Finding two numbers that add to a given total











up vote
2
down vote

favorite












Given there's a list of random number and the amount I want to find.



For example:




[80, 98, 83, 92, 1, 38, 37, 54, 58, 89]




And I want two numbers that add up to a given total in this case it's 181. So, it's going to be (92+89). The list could be really big.



Here's the solution I come up with. But it's kinds brute force and I was wondering if there's a better way of doing this.



for i, item in enumerate(numbers):
for j in range(i+1, len(numbers)):
total_of_two_items = numbers[i] + numbers[j]
if(total_of_two_items == total_number):
print '{first_item} {second_item}'.format(first_item=i+1, second_item=j+1)
print 'n'









share|improve this question




















  • 2




    Sort the numbers in ascending order (for example) and then iteratively compare the head and tail of the resulting list. There are only three options: The head is too small, the tail is too big, or they are just right ;-)
    – twohundredping
    Jun 15 '15 at 18:34












  • Agree with @twohundredping Also for any given number, you know what its pair would have to be, so you might check if performance is better to search for a specific number int he ordered list. Also once you have chosen a number, you don't have to search the entire list for its pair. Also a pair is the same whether you choose the lower or higher number first, so even for the top for loop, you should probably only search half of an ordered list.
    – sunny
    Jun 16 '15 at 16:18















up vote
2
down vote

favorite












Given there's a list of random number and the amount I want to find.



For example:




[80, 98, 83, 92, 1, 38, 37, 54, 58, 89]




And I want two numbers that add up to a given total in this case it's 181. So, it's going to be (92+89). The list could be really big.



Here's the solution I come up with. But it's kinds brute force and I was wondering if there's a better way of doing this.



for i, item in enumerate(numbers):
for j in range(i+1, len(numbers)):
total_of_two_items = numbers[i] + numbers[j]
if(total_of_two_items == total_number):
print '{first_item} {second_item}'.format(first_item=i+1, second_item=j+1)
print 'n'









share|improve this question




















  • 2




    Sort the numbers in ascending order (for example) and then iteratively compare the head and tail of the resulting list. There are only three options: The head is too small, the tail is too big, or they are just right ;-)
    – twohundredping
    Jun 15 '15 at 18:34












  • Agree with @twohundredping Also for any given number, you know what its pair would have to be, so you might check if performance is better to search for a specific number int he ordered list. Also once you have chosen a number, you don't have to search the entire list for its pair. Also a pair is the same whether you choose the lower or higher number first, so even for the top for loop, you should probably only search half of an ordered list.
    – sunny
    Jun 16 '15 at 16:18













up vote
2
down vote

favorite









up vote
2
down vote

favorite











Given there's a list of random number and the amount I want to find.



For example:




[80, 98, 83, 92, 1, 38, 37, 54, 58, 89]




And I want two numbers that add up to a given total in this case it's 181. So, it's going to be (92+89). The list could be really big.



Here's the solution I come up with. But it's kinds brute force and I was wondering if there's a better way of doing this.



for i, item in enumerate(numbers):
for j in range(i+1, len(numbers)):
total_of_two_items = numbers[i] + numbers[j]
if(total_of_two_items == total_number):
print '{first_item} {second_item}'.format(first_item=i+1, second_item=j+1)
print 'n'









share|improve this question















Given there's a list of random number and the amount I want to find.



For example:




[80, 98, 83, 92, 1, 38, 37, 54, 58, 89]




And I want two numbers that add up to a given total in this case it's 181. So, it's going to be (92+89). The list could be really big.



Here's the solution I come up with. But it's kinds brute force and I was wondering if there's a better way of doing this.



for i, item in enumerate(numbers):
for j in range(i+1, len(numbers)):
total_of_two_items = numbers[i] + numbers[j]
if(total_of_two_items == total_number):
print '{first_item} {second_item}'.format(first_item=i+1, second_item=j+1)
print 'n'






python algorithm






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Jun 15 '15 at 18:45









Jamal

30.2k11115226




30.2k11115226










asked Jun 15 '15 at 17:52









toy

4681716




4681716








  • 2




    Sort the numbers in ascending order (for example) and then iteratively compare the head and tail of the resulting list. There are only three options: The head is too small, the tail is too big, or they are just right ;-)
    – twohundredping
    Jun 15 '15 at 18:34












  • Agree with @twohundredping Also for any given number, you know what its pair would have to be, so you might check if performance is better to search for a specific number int he ordered list. Also once you have chosen a number, you don't have to search the entire list for its pair. Also a pair is the same whether you choose the lower or higher number first, so even for the top for loop, you should probably only search half of an ordered list.
    – sunny
    Jun 16 '15 at 16:18














  • 2




    Sort the numbers in ascending order (for example) and then iteratively compare the head and tail of the resulting list. There are only three options: The head is too small, the tail is too big, or they are just right ;-)
    – twohundredping
    Jun 15 '15 at 18:34












  • Agree with @twohundredping Also for any given number, you know what its pair would have to be, so you might check if performance is better to search for a specific number int he ordered list. Also once you have chosen a number, you don't have to search the entire list for its pair. Also a pair is the same whether you choose the lower or higher number first, so even for the top for loop, you should probably only search half of an ordered list.
    – sunny
    Jun 16 '15 at 16:18








2




2




Sort the numbers in ascending order (for example) and then iteratively compare the head and tail of the resulting list. There are only three options: The head is too small, the tail is too big, or they are just right ;-)
– twohundredping
Jun 15 '15 at 18:34






Sort the numbers in ascending order (for example) and then iteratively compare the head and tail of the resulting list. There are only three options: The head is too small, the tail is too big, or they are just right ;-)
– twohundredping
Jun 15 '15 at 18:34














Agree with @twohundredping Also for any given number, you know what its pair would have to be, so you might check if performance is better to search for a specific number int he ordered list. Also once you have chosen a number, you don't have to search the entire list for its pair. Also a pair is the same whether you choose the lower or higher number first, so even for the top for loop, you should probably only search half of an ordered list.
– sunny
Jun 16 '15 at 16:18




Agree with @twohundredping Also for any given number, you know what its pair would have to be, so you might check if performance is better to search for a specific number int he ordered list. Also once you have chosen a number, you don't have to search the entire list for its pair. Also a pair is the same whether you choose the lower or higher number first, so even for the top for loop, you should probably only search half of an ordered list.
– sunny
Jun 16 '15 at 16:18










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
1
down vote



accepted










Here is an alternative approach using set logic, which is O(n) in the average case:



n = 181
n2 = n//2
numbers = [80, 98, 83, 92, 1, 38, 37, 54, 58, 89]
goodnums = {n-x for x in numbers if x<=n2} & {x for x in numbers if x>n2}
pairs = {(n-x, x) for x in goodnums}


What this does is first filter out values that are greater than 1/2 the target value, since one number in each pair must be that way. Then it subtracts the remaining numbers from the target (in this case 181). This gets the other value from the pair. Then it uses set logic to extract only those values where the other value is present in the original list of numbers.



So to put it more briefly, it finds all values x such that 181-x is also present in the list.



Edit: If you don't want to include cases where both members of the pair are equal and it only exists once, such as n=2 and numbers = [1], as Gareth pointed out, add this to the end:



if not n%2 and (n2, n2) in pairs and numbers.count(n2) == 1:
pairs.remove((n2, n2))


This will check if n is even and, if so, if there is exactly one value where x==n//2, if so remove (n//2, n//2) from the results.






share|improve this answer























  • This goes wrong in the case n = 2 and numbers = [1].
    – Gareth Rees
    Jun 15 '15 at 19:17










  • It returns [(1,1)]. Is this not the expect value in such a case?
    – TheBlackCat
    Jun 15 '15 at 19:18










  • numbers has only one element: it can't possibly contain two numbers that add up to anything. In other words: the items have to be chosen without replacement. See the original post, which is careful only to consider items at different indexes in the list.
    – Gareth Rees
    Jun 15 '15 at 19:25












  • @GarethRees I added an optional bit of code to handle this case.
    – TheBlackCat
    Jun 15 '15 at 19:33






