq):
result = []
for v in seq:
for l in result:
if v == l[-1] + 1:
l.append(v)
else:
result.append([v])
return max(result, key=len)

You can use The Patience Sort implementation of the Largest Ascending Sub-sequence Algorithm
def LargAscSub(seq):
deck = []
for x in seq:
newDeck = [x]
i = bisect.bisect_left(deck, newDeck)
deck[i].insert(0, x) if i != len(deck) else deck.append(newDeck)
return [p[0] for p in deck]
And here is the Test results
>>> LargAscSub([1,4,2,3,5,4,5,6,7,8,1,3,4,5,9,10,11])
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11]
>>> LargAscSub([1, 2, 3, 11, 12, 13, 14])
[1, 2, 3, 11, 12, 13, 14]
>>> LargAscSub([11,12,13,14])
[11, 12, 13, 14]
The Order of Complexity is O(nlogn)
There was one note in the wiki link where they claimed that you can achieve O(n.loglogn) by relying on Van Emde Boas tree

How about using a modified Radix Sort? As JanneKarila pointed out the solution is not O(n). It uses Radix sort, which wikipedia says Radix sort's efficiency is O(k·n) for n keys which have k or fewer digits.
This will only work if you know the range of numbers that we're dealing with so that will be the first step.
Look at each element in starting list to find lowest, l and highest, h number. In this case l is 1 and h is 11. Note, if you already know the range for some reason, you can skip this step.
Create a result list the size of our range and set each element to null.
Look at each element in list and add them to the result list at the appropriate place if needed. ie, the element is a 4, add a 4 to the result list at position 4. result[element] = starting_list[element]. You can throw out duplicates if you want, they'll just be overwritten.
Go through the result list to find the longest sequence without any null values. Keep a element_counter to know what element in the result list we're looking at. Keep a curr_start_element set to the beginning element of the current sequence and keep a curr_len of how long the current sequence is. Also keep a longest_start_element and a `longest_len' which will start out as zero and be updated as we move through the list.
Return the result list starting at longest_start_element and taking longest_len
EDIT: Code added. Tested and working
#note this doesn't work with negative numbers
#it's certainly possible to write this to work with negatives
# but the code is a bit hairier
import sys
def findLongestSequence(lst):
#step 1
high = -sys.maxint - 1
for num in lst:
if num > high:
high = num
#step 2
result = [None]*(high+1)
#step 3
for num in lst:
result[num] = num
#step 4
curr_start_element = 0
curr_len = 0
longest_start_element = -1
longest_len = -1
for element_counter in range(len(result)):
if result[element_counter] == None:
if curr_len > longest_len:
longest_start_element = curr_start_element
longest_len = curr_len
curr_len = 0
curr_start_element = -1
elif curr_start_element == -1:
curr_start_element = element_counter
curr_len += 1
#just in case the last element makes the longest
if curr_len > longest_len:
longest_start_element = curr_start_element
longest_len = curr_len
#step 5
return result[longest_start_element:longest_start_element + longest_len-1]

If the result really does have to be a sub-sequence of consecutive ascending integers, rather than merely ascending integers, then there's no need to remember each entire consecutive sub-sequence until you determine which is the longest, you need only remember the starting and ending values of each sub-sequence. So you could do something like this:
def longestConsecutiveSequence(sequence):
# map starting values to largest ending value so far
map = collections.OrderedDict()
for i in sequence:
found = False
for k, v in map.iteritems():
if i == v:
map[k] += 1
found = True
if not found and i not in map:
map[i] = i + 1
return xrange(*max(map.iteritems(), key=lambda i: i[1] - i[0]))
If I run this on the original sample date (i.e. [1,4,2,3,5,4,5,6,7,8,1,3,4,5,9,10,11]) I get:
>>> print list(longestConsecutiveSequence([1,4,2,3,5,4,5,6,7,8,1,3,4,5,9,10,11]))
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11]
If I run it on one of Abhijit's samples [1,2,3,11,12,13,14], I get:
>>> print list(longestConsecutiveSequence([1,2,3,11,12,13,14]))
[11, 12, 13, 14]
Regrettably, this algorithm is O(n*n) in the worst case.

Warning: This is the cheaty way to do it (aka I use python...)
import operator as op
import itertools as it
def longestSequence(data):
longest = []
for k, g in it.groupby(enumerate(set(data)), lambda(i, y):i-y):
thisGroup = map(op.itemgetter(1), g)
if len(thisGroup) > len(longest):
longest = thisGroup
return longest
longestSequence([1,4,2,3,5,4,5,6,7,8,1,3,4,5,9,10,11, 15,15,16,17,25])

You need the Maximum contiguous sum(Optimal Substructure):
def msum2(a):
bounds, s, t, j = (0,0), -float('infinity'), 0, 0
for i in range(len(a)):
t = t + a[i]
if t > s: bounds, s = (j, i+1), t
if t < 0: t, j = 0, i+1
return (s, bounds)
This is an example of dynamic programming and is O(N)

O(n) solution works even if the sequence does not start from the first element.
Warning does not work if len(A) = 0.
A = [1,4,2,3,5,4,5,6,7,8,1,3,4,5,9,10,11]
def pre_process(A):
Last = {}
Arrow = []
Length = []
ArgMax = 0
Max = 0
for i in xrange(len(A)):
Arrow.append(i)
Length.append(0)
if A[i] - 1 in Last:
Aux = Last[A[i] - 1]
Arrow[i] = Aux
Length[i] = Length[Aux] + 1
Last[A[i]] = i
if Length[i] > Max:
ArgMax = i
Max = Length[i]
return (Arrow,ArgMax)
(Arr,Start) = pre_process(A)
Old = Arr[Start]
ToRev = []
while 1:
ToRev.append(A[Start])
if Old == Start:
break
Start = Old
New = Arr[Start]
Old = New
ToRev.reverse()
print ToRev
Pythonizations are welcome!!

Ok, here's yet another attempt in python:
def popper(l):
listHolders = []
pos = 0
while l:
appended = False
item = l.pop()
for holder in listHolders:
if item == holder[-1][0]-1:
appended = True
holder.append((item, pos))
if not appended:
pos += 1
listHolders.append([(item, pos)])
longest = []
for holder in listHolders:
try:
if (holder[0][0] < longest[-1][0]) and (holder[0][1] > longest[-1][1]):
longest.extend(holder)
except:
pass
if len(holder) > len(longest):
longest = holder
longest.reverse()
return [x[0] for x in longest]
Sample inputs and outputs:
>>> demo = list(range(50))
>>> shuffle(demo)
>>> demo
[40, 19, 24, 5, 48, 36, 23, 43, 14, 35, 18, 21, 11, 7, 34, 16, 38, 25, 46, 27, 26, 29, 41, 8, 31, 1, 33, 2, 13, 6, 44, 22, 17,
12, 39, 9, 49, 3, 42, 37, 30, 10, 47, 20, 4, 0, 28, 32, 45, 15]
>>> popper(demo)
[1, 2, 3, 4]
>>> demo = [1,4,2,3,5,4,5,6,7,8,1,3,4,5,9,10,11]
>>> popper(demo)
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11]
>>>

This should do the trick (and is O(n)):
target = 1
result = []
for x in list:
for y in result:
if y[0] == target:
y[0] += 1
result.append(x)
For any starting number, this works:
result = []
for x in mylist:
matched = False
for y in result:
if y[0] == x:
matched = True
y[0] += 1
y.append(x)
if not matched:
result.append([x+1, x])
return max(result, key=len)[1:]