🔒 MAX() algorithm bugs

[sweet fox]

im tring to build max function i got bugs but i dont know where they are:

def max(*items):
# make sure it not empty
if items == ():
return "EmptyTuple"

# set the first item as highest one
HIGH = items[0]

for i in items:
    # Check if the current item is a list
    if isinstance(i, list):
        i = max(tuple(i))
    # Compare the current item with the current highest item
    if i > HIGH:
        HIGH = i

return HIGH

result = max([5, 11, 6], 1, 5)
print("the highest item is {}".format(result))

[hasty current]

@sweet fox

Python help channel opened

Remember to:

• Ask your Python question, not if you can ask or if there's an expert who can help.
• Show a code sample as text (rather than a screenshot) and the error message, if you've got one.
• Explain what you expect to happen and what actually happens.

:warning: Do not pip install anything that isn't related to your question, especially if asked to over DMs.

Closes after a period of inactivity, or when you send !close.

[full heath]

the first thing i would ask is why you want to deal with taking a list and individual integers

[fresh tree]

result = max([5, 11, 6], 1, 5)

here is the bug

[sinful zodiac]

Okay, you start by saying that your initial maximum is the first value of the list

That works only of the first value of the list is an integer

If it is a list, you set your initial HIGH with the value of the list

But you can't compare a list and an integers

[sweet fox]

because the built in max function take i wanna make the same function but by myself

[sweet fox]

why this is a bug

[sweet fox]

and this is the reasan why i check if that item is a list and convert it to a tuple and than find the max of that list by recursion concepte you know

[sinful zodiac]

Yep, so you need to avoid setting the first highest value to the first item, otherwise you have a problem

[sweet fox]

what i need to do insteade than

[sinful zodiac]

I'll let you think about it for a few minutes

[sweet fox]

you said i shouldn't keep asigning the first iteme to HIGH var

[sinful zodiac]

not the first item, indeed

[hasty current]

Hey @sweet fox!

Please edit your message to use a code block

```py
print('Hello, world!')
```

This will result in the following:

print('Hello, world!')```

[sweet fox]

def max(*items):
    # make sure it not empty
    if items == ():
        return "EmptyTuple"

    # set the first item as highest one
    for l in items:
        # Check if the current item is a list
        if isinstance(l, list):
            l = tuple(l)
            l = max(l)

    for i in items:
        # Compare the current item with the current highest item
        if i > HIGH:
            HIGH = i
    
    return HIGH

result = max([5, 11, 6], 1, 5)
print("the highest item is {}".format(result))

[sinful zodiac]

so now you don't define HIGH before using it

which will lead to a problem

[sweet fox]

yeah sorry i forget it

[ionic moon]

Builtin max takes one argument or two arguments

If there is one argument, it iterates it. If there are two arguments, it compares them

[rustic birch]

When you call max([5, 11, 6], 1, 5), what do you think the result should be, and why should that be the result?

[ionic moon]

!e
max(1, 2, 3)

[hasty current]

:warning: Your 3.14 eval job has completed with return code 0.

[No output]

[ionic moon]

Wait

[sinful zodiac]

you need to print

[ionic moon]

!e
print(max(1, 2, 3, 4))

[hasty current]

:white_check_mark: Your 3.14 eval job has completed with return code 0.

4

[ionic moon]

No I thought it was gonna fail

anyways apparently I was wrong

If one argument is passed then it iterates it, otherwise it finds the max of the arguments passed, comparing directly

So it looks that OP wants something different than builtin max

[sinful zodiac]

@sweet fox did you solve your problem ?

[sweet fox]

nooo im tring different way my brain almost to explose

def maax(*items):
# make sure it not empty
if items == ():
return "EmptyTuple"
# set the first item as highest one
# print(items)

# for my_tuple in items:
#     if isinstance(my_tuple, list):
#         my_tuple = tuple(my_tuple)

# print(items)

# for l in items:
#     # find the max of lists objects
#     if isinstance(l, tuple):
#         l = max(l)
# print(items)

# convert list into tuples and than make the neasted tuples one tuple
individual = ()
converted = ()
for i in items:
    if isinstance(i, list):
        i = tuple(i)
        converted = converted + (i,)
    else:
        individual = individual + (i,)
individual = maax(individual)
converted = maax(converted)

print(individual)
print(converted)

print(items)
# convert the singles items to one individual tuple
HIGH = items[0]


for i in items:
    # Compare the current item with the current highest item
    if i > HIGH:
        HIGH = i

return HIGH

result = maax([5, 11, 6], 1, 5)
print("the highest item is {}".format(result))

[hasty current]

Hey @sweet fox!