  • 1




    @user2023861 I am not using arrays, I am using sets. Yes, for arrays it is O(n*n). But for sets the same operation is O(n). This is because it uses a hash table for value lookups. Looking up a value in an array is a O(n), but looking up a value in a well-structured hash table is O(1) (in CPython, hash tables of integers are always well-structured). Since it is doing a O(1) operation on each element of one of the sets, it is a O(1*n) operation overall, or O(n). You can see this in the official python Time Complexity page.
    – TheBlackCat
    Jun 16 '15 at 13:39




















up vote
0
down vote













We first sort the list and then keep comparing the ends of the sorted list to get those pairs of numbers which sum to a given number. Merge sort has been used here, however any other sorting algorithm can also be used. The main logic is in the find_pairs function.



def mergeSort(A):

if len(A) > 1:
mid = len(A)//2
lefthalf = A[:mid]
righthalf = A[mid:]

mergeSort(lefthalf)
mergeSort(righthalf)

# Merge the halves
i,j,k=0,0,0

while i<len(lefthalf) and j<len(righthalf):
if lefthalf[i] < righthalf[j]:
A[k] = lefthalf[i]
i = i + 1
else:
A[k] = righthalf[j]
j = j + 1
k = k + 1

while i < len(lefthalf):
A[k] = lefthalf[i]
k = k +1
i = i + 1

while j < len(righthalf):
A[k] = righthalf[j]
k = k + 1
j = j + 1


def find_pairs(alist, item):
# We take two flags left and right to point to the ends of the sorted list
left = 0
right = len(alist) - 1
pairs =
while(left<right):
# We find the sum of the numbers in at these two points.
# If the sum is equal to our number for which we are finding pairs, we consider this pair and add it to our results
# If the sum is greater than expected then we move the right pointer one step back to a smaller number and then compute sum again
# If the sum is smaller than expected then we move the left pointer a step ahead and check the sum with a greater number
sum = alist[left] + alist[right]
if sum == item:
pairs += [(alist[left],alist[right])]
# Move the pointers to next elements in the list and find more pairs
right -= 1
left += 1
elif sum > item:
right -= 1
else:
left += 1
return pairs


l1 = [80, 98, 83, 92, 1, 38, 37, 54, 58, 89]
mergeSort(l1)
print l1
print find_pairs(l1,181)

l2 = [-5,-2, -23, 34,21,90,1,0,65,8,-10]
mergeSort(l2)
print l2
print find_pairs(l2,-2)


The output of the above program is:



[1, 37, 38, 54, 58, 80, 83, 89, 92, 98]
[(83, 98), (89, 92)]


[-23, -10, -5, -2, 0, 1, 8, 21, 34, 65, 90]
[(-23, 21), (-10, 8), (-2, 0)]





share|improve this answer





















  • This appears to output the values that sum to the target total, rather than the indices of those values as in the original code.
    – Toby Speight
    Oct 25 at 13:38


















up vote
0
down vote













I came up with the following, which ends up using a dictionary as a helper to avoid the set operations and extra testing:



def sum_of_pairs_matches(K, arr):
uniques = {i: True for i in arr}
pairs = set()
for val in arr:
k = -val + K if val<K else -K - val
if(uniques.get(k, False)):
pairs.add(tuple(sorted([k,val])))
return pairs


Running:



sum_of_pairs_matches(5, [-5, -4, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10])


will yield



{(-5, 10), (-4, 9), (-1, 6), (0, 5), (1, 4), (2, 3)}





share|improve this answer























  • This appears to output the values that sum to the target total, rather than the indices of those values as in the original code.
    – Toby Speight
    Oct 25 at 13:38


















up vote
0
down vote













It's really worth writing this as a function. That will make it easier to test, and it's an opportunity to give it a sensible name and a docstring describing what it does (it's not obvious from your description that you wanted to output the positions of the found numbers, rather than the numbers themselves):



def find_2sum(target, numbers):
"""Find indexes of pairs from NUMBERS that add to TARGET"""
for i, item in enumerate(numbers):
for j in range(i+1, len(numbers)):
total_of_two_items = numbers[i] + numbers[j]
if(total_of_two_items == target):
print('{first_item} {second_item}'.format(first_item=i+1, second_item=j+1))
print('n')

if __name__ == '__main__':
find_2sum(181, [80, 98, 83, 92, 1, 38, 37, 54, 58, 89])




We can improve the interface by returning the index pairs instead of printing them. That pares the function down to its essential responsibility, instead of it finding and printing the results:



def find_2sum(target, numbers):
"""Find indexes of pairs from NUMBERS that add to TARGET"""
for i, item in enumerate(numbers):
for j in range(i+1, len(numbers)):
if numbers[i] + numbers[j] == target:
yield [i, j]

if __name__ == '__main__':
for i,j in find_2sum(181, [80, 98, 83, 92, 1, 38, 37, 54, 58, 89]):
print('{} {}'.format(i+1, j+1))




Now, let's look at the implementation. The first thing that strikes me is that we enumerate numbers, but never use the item we obtain. We might as well have written



for i in range(len(numbers)):


Perhaps we could enumerate() the list once, and use it for both augends:



def find_2sum(target, numbers):
"""Find indexes of pairs from NUMBERS that add to TARGET"""
numbers = list(enumerate(numbers))
while numbers:
i, first = numbers.pop(0)
for j, second in numbers:
if first + second == target:
yield [i, j]




We still have an efficiency problem, in that we're adding every possible pair and testing it against the target sum. We can avoid the addition by using a single subtraction outside the loop, but this still requires looking at all pairs, so still scales as O(n²):



def find_2sum(target, numbers):
"""Find indexes of pairs from NUMBERS that add to TARGET"""
numbers = list(enumerate(numbers))
while numbers:
i, first = numbers.pop(0)
difference = target - first
for j, second in numbers:
if second == difference:
yield [i, j]


What we really need to do now is to improve our search for difference. We'll need to use an additional data structure that can locate it in sub-linear time. The obvious choice would be a dict that maps from value to index; for a general solution, we'll need it to map to a list of indexes, because any number may appear multiple times. We can build such a map quite easily:



    index_map = collections.defaultdict(list)
for i, item in enumerate(numbers):
index_map[item].append(i)


The reading is a bit more involved: once we find two values that sum to the target, we need to form all combinations of the first value's indexes and the second value's indexes, like this:



    for first, indices in index_map.items():
difference = target - first
other_indices = index_map.get(difference, )
for i in indices:
for j in other_indices:
yield [i, j]


If we do this, we'll see that we produce every pair twice, once in each order. We can fix this by ignoring the cases where the first is bigger than the second:



    for first, indices in index_map.items():
difference = target - first
if first < difference:
other_indices = index_map.get(difference, )
for i in indices:
for j in other_indices:
yield [i, j]


There's another case we missed, and we can demonstrate with a simple test case:



for i,j in find_2sum((6, [2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4]):
print('{} {}'.format(i+1, j+1))


Because 3 is exactly half of 6, we need to enumerate all the combinations of these:



        if first == difference:
while indices:
i = indices.pop()
for j in indices:
yield [i, j]




We produce results in somewhat arbitrary order, as we're using an unsorted dict. If we want a consistent order to the results, the best way is to sort them after they are generated:



for i,j in sorted(sorted(x) for x in find_2sum(6, [2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4])):
print('{} {}'.format(i+1, j+1))




Full program



import collections

def find_2sum(target, numbers):
"""Find indexes of pairs from NUMBERS that add to TARGET"""
index_map = collections.defaultdict(list)
for i, item in enumerate(numbers):
index_map[item].append(i)

# now read from index_map
for first, indices in index_map.items():
difference = target - first
if first == difference:
# return all distinct pairs from indices (we won't need it again)
while indices:
i = indices.pop()
for j in indices:
yield [i, j]
elif first < difference:
# normal case - return all combinations of first and second
other_indices = index_map.get(difference, )
for i in indices:
for j in other_indices:
yield [i, j]

if __name__ == '__main__':
for i,j in find_2sum(181, [80, 98, 83, 92, 1, 38, 37, 54, 58, 89]):
print('{} {}'.format(i+1, j+1))

print()
for i,j in sorted(sorted(x) for x in find_2sum(6, [2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4])):
print('{} {}'.format(i+1, j+1))





share|improve this answer






























    up vote
    0
    down vote













    Its faster to check what your desired total (e.g. 181) minus every Listelement is and then see if the answer is also in the list.



    def addup(List, K):
    for index,item in enumerate(List):
    if K - item in List[:index] + List[index+1:]:
    return True
    return False


