# Check every list element for appearance

I'm used to MATLAB so this might be a stupid question but Mathematica is freaking me out.

I have a big matrix with the following format:

M = {{A,B,C},{1,{1,3,6,7},0},{1,{3,7,9},1}}


As you can see, each element in the second column is a separate list again. These separate lists contain integers, so it's no problem to get back to them. For example if I use MemberQ[M[[2,2]],1] it returns True, as it's supposed to do.

What I want to do now: my Matrix is a little longer, contains approx. 5'000 rows. I want to check every seperate list mentioned above for the appearance of a specific integer, as I did above with the MemberQ.

As a result it should give me something like the following (taking M as example): {True,False}.

I thought that's supposed to be easy with a for-loop as it is in MATLAB, but Mathematica always stops when condition is not met...

-
Please be precise in the problem description. The second row of this matrix is {1,{1,3,6,7},0}. The elements of the second row are not lists, contradicting what you said. memberQ[M[2,2],1] is not correct Mathematica code and won't return True. If you mean MemberQ[M[[2,2]],1], please write it as such. –  Szabolcs Jun 14 '14 at 13:21
Sorry for that, recognized it myself, already edited. Meant second column, and memberQ now correct. –  Phily Jun 14 '14 at 13:22
So B is a list then? –  Szabolcs Jun 14 '14 at 13:22
Not a Mma matrix (see MatrixQ) ... but a tensor. –  wolfies Jun 14 '14 at 13:23
Is MemberQ[#[[2]], 1] & /@ M what you are looking for? –  Öskå Jun 14 '14 at 13:24

All you need is to do Map MemberQ over the second column (a.k.a. [[2]]) of each lines:

M = {{A,B,C},{1,{1,3,6,7},0},{1,{3,7,9},1}}
MemberQ[#[[2]], 1] & /@ M


{False, True, False}

An equivalent would be (thanks to Mr.Wizard):

MemberQ[#2, 1] & @@@ M

-
Slightly cleaner and faster: MemberQ[#2, 1] & @@@ M (+1) –  Mr.Wizard Jun 14 '14 at 14:49
@Mr.Wizard I'm surprised that it's faster (haven't tried), but it's definitely more appealing to me. –  Szabolcs Jun 14 '14 at 15:31
@Szabolcs The statement only holds for unpacked data, but if we're working with packed data numeric methods are likely to be much faster (as I'm sure you know; stating it for others). –  Mr.Wizard Jun 14 '14 at 15:55