Please edit your message to use a code block

```py
print('Hello, world!')
```

This will result in the following:

print('Hello, world!')```

[charred cipher]

    # set the first item as highest one
    HIGH = items[0]      # you're setting this to the index 0 to [5, 11, 6]

    for i in items:      # you iterate over the *items
        # Check if the current item is a list
        if isinstance(i, list):
            i = max(tuple(i))      # you set this to the max of i
        # Compare the current item with the current highest item
        if i > HIGH:     # here you try compare an int (i) with HIGH (list), so error
            HIGH = i

    return HIGH

the problem is here

you should add a check so that

if isinstance(items[0], list):
    HIGH = max(items[0])
else:
    HIGH = items[0]

[sinful zodiac]

it's a little spoonfeeding...

anyway, yes, we still have the problem of initializing the HIGH variable

it cannot be a list

[sweet fox]

i think im too close

[charred cipher]

or you can initialize

HIGH = None

for i in items:
    i = max(tuple(i))
    if HIGH is None or i > HIGH:
        HIGH = i

return HIGH

with this you can init HIGH to nothing, if its nothing, then assign it, but if its not None, then check if i > HIGH and assign

[sinful zodiac]

it's a little lot spoonfeeding...

[sweet fox]

hey guys

im working now only on integers values

[charred cipher]

OR if you want to skip all of that

return max([max(tuple(i)) for i in items)

[sinful zodiac]

it is it's a little lot way too much spoonfeeding...

@charred cipher can you let OP think ?

[charred cipher]

i didnt want his brain to explode

[sinful zodiac]

okay, what makes you chose to drop the support for nested lists ?

[charred cipher]

im working now only on integers values he can figure out the strings himself :D

[sweet fox]

soo like i said only integers values and neasted list my plan is like the following:

0 - check if the items tuple is not null otherwise return "EmptyTuple"

1 - i need to iterate over my tuple and any item is a lise convert it to a tuple than found the max of it

2 - when we found all max values of all item (lists, tuples) we still have other individuals we will found max of all becase we will have only one tuple our final items

[charred cipher]

yes we understand that, your current code does that, but the way you are initializing your HIGH, which in this case, initialises it to the list instead of the max of the list, meaning when you try compare your int (i) vs your HIGH, it returns an error

[sweet fox]

i got it but i dound another huge problem : what if after turning the list to a tuple and the first item of the tuple is another list

[charred cipher]

so you're essentially trying to get the max of items (that may contain a mix of ints and lists)

[sweet fox]

hhhhh

yes i because i did it with integers values only and it works but now i wanna level it up

i thaught at first it will be soo easy

[sinful zodiac]

that's why you are using recursivity

(also you know you can find the max of a list without converting it to a tuple)

[charred cipher]

i think he does that for regular single values at the moment, which adds an additional step

[sinful zodiac]

no, they do that for list

[charred cipher]

oh yea

[sweet fox]

i stuck

[charred cipher]

what are you stuck on

[sweet fox]

no im thinking about finding a way to convert all the sub lists to tuples

[sinful zodiac]

do you need to ?

[sweet fox]

convert all lists into tuples

[sinful zodiac]

do you need to do that ?

[sweet fox]

yeah if i do that i can get the max of each tuple and you know the next

[sinful zodiac]

you can get the max of a list the same way you get the max of a tuple

!e

my_tuple = (1, 2, 3)
my_list = [1, 2, 3]
print(type(my_tuple))
print(type(my_list))
for x in my_tuple:
  print(x)

for x in my_list:
  print(x)

[hasty current]

:white_check_mark: Your 3.14 eval job has completed with return code 0.

001 | <class 'tuple'>
002 | <class 'list'>
003 | 1
004 | 2
005 | 3
006 | 1
007 | 2
008 | 3

[sinful zodiac]

look

you can iterate over them

whether they tuples or lists doesn't matter

[sweet fox]

okay im gonna try

[sinful zodiac]

also, do you need to take car of sublists ?

You are already using recursivity quite well, look:

!e

def my_function(items):
 for item in items:
  print("currently handeling", item)
  if isinstance(item, list):
    my_function(item)
  else:
    print("currently handeling the single item:", item)


my_function([1])
my_function([[2, 3]])
my_function([[[2, 3], 4]])

[hasty current]

:white_check_mark: Your 3.14 eval job has completed with return code 0.

001 | currently handeling 1
002 | currently handeling the single item: 1
003 | currently handeling [2, 3]
004 | currently handeling 2
005 | currently handeling the single item: 2
006 | currently handeling 3
007 | currently handeling the single item: 3
008 | currently handeling [[2, 3], 4]
009 | currently handeling [2, 3]
010 | currently handeling 2
... (truncated - too many lines)

Full output: https://paste.pythondiscord.com/PFMBAEZTWSLVDFAI3P7CMKRWZU

[sinful zodiac]

alright, take a look

[hasty current]

Python help channel closed for inactivity

This help channel has been closed. Feel free to create a new post in #1035199133436354600. To maximize your chances of getting a response, check out this guide on asking good questions.