    X = [80, 98, 83, 92, 1, 38, 37, 54, 58, 89]
    Y = 181

    print addup(X,Y)





    share|improve this answer



















    • 2




      That sounds identical to the approach presented by TheBlackCat..."So to put it more briefly, it finds all values x such that 181-x is also present in the list."
      – Sᴀᴍ Onᴇᴌᴀ
      Nov 16 at 22:28












    • Yes, you are right. I didn't check it properly.
      – Raini Kandi
      Nov 17 at 23:36











    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
    StackExchange.snippets.init();
    });
    });
    }, "code-snippets");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "196"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














     

    draft saved


    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f93661%2ffinding-two-numbers-that-add-to-a-given-total%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    5 Answers
    5






    active

    oldest

    votes








    5 Answers
    5






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    1
    down vote



    accepted










    Here is an alternative approach using set logic, which is O(n) in the average case:



    n = 181
    n2 = n//2
    numbers = [80, 98, 83, 92, 1, 38, 37, 54, 58, 89]
    goodnums = {n-x for x in numbers if x<=n2} & {x for x in numbers if x>n2}
    pairs = {(n-x, x) for x in goodnums}


    What this does is first filter out values that are greater than 1/2 the target value, since one number in each pair must be that way. Then it subtracts the remaining numbers from the target (in this case 181). This gets the other value from the pair. Then it uses set logic to extract only those values where the other value is present in the original list of numbers.



    So to put it more briefly, it finds all values x such that 181-x is also present in the list.



    Edit: If you don't want to include cases where both members of the pair are equal and it only exists once, such as n=2 and numbers = [1], as Gareth pointed out, add this to the end:



    if not n%2 and (n2, n2) in pairs and numbers.count(n2) == 1:
    pairs.remove((n2, n2))


    This will check if n is even and, if so, if there is exactly one value where x==n//2, if so remove (n//2, n//2) from the results.






    share|improve this answer























    • This goes wrong in the case n = 2 and numbers = [1].
      – Gareth Rees
      Jun 15 '15 at 19:17










    • It returns [(1,1)]. Is this not the expect value in such a case?
      – TheBlackCat
      Jun 15 '15 at 19:18










    • numbers has only one element: it can't possibly contain two numbers that add up to anything. In other words: the items have to be chosen without replacement. See the original post, which is careful only to consider items at different indexes in the list.
      – Gareth Rees
      Jun 15 '15 at 19:25












    • @GarethRees I added an optional bit of code to handle this case.
      – TheBlackCat
      Jun 15 '15 at 19:33






    • 1




      @user2023861 I am not using arrays, I am using sets. Yes, for arrays it is O(n*n). But for sets the same operation is O(n). This is because it uses a hash table for value lookups. Looking up a value in an array is a O(n), but looking up a value in a well-structured hash table is O(1) (in CPython, hash tables of integers are always well-structured). Since it is doing a O(1) operation on each element of one of the sets, it is a O(1*n) operation overall, or O(n). You can see this in the official python Time Complexity page.
      – TheBlackCat
      Jun 16 '15 at 13:39

















    up vote
    1
    down vote



    accepted










    Here is an alternative approach using set logic, which is O(n) in the average case:



    n = 181
    n2 = n//2
    numbers = [80, 98, 83, 92, 1, 38, 37, 54, 58, 89]
    goodnums = {n-x for x in numbers if x<=n2} & {x for x in numbers if x>n2}
    pairs = {(n-x, x) for x in goodnums}


    What this does is first filter out values that are greater than 1/2 the target value, since one number in each pair must be that way. Then it subtracts the remaining numbers from the target (in this case 181). This gets the other value from the pair. Then it uses set logic to extract only those values where the other value is present in the original list of numbers.



    So to put it more briefly, it finds all values x such that 181-x is also present in the list.



    Edit: If you don't want to include cases where both members of the pair are equal and it only exists once, such as n=2 and numbers = [1], as Gareth pointed out, add this to the end:



    if not n%2 and (n2, n2) in pairs and numbers.count(n2) == 1:
    pairs.remove((n2, n2))


    This will check if n is even and, if so, if there is exactly one value where x==n//2, if so remove (n//2, n//2) from the results.






    share|improve this answer























    • This goes wrong in the case n = 2 and numbers = [1].
      – Gareth Rees
      Jun 15 '15 at 19:17










    • It returns [(1,1)]. Is this not the expect value in such a case?
      – TheBlackCat
      Jun 15 '15 at 19:18










    • numbers has only one element: it can't possibly contain two numbers that add up to anything. In other words: the items have to be chosen without replacement. See the original post, which is careful only to consider items at different indexes in the list.
      – Gareth Rees
      Jun 15 '15 at 19:25












    • @GarethRees I added an optional bit of code to handle this case.
      – TheBlackCat
      Jun 15 '15 at 19:33






    • 1




      @user2023861 I am not using arrays, I am using sets. Yes, for arrays it is O(n*n). But for sets the same operation is O(n). This is because it uses a hash table for value lookups. Looking up a value in an array is a O(n), but looking up a value in a well-structured hash table is O(1) (in CPython, hash tables of integers are always well-structured). Since it is doing a O(1) operation on each element of one of the sets, it is a O(1*n) operation overall, or O(n). You can see this in the official python Time Complexity page.
      – TheBlackCat
      Jun 16 '15 at 13:39















    up vote
    1
    down vote



    accepted







    up vote
    1
    down vote



    accepted






    Here is an alternative approach using set logic, which is O(n) in the average case:



    n = 181
    n2 = n//2
    numbers = [80, 98, 83, 92, 1, 38, 37, 54, 58, 89]
    goodnums = {n-x for x in numbers if x<=n2} & {x for x in numbers if x>n2}
    pairs = {(n-x, x) for x in goodnums}


    What this does is first filter out values that are greater than 1/2 the target value, since one number in each pair must be that way. Then it subtracts the remaining numbers from the target (in this case 181). This gets the other value from the pair. Then it uses set logic to extract only those values where the other value is present in the original list of numbers.



    So to put it more briefly, it finds all values x such that 181-x is also present in the list.



    Edit: If you don't want to include cases where both members of the pair are equal and it only exists once, such as n=2 and numbers = [1], as Gareth pointed out, add this to the end:



    if not n%2 and (n2, n2) in pairs and numbers.count(n2) == 1:
    pairs.remove((n2, n2))


    This will check if n is even and, if so, if there is exactly one value where x==n//2, if so remove (n//2, n//2) from the results.






    share|improve this answer














    Here is an alternative approach using set logic, which is O(n) in the average case:



    n = 181
    n2 = n//2
    numbers = [80, 98, 83, 92, 1, 38, 37, 54, 58, 89]
    goodnums = {n-x for x in numbers if x<=n2} & {x for x in numbers if x>n2}
    pairs = {(n-x, x) for x in goodnums}


    What this does is first filter out values that are greater than 1/2 the target value, since one number in each pair must be that way. Then it subtracts the remaining numbers from the target (in this case 181). This gets the other value from the pair. Then it uses set logic to extract only those values where the other value is present in the original list of numbers.



    So to put it more briefly, it finds all values x such that 181-x is also present in the list.



