Reputation: 1092
I am trying to write a function that given a list of non negative integers, arranges them such that they form the largest possible number.
For example, given [50, 2, 1, 9]
, the largest formed number is 95021
.
Here is the code that I have tried to solve the problem:
a = [50, 2, 1, 9]
a.sort()
ans = []
for i in range(len(a)-1,-1,-1):
ans.append(a[i])
print ''.join(map(str,ans))
However, I get 50921
, as 50
is largest, but it should show 9
first.
Upvotes: 15
Views: 11247
Reputation: 47780
One-liner using insights from Antti Haapala, PM 2Ring and Stefan Pochmann:
from fractions import Fraction
sorted(a, key=lambda n: Fraction(n, 1-10**len(str(n))))
Given a = [50, 5, 51, 59, 2, 1, 9, 98]
:
[9, 98, 59, 5, 51, 50, 2, 1]
Upvotes: 13
Reputation: 513
My input is cast as a list of strings. I generate the list of permutations, creating a list of lists, and then sort the sublists from least to greatest. Finally, I take the last element of the sorted list.
import itertools
digits = ['50', '2', '1', '9']
perms = itertools.permutations(digits)
sorted_numlist = sorted(perms)
print sorted_numlist[-1]
If you'd rather have the number itself rather than the list of elements...
import itertools
digits = ['11', '68', '4', '12']
perms = itertools.permutations(digits)
numlist = []
for sublist in perms:
permutated_num = "".join(sublist)
numlist.append(int(permutated_num))
sorted_numlist = sorted(numlist)
print sorted_numlist[-1]
That second one actually also serves to show the first is properly sorting on lists.
Upvotes: 1
Reputation: 226296
The most straightforward way is to use itertools.permutations() to model how you would solve this by hand:
>>> from itertools import permutations, imap
>>> a = [50, 2, 1, 9]
>>> int(max(imap(''.join, permutations(map(str, a)))))
95021
Upvotes: -1
Reputation: 55469
In Python 2 you can do this with an appropriate comparison function passed to sort
.
#!/usr/bin/env python
''' Sort a list of non-negative integers so that
if the integers were converted to string, concatenated
and converted back to int, the resulting int is the highest
possible for that list
From http://stackoverflow.com/q/30140796/4014959
Written by PM 2Ring 2015.05.10
Python 2 version
'''
data = [
[50, 2, 1, 9],
[10, 1],
[2, 23, 21],
]
def mycmp(a, b):
a, b = str(a), str(b)
ab, ba = a + b, b + a
if ab == ba:
return 0
if ab < ba:
return -1
return 1
for a in data:
print 'In: ', a
a.sort(cmp=mycmp, reverse=True)
print 'Out:', a
print
Output
In: [50, 2, 1, 9]
Out: [9, 50, 2, 1]
In: [10, 1]
Out: [1, 10]
In: [2, 23, 21]
Out: [23, 2, 21]
In Python 3, sort
no longer takes a custom comparison function. scpio's answer shows how to use functools
to convert a comparison function into a key function, but it's not that hard to do "by hand".
#!/usr/bin/env python
''' Sort a list of non-negative integers so that
if the integers were converted to string, concatenated
and converted back to int, the resulting int is the highest
possible for that list
From http://stackoverflow.com/q/30140796/4014959
Written by PM 2Ring 2015.05.10
Python 3 compatible version
'''
from __future__ import print_function
class cmpclass(object):
def __init__(self, n):
self.n = str(n)
def __str__(self):
return self.n
def _cmp(self, other):
a, b = self.n, str(other)
ab, ba = a + b, b + a
if ab == ba:
return 0
if ab < ba:
return -1
return 1
def __lt__(self, other): return self._cmp(other) == -1
def __le__(self, other): return self._cmp(other) <= 0
def __eq__(self, other): return self._cmp(other) == 0
def __ne__(self, other): return self._cmp(other) != 0
def __gt__(self, other): return self._cmp(other) == 1
def __ge__(self, other): return self._cmp(other) >= 0
data = [
[50, 2, 1, 9],
[10, 1],
[2, 23, 21],
]
for a in data:
print('In: ', a)
a.sort(key=cmpclass, reverse=True)
print('Out:', a)
print('')
Output
In: [50, 2, 1, 9]
Out: [9, 50, 2, 1]
In: [10, 1]
Out: [1, 10]
In: [2, 23, 21]
Out: [23, 2, 21]
The previous Python 3 compatible version I posted doesn't actually work on Python 3 :oops:! That's because the __cmp__
method is no longer supported in Python 3. So I've changed my old __cmp__
method to _cmp
and used it to implement all 6 of the rich comparison methods.
Important note
An alternative strategy that's guaranteed to work is brute force: generate all permutations of the input list & find the permutation that yields the maximum result. But hopefully there's a more efficient algorithm, since generating all permutations of a large list is rather slow.
As Antti Haapala points out in the comments, my old comparison functions were unstable when comparing different numbers that consist of the same sequences of repeating digits, e.g., 123123 and 123123123. Such sequences should compare equal, my old functions didn't do that. The latest modification addresses that problem.
Update
It turns out that mycmp() / _cmp()
actually is transitive. It's also stable, now that it handles the ab == ba
case properly, so it's safe to use with TimSort (or any other sorting algorithm). And it can be shown that it gives the same result as Antti Haapala's fractionalize()
key function.
In what follows I'll use uppercase letters to represent integers in the list and I'll use the lowercase version of a letter to represent the number of digits in that integer. E.g., a
is the number of digits in A
. I'll use _
as an infix operator to represent digit concatenation. Eg, A_B
is int(str(A)+str(B)
; note that A_B
has a+b
digits. Arithmetically,
A_B = A * 10**b + B
.
