126
my_list1 = [30,34,56]
my_list2 = [29,500,43]

How to I check if all values in list are >= 30? my_list1 should work and my_list2 should not.

The only thing I could think of doing was:

boolean = 0
def func(ls):
    for k in ls:
        if k >= 30:
            boolean = boolean + 1
        else:
            boolean = 0
    if boolean > 0:
        print 'Continue'
    elif boolean = 0:
        pass

Update 2016:

In hindsight, after dealing with bigger datasets where speed actually matters and utilizing numpy...I would do this:

>>> my_list1 = [30,34,56]
>>> my_list2 = [29,500,43]

>>> import numpy as np
>>> A_1 = np.array(my_list1)
>>> A_2 = np.array(my_list2)

>>> A_1 >= 30
array([ True,  True,  True], dtype=bool)
>>> A_2 >= 30
array([False,  True,  True], dtype=bool)

>>> ((A_1 >= 30).sum() == A_1.size).astype(np.int)
1
>>> ((A_2 >= 30).sum() == A_2.size).astype(np.int)
0

You could also do something like:

len([*filter(lambda x: x >= 30, my_list1)]) > 0
O.rka
  • 29,847
  • 68
  • 194
  • 309
  • A general issues to be aware of: 1) the assigned `boolean` variable is *local* to the function (as there is no appropriate [`global` annotation](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4693120/use-of-global-keyword-in-python)), and 2) `boolean = 0` is an *assignment*, not a comparison. – user2864740 Nov 26 '13 at 23:12
  • Note that your `my_list1` has *one* value that is *not* above 30. It is instead equal to 30. Should that be 31 instead, or are you testing for greater than *or equal to* 30 here? – Martijn Pieters Nov 26 '13 at 23:20

9 Answers9

211

Use the all() function with a generator expression:

>>> my_list1 = [30, 34, 56]
>>> my_list2 = [29, 500, 43]
>>> all(i >= 30 for i in my_list1)
True
>>> all(i >= 30 for i in my_list2)
False

Note that this tests for greater than or equal to 30, otherwise my_list1 would not pass the test either.

If you wanted to do this in a function, you'd use:

def all_30_or_up(ls):
    for i in ls:
        if i < 30:
            return False
    return True

e.g. as soon as you find a value that proves that there is a value below 30, you return False, and return True if you found no evidence to the contrary.

Similarly, you can use the any() function to test if at least 1 value matches the condition.

Martijn Pieters
  • 1,048,767
  • 296
  • 4,058
  • 3,343
  • 1
    What is the advantage of using `all_30_or_up` over `all`? Shouldn't `all` also stop consuming the iterator as soon as a negative has been found? Would be quite dumb otherwise, wouldn't it? – Hyperboreus Nov 26 '13 at 23:13
  • 2
    @Hyperboreus: both stop as soon as a negative has been found. I wanted to give the OP a different way of looking at the problem, giving them a function to replace the one they were writing. – Martijn Pieters Nov 26 '13 at 23:14
13

...any reason why you can't use min()?

def above(my_list, minimum):
    if min(my_list) >= minimum:
        print "All values are equal or above", minimum
    else:
        print "Not all values are equal or above", minimum

I don't know if this is exactly what you want, but technically, this is what you asked for...

Roberto
  • 2,696
  • 18
  • 31
  • 2
    The disadvantage of this solution is, that each item of list must be touched. – Hyperboreus Nov 26 '13 at 23:14
  • 2
    I did a little profiling on this. `all` shortcircuits, so it's much faster if the list does not qualify. But if the list is all 30+, `min` can be faster. I tested with two 1000-element lists of random integers, one filled with `random.randint(0, 100)` (failing) and one filled with `random.randint(30, 100)`. Using `min` took slightly less than half the time on the 30-100 list. But `all` took about 2% of the time that `min` did on the 0-100 list, so it probably wins unless failing lists are very rare. – Peter DeGlopper Nov 26 '13 at 23:17
  • 1
    As it turned out, the first element of my 0-100 list was below 30, so my test was kind of degenerate. Forcing the first sub-30 element to be halfway through the list, `min` comes out a bit faster - 0.25s for 10000 repetitions rather than 0.32s for `all`. So which is faster depends on the nature of the data, as you'd expect. – Peter DeGlopper Nov 26 '13 at 23:24
9

There is a builtin function all:

all (x > limit for x in my_list)

Being limit the value greater than which all numbers must be.