    Edit: If you don't want to include cases where both members of the pair are equal and it only exists once, such as n=2 and numbers = [1], as Gareth pointed out, add this to the end:



    if not n%2 and (n2, n2) in pairs and numbers.count(n2) == 1:
    pairs.remove((n2, n2))


    This will check if n is even and, if so, if there is exactly one value where x==n//2, if so remove (n//2, n//2) from the results.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Jun 15 '15 at 20:33

























    answered Jun 15 '15 at 19:13









    TheBlackCat

    2,20449




    2,20449












    • This goes wrong in the case n = 2 and numbers = [1].
      – Gareth Rees
      Jun 15 '15 at 19:17










    • It returns [(1,1)]. Is this not the expect value in such a case?
      – TheBlackCat
      Jun 15 '15 at 19:18










    • numbers has only one element: it can't possibly contain two numbers that add up to anything. In other words: the items have to be chosen without replacement. See the original post, which is careful only to consider items at different indexes in the list.
      – Gareth Rees
      Jun 15 '15 at 19:25












    • @GarethRees I added an optional bit of code to handle this case.
      – TheBlackCat
      Jun 15 '15 at 19:33






    • 1




      @user2023861 I am not using arrays, I am using sets. Yes, for arrays it is O(n*n). But for sets the same operation is O(n). This is because it uses a hash table for value lookups. Looking up a value in an array is a O(n), but looking up a value in a well-structured hash table is O(1) (in CPython, hash tables of integers are always well-structured). Since it is doing a O(1) operation on each element of one of the sets, it is a O(1*n) operation overall, or O(n). You can see this in the official python Time Complexity page.
      – TheBlackCat
      Jun 16 '15 at 13:39




















    • This goes wrong in the case n = 2 and numbers = [1].
      – Gareth Rees
      Jun 15 '15 at 19:17










    • It returns [(1,1)]. Is this not the expect value in such a case?
      – TheBlackCat
      Jun 15 '15 at 19:18










    • numbers has only one element: it can't possibly contain two numbers that add up to anything. In other words: the items have to be chosen without replacement. See the original post, which is careful only to consider items at different indexes in the list.
      – Gareth Rees
      Jun 15 '15 at 19:25












    • @GarethRees I added an optional bit of code to handle this case.
      – TheBlackCat
      Jun 15 '15 at 19:33






    • 1




      @user2023861 I am not using arrays, I am using sets. Yes, for arrays it is O(n*n). But for sets the same operation is O(n). This is because it uses a hash table for value lookups. Looking up a value in an array is a O(n), but looking up a value in a well-structured hash table is O(1) (in CPython, hash tables of integers are always well-structured). Since it is doing a O(1) operation on each element of one of the sets, it is a O(1*n) operation overall, or O(n). You can see this in the official python Time Complexity page.
      – TheBlackCat
      Jun 16 '15 at 13:39


















    This goes wrong in the case n = 2 and numbers = [1].
    – Gareth Rees
    Jun 15 '15 at 19:17




    This goes wrong in the case n = 2 and numbers = [1].
    – Gareth Rees
    Jun 15 '15 at 19:17












    It returns [(1,1)]. Is this not the expect value in such a case?
    – TheBlackCat
    Jun 15 '15 at 19:18




    It returns [(1,1)]. Is this not the expect value in such a case?
    – TheBlackCat
    Jun 15 '15 at 19:18












    numbers has only one element: it can't possibly contain two numbers that add up to anything. In other words: the items have to be chosen without replacement. See the original post, which is careful only to consider items at different indexes in the list.
    – Gareth Rees
    Jun 15 '15 at 19:25






    numbers has only one element: it can't possibly contain two numbers that add up to anything. In other words: the items have to be chosen without replacement. See the original post, which is careful only to consider items at different indexes in the list.
    – Gareth Rees
    Jun 15 '15 at 19:25














    @GarethRees I added an optional bit of code to handle this case.
    – TheBlackCat
    Jun 15 '15 at 19:33




    @GarethRees I added an optional bit of code to handle this case.
    – TheBlackCat
    Jun 15 '15 at 19:33




    1




    1




    @user2023861 I am not using arrays, I am using sets. Yes, for arrays it is O(n*n). But for sets the same operation is O(n). This is because it uses a hash table for value lookups. Looking up a value in an array is a O(n), but looking up a value in a well-structured hash table is O(1) (in CPython, hash tables of integers are always well-structured). Since it is doing a O(1) operation on each element of one of the sets, it is a O(1*n) operation overall, or O(n). You can see this in the official python Time Complexity page.
    – TheBlackCat
    Jun 16 '15 at 13:39






    @user2023861 I am not using arrays, I am using sets. Yes, for arrays it is O(n*n). But for sets the same operation is O(n). This is because it uses a hash table for value lookups. Looking up a value in an array is a O(n), but looking up a value in a well-structured hash table is O(1) (in CPython, hash tables of integers are always well-structured). Since it is doing a O(1) operation on each element of one of the sets, it is a O(1*n) operation overall, or O(n). You can see this in the official python Time Complexity page.
    – TheBlackCat
    Jun 16 '15 at 13:39














    up vote
    0
    down vote













    We first sort the list and then keep comparing the ends of the sorted list to get those pairs of numbers which sum to a given number. Merge sort has been used here, however any other sorting algorithm can also be used. The main logic is in the find_pairs function.



    def mergeSort(A):

    if len(A) > 1:
    mid = len(A)//2
    lefthalf = A[:mid]
    righthalf = A[mid:]

    mergeSort(lefthalf)
    mergeSort(righthalf)

    # Merge the halves
    i,j,k=0,0,0

    while i<len(lefthalf) and j<len(righthalf):
    if lefthalf[i] < righthalf[j]:
    A[k] = lefthalf[i]
    i = i + 1
    else:
    A[k] = righthalf[j]
    j = j + 1
    k = k + 1

    while i < len(lefthalf):
    A[k] = lefthalf[i]
    k = k +1
    i = i + 1

    while j < len(righthalf):
    A[k] = righthalf[j]
    k = k + 1
    j = j + 1


    def find_pairs(alist, item):
    # We take two flags left and right to point to the ends of the sorted list
    left = 0
    right = len(alist) - 1
    pairs =
    while(left<right):
    # We find the sum of the numbers in at these two points.
    # If the sum is equal to our number for which we are finding pairs, we consider this pair and add it to our results
    # If the sum is greater than expected then we move the right pointer one step back to a smaller number and then compute sum again
    # If the sum is smaller than expected then we move the left pointer a step ahead and check the sum with a greater number
    sum = alist[left] + alist[right]
    if sum == item:
    pairs += [(alist[left],alist[right])]
    # Move the pointers to next elements in the list and find more pairs
    right -= 1
    left += 1
    elif sum > item:
    right -= 1
    else:
    left += 1
    return pairs


    l1 = [80, 98, 83, 92, 1, 38, 37, 54, 58, 89]
    mergeSort(l1)
    print l1
    print find_pairs(l1,181)

    l2 = [-5,-2, -23, 34,21,90,1,0,65,8,-10]
    mergeSort(l2)
    print l2
    print find_pairs(l2,-2)


    The output of the above program is:



    [1, 37, 38, 54, 58, 80, 83, 89, 92, 98]
    [(83, 98), (89, 92)]


    [-23, -10, -5, -2, 0, 1, 8, 21, 34, 65, 90]
    [(-23, 21), (-10, 8), (-2, 0)]





    share|improve this answer





















    • This appears to output the values that sum to the target total, rather than the indices of those values as in the original code.
      – Toby Speight
      Oct 25 at 13:38















    up vote
    0
    down vote













    We first sort the list and then keep comparing the ends of the sorted list to get those pairs of numbers which sum to a given number. Merge sort has been used here, however any other sorting algorithm can also be used. The main logic is in the find_pairs function.



    def mergeSort(A):

    if len(A) > 1:
    mid = len(A)//2
    lefthalf = A[:mid]
    righthalf = A[mid:]

    mergeSort(lefthalf)
    mergeSort(righthalf)

    # Merge the halves
    i,j,k=0,0,0

    while i<len(lefthalf) and j<len(righthalf):
    if lefthalf[i] < righthalf[j]:
    A[k] = lefthalf[i]
    i = i + 1
    else:
    A[k] = righthalf[j]
    j = j + 1
    k = k + 1

    while i < len(lefthalf):
    A[k] = lefthalf[i]
    k = k +1
    i = i + 1

    while j < len(righthalf):
    A[k] = righthalf[j]
    k = k + 1
    j = j + 1


    def find_pairs(alist, item):
    # We take two flags left and right to point to the ends of the sorted list
    left = 0
    right = len(alist) - 1
    pairs =
    while(left<right):
    # We find the sum of the numbers in at these two points.
    # If the sum is equal to our number for which we are finding pairs, we consider this pair and add it to our results
    # If the sum is greater than expected then we move the right pointer one step back to a smaller number and then compute sum again
    # If the sum is smaller than expected then we move the left pointer a step ahead and check the sum with a greater number
    sum = alist[left] + alist[right]
    if sum == item:
    pairs += [(alist[left],alist[right])]
    # Move the pointers to next elements in the list and find more pairs
    right -= 1
    left += 1
    elif sum > item:
    right -= 1
    else:
    left += 1
    return pairs


    l1 = [80, 98, 83, 92, 1, 38, 37, 54, 58, 89]
    mergeSort(l1)
    print l1
    print find_pairs(l1,181)

    l2 = [-5,-2, -23, 34,21,90,1,0,65,8,-10]
    mergeSort(l2)
    print l2
    print find_pairs(l2,-2)