For the sake of brevity, I'll use f()
to represent Antti Haapala's fractionalize()
key function. Note that f(A) = A / (10**a - 1)
.
Now for some algebra. I'll put it in a code block to keep the formatting simple.
Let A_B = B_A
A * 10**b + B = B * 10**a + A
A * 10**b - A = B * 10**a - B
A * (10**b - 1) = B * (10**a - 1)
A / (10**a - 1) = B / (10**b - 1)
f(A) = f(B)
So A_B = B_A if & only if f(A) = f(B)
Similarly,
A_B > B_A if & only if f(A) > f(B)
This proves that using mycmp() / _cmp() as the sort comparison function
is equivalent to using fractionalize() as the sort key function.
Note that
f(A_B) = (A * 10**b + B) / (10**(a+b)-1)
and
f(B_A) = (B * 10**a + A) / (10**(a+b)-1)
So f(A_B) = f(B_A) iff A_B = B_A, and f(A_B) > f(B_A) iff A_B > B_A
Let's see what happens with 3 integers.
f(A), f(B), f(C) are just real numbers, so comparing them is
transitive.
And so if f(A) > f(B) and f(B) > f(C) then f(A) > f(C).
This proves that mycmp() / _cmp() is also transitive.
Clearly, if f(A) > f(B) > f(C) then
A_B > B_A, B_C > C_B, A_C > C_A
Let B_C > C_B
For any A,
A * 10**(b+c) + B_C > A * 10**(b+c) + C_B
So A_B_C > A_C_B
i.e. adding the same integer to the beginning of B_C and C_B preserves
the inequality.
Let A_B > B_A
For any C,
(A_B) * 10**c + C > (B_A) * 10**c + C
So A_B_C > B_A_C,
i.e. adding the same integer to the end of A_B and B_A preserves the
inequality.
Using these results, we can show that
if f(A) > f(B) > f(C) then
A_B_C > A_C_B > C_A_B > C_B_A and
A_B_C > B_A_C > B_C_A > C_B_A.
This covers all 6 permutations of [A, B, C] and shows that A_B_C is the
largest possible integer for that list.
A mathematical induction-style argument shows that sorting a list of any
finite length using pairwise comparisons with mycmp()
/ _cmp()
as the
comparison function or with fractionalize()
as the key function suffices
to find the permutation that yields the largest possible integer
produced by digit concatenation. The details of this argument will be
left as an exercise for the reader. :)
Upvotes: 23
Reputation: 61
def make_it_large_num(l):
lst = [str(x) for x in l]
print(sorted(lst, reverse=True))
res = ''.join(sorted(lst, reverse=True))
print(res)
lst = [50,2,1,9]
make_it_large_num(lst)
This works for me. Simple and no need use any libraries (Python 3).
Upvotes: -1
Reputation: 1
This version works for me:
def arrange(lst):
for i in range(len(lst)):
for j in range(i+1,len(lst)):
if int(str(lst[j]+lst[i])) > int(str(lst[i]+lst[j])):
temp = lst[i]
lst[i] = lst[j]
lst[j] = temp
for i in lst:
print(i, end="")
lst = [i for i in input().split()]
arrange(lst)
Upvotes: -1
Reputation: 1
List item
def create_largest_number(number_list):
res=''
for i in number_list:
res= res+ str(i)
new=''.join(sorted(res))
return new[::-1]
number_list=[23,45,67]
largest_number=create_largest_number(number_list)
print(largest_number)
Upvotes: -2
Reputation: 133919
Here is an ugly solution that does work without passing a cmp
comparison function to the sorted
. Basically, the key function takes each number and calculates a rational number that has that number as the repeating decimals; that is
0 => 0
100 => 100/999 == 0.100100100...
10 => 10/99 == 0.1010101010...
1 => 1/9 == 0.1111111111...
11 => 11/99 == 0.1111111111...
12 => 12/99 == 0.1212121212...
9 => 9/9 == 1
99 => 99/99 == 1
999 => 999/999 == 1
The 0 is sorted the smallest with sort key 0, and 1 followed by most zeroes would have key closest to 0.1
, and thus sorted second smallest. Numbers that consist of digit 9 all have sort key equal to 1
; it does not really matter if you sort 9
before or after 99
.
Sorting using these values as the key will necessarily give the correct output, unless you use numbers that are too big for float precision. (probably much sooner than 2 ** 53
)
Thus we get the following program:
# for Python 2, not needed in Python 3
from __future__ import division
a = [50, 5, 51, 59, 2, 1, 9, 98]
def fractionalize(i):
divisor = 9
while divisor < i:
divisor = 10 * divisor + 9
return i / divisor
print(sorted(a, key=fractionalize, reverse=True))
Which produces
[9, 98, 59, 5, 51, 50, 2, 1]
As we're essentially calculating i / (10 ** ceil(log10(i + 1)) - 1)
here, one can also write the following oneliner:
from math import ceil, log10
print(sorted(a, key=lambda i: i and i/(10**ceil(log10(i+1))-1), reverse=True))
The i and
part guards for division by zero error, in case 0
is among the numbers.
Upvotes: 9
Reputation: 62
import functools
def cmpr(x, y):
xy = str(x) + str(y)
yx = str(y) + str(x)
return -1 if (xy > yx) else 1
a = [50, 2, 1, 9]
a.sort(key=functools.cmp_to_key(cmpr))
Upvotes: -2