Hyperboreus
  • 31,997
  • 9
  • 47
  • 87
5

You can use all():

my_list1 = [30,34,56]
my_list2 = [29,500,43]
if all(i >= 30 for i in my_list1):
    print 'yes'
if all(i >= 30 for i in my_list2):
    print 'no'

Note that this includes all numbers equal to 30 or higher, not strictly above 30.

Simeon Visser
  • 118,920
  • 18
  • 185
  • 180
2

The overall winner between using the np.sum, np.min, and all seems to be np.min in terms of speed for large arrays:

N = 1000000
def func_sum(x):
    my_list = np.random.randn(N)
    return np.sum(my_list < x )==0

def func_min(x):
    my_list = np.random.randn(N)
    return np.min(my_list) >= x

def func_all(x):
    my_list = np.random.randn(N)
    return all(i >= x for i in my_list)

(i need to put the np.array definition inside the function, otherwise the np.min function remembers the value and does not do the computation again when testing for speed with timeit)

The performance of "all" depends very much on when the first element that does not satisfy the criteria is found, the np.sum needs to do a bit of operations, the np.min is the lightest in terms of computations in the general case.

When the criteria is almost immediately met and the all loop exits fast, the all function is winning just slightly over np.min:

>>> %timeit func_sum(10)
10 loops, best of 3: 36.1 ms per loop

>>> %timeit func_min(10)
10 loops, best of 3: 35.1 ms per loop

>>> %timeit func_all(10)
10 loops, best of 3: 35 ms per loop

But when "all" needs to go through all the points, it is definitely much worse, and the np.min wins:

>>> %timeit func_sum(-10)
10 loops, best of 3: 36.2 ms per loop

>>> %timeit func_min(-10)
10 loops, best of 3: 35.2 ms per loop

>>> %timeit func_all(-10)
10 loops, best of 3: 230 ms per loop

But using

np.sum(my_list<x)

can be very useful is one wants to know how many values are below x.

Chachni
  • 427
  • 4
  • 11
2

A solution based on numpy array and all function:

my_list1 = [30, 34, 56]
my_list2 = [29, 500, 43]
#
import numpy as np
all(np.array(my_list1)>=30)
Output: True
all(np.array(my_list2)>=30)
Output: False
Sam S.
  • 627
  • 1
  • 7
  • 23
0

You could do the following:

def Lists():

    my_list1 = [30,34,56]
    my_list2 = [29,500,43]

    for element in my_list1:
        print(element >= 30)

    for element in my_list2:
        print(element >= 30)

Lists()

This will return the values that are greater than 30 as True, and the values that are smaller as false.

Filip Grebowski
  • 391
  • 5
  • 22
0

I write this function

def larger(x, than=0):
    if not x or min(x) > than:
        return True
    return False

Then

print larger([5, 6, 7], than=5)  # False
print larger([6, 7, 8], than=5)  # True
print larger([], than=5)  # True
print larger([6, 7, 8, None], than=5)  # False


Empty list on min() will raise ValueError. So I added if not x in condition.

Shameem
  • 2,664
  • 17
  • 21
-1
 a = [[a, 2], [b, 3], [c, 4], [d, 5], [a, 1], [b, 6], [e, 7], [h, 8]]

I need this from above one

 a = [[a, 3], [b, 9], [c, 4], [d, 5], [e, 7], [h, 8]]
a.append([0, 0])
for i in range(len(a)):
     for j in range(i + 1, len(a) - 1):
            if a[i][0] == a[j][0]:
                    a[i][1] += a[j][1]
                    del a[j]
a.pop()
        
Shah Vipul
  • 625
  • 7
  • 11