    The output of the above program is:



    [1, 37, 38, 54, 58, 80, 83, 89, 92, 98]
    [(83, 98), (89, 92)]


    [-23, -10, -5, -2, 0, 1, 8, 21, 34, 65, 90]
    [(-23, 21), (-10, 8), (-2, 0)]





    share|improve this answer





















    • This appears to output the values that sum to the target total, rather than the indices of those values as in the original code.
      – Toby Speight
      Oct 25 at 13:38













    up vote
    0
    down vote










    up vote
    0
    down vote









    We first sort the list and then keep comparing the ends of the sorted list to get those pairs of numbers which sum to a given number. Merge sort has been used here, however any other sorting algorithm can also be used. The main logic is in the find_pairs function.



    def mergeSort(A):

    if len(A) > 1:
    mid = len(A)//2
    lefthalf = A[:mid]
    righthalf = A[mid:]

    mergeSort(lefthalf)
    mergeSort(righthalf)

    # Merge the halves
    i,j,k=0,0,0

    while i<len(lefthalf) and j<len(righthalf):
    if lefthalf[i] < righthalf[j]:
    A[k] = lefthalf[i]
    i = i + 1
    else:
    A[k] = righthalf[j]
    j = j + 1
    k = k + 1

    while i < len(lefthalf):
    A[k] = lefthalf[i]
    k = k +1
    i = i + 1

    while j < len(righthalf):
    A[k] = righthalf[j]
    k = k + 1
    j = j + 1


    def find_pairs(alist, item):
    # We take two flags left and right to point to the ends of the sorted list
    left = 0
    right = len(alist) - 1
    pairs =
    while(left<right):
    # We find the sum of the numbers in at these two points.
    # If the sum is equal to our number for which we are finding pairs, we consider this pair and add it to our results
    # If the sum is greater than expected then we move the right pointer one step back to a smaller number and then compute sum again
    # If the sum is smaller than expected then we move the left pointer a step ahead and check the sum with a greater number
    sum = alist[left] + alist[right]
    if sum == item:
    pairs += [(alist[left],alist[right])]
    # Move the pointers to next elements in the list and find more pairs
    right -= 1
    left += 1
    elif sum > item:
    right -= 1
    else:
    left += 1
    return pairs


    l1 = [80, 98, 83, 92, 1, 38, 37, 54, 58, 89]
    mergeSort(l1)
    print l1
    print find_pairs(l1,181)

    l2 = [-5,-2, -23, 34,21,90,1,0,65,8,-10]
    mergeSort(l2)
    print l2
    print find_pairs(l2,-2)


    The output of the above program is:



    [1, 37, 38, 54, 58, 80, 83, 89, 92, 98]
    [(83, 98), (89, 92)]


    [-23, -10, -5, -2, 0, 1, 8, 21, 34, 65, 90]
    [(-23, 21), (-10, 8), (-2, 0)]





    share|improve this answer












    We first sort the list and then keep comparing the ends of the sorted list to get those pairs of numbers which sum to a given number. Merge sort has been used here, however any other sorting algorithm can also be used. The main logic is in the find_pairs function.



    def mergeSort(A):

    if len(A) > 1:
    mid = len(A)//2
    lefthalf = A[:mid]
    righthalf = A[mid:]

    mergeSort(lefthalf)
    mergeSort(righthalf)

    # Merge the halves
    i,j,k=0,0,0

    while i<len(lefthalf) and j<len(righthalf):
    if lefthalf[i] < righthalf[j]:
    A[k] = lefthalf[i]
    i = i + 1
    else:
    A[k] = righthalf[j]
    j = j + 1
    k = k + 1

    while i < len(lefthalf):
    A[k] = lefthalf[i]
    k = k +1
    i = i + 1

    while j < len(righthalf):
    A[k] = righthalf[j]
    k = k + 1
    j = j + 1


    def find_pairs(alist, item):
    # We take two flags left and right to point to the ends of the sorted list
    left = 0
    right = len(alist) - 1
    pairs =
    while(left<right):
    # We find the sum of the numbers in at these two points.
    # If the sum is equal to our number for which we are finding pairs, we consider this pair and add it to our results
    # If the sum is greater than expected then we move the right pointer one step back to a smaller number and then compute sum again
    # If the sum is smaller than expected then we move the left pointer a step ahead and check the sum with a greater number
    sum = alist[left] + alist[right]
    if sum == item:
    pairs += [(alist[left],alist[right])]
    # Move the pointers to next elements in the list and find more pairs
    right -= 1
    left += 1
    elif sum > item:
    right -= 1
    else:
    left += 1
    return pairs


    l1 = [80, 98, 83, 92, 1, 38, 37, 54, 58, 89]
    mergeSort(l1)
    print l1
    print find_pairs(l1,181)

    l2 = [-5,-2, -23, 34,21,90,1,0,65,8,-10]
    mergeSort(l2)
    print l2
    print find_pairs(l2,-2)


    The output of the above program is:



    [1, 37, 38, 54, 58, 80, 83, 89, 92, 98]
    [(83, 98), (89, 92)]


    [-23, -10, -5, -2, 0, 1, 8, 21, 34, 65, 90]
    [(-23, 21), (-10, 8), (-2, 0)]






    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered Dec 1 '16 at 19:30









    Sonal Dubey

    91




    91












    • This appears to output the values that sum to the target total, rather than the indices of those values as in the original code.
      – Toby Speight
      Oct 25 at 13:38


















    • This appears to output the values that sum to the target total, rather than the indices of those values as in the original code.
      – Toby Speight
      Oct 25 at 13:38
















    This appears to output the values that sum to the target total, rather than the indices of those values as in the original code.
    – Toby Speight
    Oct 25 at 13:38




    This appears to output the values that sum to the target total, rather than the indices of those values as in the original code.
    – Toby Speight
    Oct 25 at 13:38










    up vote
    0
    down vote













    I came up with the following, which ends up using a dictionary as a helper to avoid the set operations and extra testing:



    def sum_of_pairs_matches(K, arr):
    uniques = {i: True for i in arr}
    pairs = set()
    for val in arr:
    k = -val + K if val<K else -K - val
    if(uniques.get(k, False)):
    pairs.add(tuple(sorted([k,val])))
    return pairs


    Running:



    sum_of_pairs_matches(5, [-5, -4, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10])


    will yield



    {(-5, 10), (-4, 9), (-1, 6), (0, 5), (1, 4), (2, 3)}





    share|improve this answer























    • This appears to output the values that sum to the target total, rather than the indices of those values as in the original code.
      – Toby Speight
      Oct 25 at 13:38















    up vote
    0
    down vote













    I came up with the following, which ends up using a dictionary as a helper to avoid the set operations and extra testing:



    def sum_of_pairs_matches(K, arr):
    uniques = {i: True for i in arr}
    pairs = set()
    for val in arr:
    k = -val + K if val<K else -K - val
    if(uniques.get(k, False)):
    pairs.add(tuple(sorted([k,val])))
    return pairs


    Running:



    sum_of_pairs_matches(5, [-5, -4, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10])


    will yield



    {(-5, 10), (-4, 9), (-1, 6), (0, 5), (1, 4), (2, 3)}





    share|improve this answer























    • This appears to output the values that sum to the target total, rather than the indices of those values as in the original code.
      – Toby Speight
      Oct 25 at 13:38













    up vote
    0
    down vote










    up vote
    0
    down vote









    I came up with the following, which ends up using a dictionary as a helper to avoid the set operations and extra testing:



    def sum_of_pairs_matches(K, arr):
    uniques = {i: True for i in arr}
    pairs = set()
    for val in arr:
    k = -val + K if val<K else -K - val
    if(uniques.get(k, False)):
    pairs.add(tuple(sorted([k,val])))
    return pairs


    Running:



    sum_of_pairs_matches(5, [-5, -4, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10])


    will yield



    {(-5, 10), (-4, 9), (-1, 6), (0, 5), (1, 4), (2, 3)}





    share|improve this answer














    I came up with the following, which ends up using a dictionary as a helper to avoid the set operations and extra testing:



    def sum_of_pairs_matches(K, arr):
    uniques = {i: True for i in arr}
    pairs = set()
    for val in arr:
    k = -val + K if val<K else -K - val
    if(uniques.get(k, False)):
    pairs.add(tuple(sorted([k,val])))
    return pairs


    Running:



    sum_of_pairs_matches(5, [-5, -4, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10])


    will yield



    {(-5, 10), (-4, 9), (-1, 6), (0, 5), (1, 4), (2, 3)}






    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Jan 18 at 23:22









    Jamal

    30.2k11115226




    30.2k11115226










    answered Jan 18 at 21:26









    wgrampon

    1




    1












    • This appears to output the values that sum to the target total, rather than the indices of those values as in the original code.
      – Toby Speight
      Oct 25 at 13:38


















    • This appears to output the values that sum to the target total, rather than the indices of those values as in the original code.
      – Toby Speight
      Oct 25 at 13:38
















    This appears to output the values that sum to the target total, rather than the indices of those values as in the original code.
    – Toby Speight
    Oct 25 at 13:38




    This appears to output the values that sum to the target total, rather than the indices of those values as in the original code.
    – Toby Speight
    Oct 25 at 13:38










    up vote
    0
    down vote













    It's really worth writing this as a function. That will make it easier to test, and it's an opportunity to give it a sensible name and a docstring describing what it does (it's not obvious from your description that you wanted to output the positions of the found numbers, rather than the numbers themselves):



    def find_2sum(target, numbers):
    """Find indexes of pairs from NUMBERS that add to TARGET"""
    for i, item in enumerate(numbers):
    for j in range(i+1, len(numbers)):
    total_of_two_items = numbers[i] + numbers[j]
    if(total_of_two_items == target):
    print('{first_item} {second_item}'.format(first_item=i+1, second_item=j+1))
    print('n')

    if __name__ == '__main__':
    find_2sum(181, [80, 98, 83, 92, 1, 38, 37, 54, 58, 89])




    We can improve the interface by returning the index pairs instead of printing them. That pares the function down to its essential responsibility, instead of it finding and printing the results:



    def find_2sum(target, numbers):
    """Find indexes of pairs from NUMBERS that add to TARGET"""
    for i, item in enumerate(numbers):
    for j in range(i+1, len(numbers)):
    if numbers[i] + numbers[j] == target:
    yield [i, j]

    if __name__ == '__main__':
    for i,j in find_2sum(181, [80, 98, 83, 92, 1, 38, 37, 54, 58, 89]):
    print('{} {}'.format(i+1, j+1))




    Now, let's look at the implementation. The first thing that strikes me is that we enumerate numbers, but never use the item we obtain. We might as well have written



    for i in range(len(numbers)):


    Perhaps we could enumerate() the list once, and use it for both augends:



    def find_2sum(target, numbers):
    """Find indexes of pairs from NUMBERS that add to TARGET"""
    numbers = list(enumerate(numbers))
    while numbers:
    i, first = numbers.pop(0)
    for j, second in numbers:
    if first + second == target:
    yield [i, j]




    We still have an efficiency problem, in that we're adding every possible pair and testing it against the target sum. We can avoid the addition by using a single subtraction outside the loop, but this still requires looking at all pairs, so still scales as O(n²):



    def find_2sum(target, numbers):
    """Find indexes of pairs from NUMBERS that add to TARGET"""
    numbers = list(enumerate(numbers))
    while numbers:
    i, first = numbers.pop(0)
    difference = target - first
    for j, second in numbers:
    if second == difference:
    yield [i, j]


    What we really need to do now is to improve our search for difference. We'll need to use an additional data structure that can locate it in sub-linear time. The obvious choice would be a dict that maps from value to index; for a general solution, we'll need it to map to a list of indexes, because any number may appear multiple times. We can build such a map quite easily:



        index_map = collections.defaultdict(list)
    for i, item in enumerate(numbers):
    index_map[item].append(i)


    The reading is a bit more involved: once we find two values that sum to the target, we need to form all combinations of the first value's indexes and the second value's indexes, like this:



        for first, indices in index_map.items():
    difference = target - first
    other_indices = index_map.get(difference, )
    for i in indices:
    for j in other_indices:
    yield [i, j]


    If we do this, we'll see that we produce every pair twice, once in each order. We can fix this by ignoring the cases where the first is bigger than the second:



        for first, indices in index_map.items():
    difference = target - first
    if first < difference:
    other_indices = index_map.get(difference, )
    for i in indices:
    for j in other_indices:
    yield [i, j]


    There's another case we missed, and we can demonstrate with a simple test case:



    for i,j in find_2sum((6, [2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4]):
    print('{} {}'.format(i+1, j+1))


    Because 3 is exactly half of 6, we need to enumerate all the combinations of these:



            if first == difference:
    while indices:
    i = indices.pop()
    for j in indices:
    yield [i, j]




    We produce results in somewhat arbitrary order, as we're using an unsorted dict. If we want a consistent order to the results, the best way is to sort them after they are generated:



    for i,j in sorted(sorted(x) for x in find_2sum(6, [2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4])):
    print('{} {}'.format(i+1, j+1))




    Full program



    import collections

    def find_2sum(target, numbers):
    """Find indexes of pairs from NUMBERS that add to TARGET"""
    index_map = collections.defaultdict(list)
    for i, item in enumerate(numbers):
    index_map[item].append(i)

    # now read from index_map
    for first, indices in index_map.items():
    difference = target - first
    if first == difference:
    # return all distinct pairs from indices (we won't need it again)
    while indices:
    i = indices.pop()
    for j in indices:
    yield [i, j]
    elif first < difference:
    # normal case - return all combinations of first and second
    other_indices = index_map.get(difference, )
    for i in indices:
    for j in other_indices:
    yield [i, j]

    if __name__ == '__main__':
    for i,j in find_2sum(181, [80, 98, 83, 92, 1, 38, 37, 54, 58, 89]):
    print('{} {}'.format(i+1, j+1))

    print()
    for i,j in sorted(sorted(x) for x in find_2sum(6, [2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4])):
    print('{} {}'.format(i+1, j+1))





    share|improve this answer



























      up vote
      0
      down vote













      It's really worth writing this as a function. That will make it easier to test, and it's an opportunity to give it a sensible name and a docstring describing what it does (it's not obvious from your description that you wanted to output the positions of the found numbers, rather than the numbers themselves):



      def find_2sum(target, numbers):
      """Find indexes of pairs from NUMBERS that add to TARGET"""
      for i, item in enumerate(numbers):
      for j in range(i+1, len(numbers)):
      total_of_two_items = numbers[i] + numbers[j]
      if(total_of_two_items == target):
      print('{first_item} {second_item}'.format(first_item=i+1, second_item=j+1))
      print('n')

      if __name__ == '__main__':
      find_2sum(181, [80, 98, 83, 92, 1, 38, 37, 54, 58, 89])




      We can improve the interface by returning the index pairs instead of printing them. That pares the function down to its essential responsibility, instead of it finding and printing the results:



      def find_2sum(target, numbers):
      """Find indexes of pairs from NUMBERS that add to TARGET"""
      for i, item in enumerate(numbers):
      for j in range(i+1, len(numbers)):
      if numbers[i] + numbers[j] == target:
      yield [i, j]

      if __name__ == '__main__':
      for i,j in find_2sum(181, [80, 98, 83, 92, 1, 38, 37, 54, 58, 89]):
      print('{} {}'.format(i+1, j+1))




      Now, let's look at the implementation. The first thing that strikes me is that we enumerate numbers, but never use the item we obtain. We might as well have written



      for i in range(len(numbers)):


      Perhaps we could enumerate() the list once, and use it for both augends:



      def find_2sum(target, numbers):
      """Find indexes of pairs from NUMBERS that add to TARGET"""
      numbers = list(enumerate(numbers))
      while numbers:
      i, first = numbers.pop(0)
      for j, second in numbers:
      if first + second == target:
      yield [i, j]




      We still have an efficiency problem, in that we're adding every possible pair and testing it against the target sum. We can avoid the addition by using a single subtraction outside the loop, but this still requires looking at all pairs, so still scales as O(n²):



      def find_2sum(target, numbers):
      """Find indexes of pairs from NUMBERS that add to TARGET"""
      numbers = list(enumerate(numbers))
      while numbers:
      i, first = numbers.pop(0)
      difference = target - first
      for j, second in numbers:
      if second == difference:
      yield [i, j]


      What we really need to do now is to improve our search for difference. We'll need to use an additional data structure that can locate it in sub-linear time. The obvious choice would be a dict that maps from value to index; for a general solution, we'll need it to map to a list of indexes, because any number may appear multiple times. We can build such a map quite easily:



          index_map = collections.defaultdict(list)
      for i, item in enumerate(numbers):
      index_map[item].append(i)


      The reading is a bit more involved: once we find two values that sum to the target, we need to form all combinations of the first value's indexes and the second value's indexes, like this:



          for first, indices in index_map.items():
      difference = target - first
      other_indices = index_map.get(difference, )
      for i in indices:
      for j in other_indices:
      yield [i, j]


      If we do this, we'll see that we produce every pair twice, once in each order. We can fix this by ignoring the cases where the first is bigger than the second:



          for first, indices in index_map.items():
      difference = target - first
      if first < difference:
      other_indices = index_map.get(difference, )
      for i in indices:
      for j in other_indices:
      yield [i, j]


      There's another case we missed, and we can demonstrate with a simple test case:



      for i,j in find_2sum((6, [2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4]):
      print('{} {}'.format(i+1, j+1))


      Because 3 is exactly half of 6, we need to enumerate all the combinations of these:



              if first == difference:
      while indices:
      i = indices.pop()
      for j in indices:
      yield [i, j]




      We produce results in somewhat arbitrary order, as we're using an unsorted dict. If we want a consistent order to the results, the best way is to sort them after they are generated:



      for i,j in sorted(sorted(x) for x in find_2sum(6, [2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4])):
      print('{} {}'.format(i+1, j+1))




      Full program



      import collections

      def find_2sum(target, numbers):
      """Find indexes of pairs from NUMBERS that add to TARGET"""
      index_map = collections.defaultdict(list)
      for i, item in enumerate(numbers):
      index_map[item].append(i)

      # now read from index_map
      for first, indices in index_map.items():
      difference = target - first
      if first == difference:
      # return all distinct pairs from indices (we won't need it again)
      while indices:
      i = indices.pop()
      for j in indices:
      yield [i, j]
      elif first < difference:
      # normal case - return all combinations of first and second
      other_indices = index_map.get(difference, )
      for i in indices:
      for j in other_indices:
      yield [i, j]

      if __name__ == '__main__':
      for i,j in find_2sum(181, [80, 98, 83, 92, 1, 38, 37, 54, 58, 89]):
      print('{} {}'.format(i+1, j+1))

      print()
      for i,j in sorted(sorted(x) for x in find_2sum(6, [2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4])):
      print('{} {}'.format(i+1, j+1))





      share|improve this answer

























        up vote
        0
        down vote










        up vote
        0
        down vote









        It's really worth writing this as a function. That will make it easier to test, and it's an opportunity to give it a sensible name and a docstring describing what it does (it's not obvious from your description that you wanted to output the positions of the found numbers, rather than the numbers themselves):



        def find_2sum(target, numbers):
        """Find indexes of pairs from NUMBERS that add to TARGET"""
        for i, item in enumerate(numbers):
        for j in range(i+1, len(numbers)):
        total_of_two_items = numbers[i] + numbers[j]
        if(total_of_two_items == target):
        print('{first_item} {second_item}'.format(first_item=i+1, second_item=j+1))
        print('n')

        if __name__ == '__main__':
        find_2sum(181, [80, 98, 83, 92, 1, 38, 37, 54, 58, 89])




        We can improve the interface by returning the index pairs instead of printing them. That pares the function down to its essential responsibility, instead of it finding and printing the results:



        def find_2sum(target, numbers):
        """Find indexes of pairs from NUMBERS that add to TARGET"""
        for i, item in enumerate(numbers):
        for j in range(i+1, len(numbers)):
        if numbers[i] + numbers[j] == target:
        yield [i, j]

        if __name__ == '__main__':
        for i,j in find_2sum(181, [80, 98, 83, 92, 1, 38, 37, 54, 58, 89]):
        print('{} {}'.format(i+1, j+1))




        Now, let's look at the implementation. The first thing that strikes me is that we enumerate numbers, but never use the item we obtain. We might as well have written



        for i in range(len(numbers)):


        Perhaps we could enumerate() the list once, and use it for both augends:



        def find_2sum(target, numbers):
        """Find indexes of pairs from NUMBERS that add to TARGET"""
        numbers = list(enumerate(numbers))
        while numbers:
        i, first = numbers.pop(0)
        for j, second in numbers:
        if first + second == target:
        yield [i, j]




        We still have an efficiency problem, in that we're adding every possible pair and testing it against the target sum. We can avoid the addition by using a single subtraction outside the loop, but this still requires looking at all pairs, so still scales as O(n²):



        def find_2sum(target, numbers):
        """Find indexes of pairs from NUMBERS that add to TARGET"""
        numbers = list(enumerate(numbers))
        while numbers:
        i, first = numbers.pop(0)
        difference = target - first
        for j, second in numbers:
        if second == difference:
        yield [i, j]


        What we really need to do now is to improve our search for difference. We'll need to use an additional data structure that can locate it in sub-linear time. The obvious choice would be a dict that maps from value to index; for a general solution, we'll need it to map to a list of indexes, because any number may appear multiple times. We can build such a map quite easily:



            index_map = collections.defaultdict(list)
        for i, item in enumerate(numbers):
        index_map[item].append(i)


        The reading is a bit more involved: once we find two values that sum to the target, we need to form all combinations of the first value's indexes and the second value's indexes, like this:



            for first, indices in index_map.items():
        difference = target - first
        other_indices = index_map.get(difference, )
        for i in indices:
        for j in other_indices:
        yield [i, j]


        If we do this, we'll see that we produce every pair twice, once in each order. We can fix this by ignoring the cases where the first is bigger than the second:



            for first, indices in index_map.items():
        difference = target - first
        if first < difference:
        other_indices = index_map.get(difference, )
        for i in indices:
        for j in other_indices:
        yield [i, j]


        There's another case we missed, and we can demonstrate with a simple test case:



        for i,j in find_2sum((6, [2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4]):
        print('{} {}'.format(i+1, j+1))


        Because 3 is exactly half of 6, we need to enumerate all the combinations of these:



                if first == difference:
        while indices:
        i = indices.pop()
        for j in indices:
        yield [i, j]




        We produce results in somewhat arbitrary order, as we're using an unsorted dict. If we want a consistent order to the results, the best way is to sort them after they are generated:



        for i,j in sorted(sorted(x) for x in find_2sum(6, [2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4])):
        print('{} {}'.format(i+1, j+1))




        Full program



        import collections

        def find_2sum(target, numbers):
        """Find indexes of pairs from NUMBERS that add to TARGET"""
        index_map = collections.defaultdict(list)
        for i, item in enumerate(numbers):
        index_map[item].append(i)

        # now read from index_map
        for first, indices in index_map.items():
        difference = target - first
        if first == difference:
        # return all distinct pairs from indices (we won't need it again)
        while indices:
        i = indices.pop()
        for j in indices:
        yield [i, j]
        elif first < difference:
        # normal case - return all combinations of first and second
        other_indices = index_map.get(difference, )
        for i in indices:
        for j in other_indices:
        yield [i, j]

        if __name__ == '__main__':
        for i,j in find_2sum(181, [80, 98, 83, 92, 1, 38, 37, 54, 58, 89]):
        print('{} {}'.format(i+1, j+1))

        print()
        for i,j in sorted(sorted(x) for x in find_2sum(6, [2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4])):
        print('{} {}'.format(i+1, j+1))





        share|improve this answer














        It's really worth writing this as a function. That will make it easier to test, and it's an opportunity to give it a sensible name and a docstring describing what it does (it's not obvious from your description that you wanted to output the positions of the found numbers, rather than the numbers themselves):



        def find_2sum(target, numbers):
        """Find indexes of pairs from NUMBERS that add to TARGET"""
        for i, item in enumerate(numbers):
        for j in range(i+1, len(numbers)):
        total_of_two_items = numbers[i] + numbers[j]
        if(total_of_two_items == target):
        print('{first_item} {second_item}'.format(first_item=i+1, second_item=j+1))
        print('n')

        if __name__ == '__main__':
        find_2sum(181, [80, 98, 83, 92, 1, 38, 37, 54, 58, 89])




        We can improve the interface by returning the index pairs instead of printing them. That pares the function down to its essential responsibility, instead of it finding and printing the results:



        def find_2sum(target, numbers):
        """Find indexes of pairs from NUMBERS that add to TARGET"""
        for i, item in enumerate(numbers):
        for j in range(i+1, len(numbers)):
        if numbers[i] + numbers[j] == target:
        yield [i, j]

        if __name__ == '__main__':
        for i,j in find_2sum(181, [80, 98, 83, 92, 1, 38, 37, 54, 58, 89]):
        print('{} {}'.format(i+1, j+1))




        Now, let's look at the implementation. The first thing that strikes me is that we enumerate numbers, but never use the item we obtain. We might as well have written



        for i in range(len(numbers)):


        Perhaps we could enumerate() the list once, and use it for both augends:



        def find_2sum(target, numbers):
        """Find indexes of pairs from NUMBERS that add to TARGET"""
        numbers = list(enumerate(numbers))
        while numbers:
        i, first = numbers.pop(0)
        for j, second in numbers:
        if first + second == target:
        yield [i, j]




        We still have an efficiency problem, in that we're adding every possible pair and testing it against the target sum. We can avoid the addition by using a single subtraction outside the loop, but this still requires looking at all pairs, so still scales as O(n²):



        def find_2sum(target, numbers):
        """Find indexes of pairs from NUMBERS that add to TARGET"""
        numbers = list(enumerate(numbers))
        while numbers:
        i, first = numbers.pop(0)
        difference = target - first
        for j, second in numbers:
        if second == difference:
        yield [i, j]


        What we really need to do now is to improve our search for difference. We'll need to use an additional data structure that can locate it in sub-linear time. The obvious choice would be a dict that maps from value to index; for a general solution, we'll need it to map to a list of indexes, because any number may appear multiple times. We can build such a map quite easily:



            index_map = collections.defaultdict(list)
        for i, item in enumerate(numbers):
        index_map[item].append(i)


        The reading is a bit more involved: once we find two values that sum to the target, we need to form all combinations of the first value's indexes and the second value's indexes, like this:



            for first, indices in index_map.items():
        difference = target - first
        other_indices = index_map.get(difference, )
        for i in indices:
        for j in other_indices:
        yield [i, j]


        If we do this, we'll see that we produce every pair twice, once in each order. We can fix this by ignoring the cases where the first is bigger than the second:



            for first, indices in index_map.items():
        difference = target - first
        if first < difference:
        other_indices = index_map.get(difference, )
        for i in indices:
        for j in other_indices:
        yield [i, j]


        There's another case we missed, and we can demonstrate with a simple test case:



        for i,j in find_2sum((6, [2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4]):
        print('{} {}'.format(i+1, j+1))


        Because 3 is exactly half of 6, we need to enumerate all the combinations of these:



                if first == difference:
        while indices:
        i = indices.pop()
        for j in indices:
        yield [i, j]




        We produce results in somewhat arbitrary order, as we're using an unsorted dict. If we want a consistent order to the results, the best way is to sort them after they are generated:



        for i,j in sorted(sorted(x) for x in find_2sum(6, [2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4])):
        print('{} {}'.format(i+1, j+1))




        Full program



        import collections

        def find_2sum(target, numbers):
        """Find indexes of pairs from NUMBERS that add to TARGET"""
        index_map = collections.defaultdict(list)
        for i, item in enumerate(numbers):
        index_map[item].append(i)

        # now read from index_map
        for first, indices in index_map.items():
        difference = target - first
        if first == difference:
        # return all distinct pairs from indices (we won't need it again)
        while indices:
        i = indices.pop()
        for j in indices:
        yield [i, j]
        elif first < difference:
        # normal case - return all combinations of first and second
        other_indices = index_map.get(difference, )
        for i in indices:
        for j in other_indices:
        yield [i, j]

        if __name__ == '__main__':
        for i,j in find_2sum(181, [80, 98, 83, 92, 1, 38, 37, 54, 58, 89]):
        print('{} {}'.format(i+1, j+1))

        print()
        for i,j in sorted(sorted(x) for x in find_2sum(6, [2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4])):
        print('{} {}'.format(i+1, j+1))






        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited Oct 25 at 15:17

























        answered Oct 25 at 13:36









        Toby Speight

        22.4k537109




        22.4k537109






















            up vote
            0
            down vote













            Its faster to check what your desired total (e.g. 181) minus every Listelement is and then see if the answer is also in the list.



            def addup(List, K):
            for index,item in enumerate(List):
            if K - item in List[:index] + List[index+1:]:
            return True
            return False


            X = [80, 98, 83, 92, 1, 38, 37, 54, 58, 89]
            Y = 181

            print addup(X,Y)





            share|improve this answer



















            • 2




              That sounds identical to the approach presented by TheBlackCat..."So to put it more briefly, it finds all values x such that 181-x is also present in the list."
              – Sᴀᴍ Onᴇᴌᴀ
              Nov 16 at 22:28












            • Yes, you are right. I didn't check it properly.
              – Raini Kandi
              Nov 17 at 23:36















            up vote
            0
            down vote













            Its faster to check what your desired total (e.g. 181) minus every Listelement is and then see if the answer is also in the list.



            def addup(List, K):
            for index,item in enumerate(List):
            if K - item in List[:index] + List[index+1:]:
            return True
            return False


            X = [80, 98, 83, 92, 1, 38, 37, 54, 58, 89]
            Y = 181

            print addup(X,Y)





            share|improve this answer



















            • 2




              That sounds identical to the approach presented by TheBlackCat..."So to put it more briefly, it finds all values x such that 181-x is also present in the list."
              – Sᴀᴍ Onᴇᴌᴀ
              Nov 16 at 22:28












            • Yes, you are right. I didn't check it properly.
              – Raini Kandi
              Nov 17 at 23:36













            up vote
            0
            down vote










            up vote
            0
            down vote









            Its faster to check what your desired total (e.g. 181) minus every Listelement is and then see if the answer is also in the list.



            def addup(List, K):
            for index,item in enumerate(List):
            if K - item in List[:index] + List[index+1:]:
            return True
            return False


            X = [80, 98, 83, 92, 1, 38, 37, 54, 58, 89]
            Y = 181

            print addup(X,Y)





            share|improve this answer














            Its faster to check what your desired total (e.g. 181) minus every Listelement is and then see if the answer is also in the list.



            def addup(List, K):
            for index,item in enumerate(List):
            if K - item in List[:index] + List[index+1:]:
            return True
            return False


            X = [80, 98, 83, 92, 1, 38, 37, 54, 58, 89]
            Y = 181

            print addup(X,Y)






            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited Nov 16 at 22:26









            Sᴀᴍ Onᴇᴌᴀ

            7,73061748




            7,73061748










            answered Nov 16 at 22:06









            Raini Kandi

            1




            1








            • 2




              That sounds identical to the approach presented by TheBlackCat..."So to put it more briefly, it finds all values x such that 181-x is also present in the list."
              – Sᴀᴍ Onᴇᴌᴀ
              Nov 16 at 22:28












            • Yes, you are right. I didn't check it properly.
              – Raini Kandi
              Nov 17 at 23:36














            • 2




              That sounds identical to the approach presented by TheBlackCat..."So to put it more briefly, it finds all values x such that 181-x is also present in the list."
              – Sᴀᴍ Onᴇᴌᴀ
              Nov 16 at 22:28












            • Yes, you are right. I didn't check it properly.
              – Raini Kandi
              Nov 17 at 23:36








            2




            2




            That sounds identical to the approach presented by TheBlackCat..."So to put it more briefly, it finds all values x such that 181-x is also present in the list."
            – Sᴀᴍ Onᴇᴌᴀ
            Nov 16 at 22:28






            That sounds identical to the approach presented by TheBlackCat..."So to put it more briefly, it finds all values x such that 181-x is also present in the list."
            – Sᴀᴍ Onᴇᴌᴀ
            Nov 16 at 22:28














            Yes, you are right. I didn't check it properly.
            – Raini Kandi
            Nov 17 at 23:36




            Yes, you are right. I didn't check it properly.
            – Raini Kandi
            Nov 17 at 23:36


















             

            draft saved


            draft discarded



















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f93661%2ffinding-two-numbers-that-add-to-a-given-total%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Сан-Квентин

            Алькесар

            Josef Freinademetz