# Combining lists

How can I combine

list1={{x1,y1},{x2,y2},{x3,y3}}


and

list2={{x4,y4},{x5,y5}}


to

list={{x1,y1},{x2,y2},{x3,y3},{x4,y4},{x5,y5}}


?

-
Harald, did you have a look at the documentation? Your question is very close to the RTFM category, so pressing F1 or googling first is usually recommended. –  Yves Klett May 6 '12 at 12:35
In particular, you should look at the List Manipulation section of the documentation, the tutorials near the bottom, in particular. –  rcollyer May 6 '12 at 13:51

You need Join :

list = Join[list1, list2]


sometimes you would choose :

listU = Union[list1, list2]


The latter doesn't include duplicates, as the first approach could, if some of elements in list1 and list2 were common.

Edit

It should be emphasized that since for small lists different approaches (pointed out in the other answers) are elegant and quite satisfactory, however for big lists Join is much superior. We compare their efficiency in a few different cases :

1. lA1 = RandomReal[1, {500000, 2}];
lA2 = RandomReal[1, {500000, 2}];

Join[lA1, lA2]; // AbsoluteTiming // First
## & @@@ {lA1, lA2}; // AbsoluteTiming // First
{lA1, lA2}~Flatten~1; // AbsoluteTiming // First

0.0210000
0.8090000
0.4620000

2. lB1 = RandomReal[1, {2500000, 2}];
lB2 = RandomReal[1, {1500000, 2}];

Join[lB1, lB2]; // AbsoluteTiming // First
## & @@@ {lB1, lB2}; // AbsoluteTiming // First
{lB1, lB2}~Flatten~1; // AbsoluteTiming // First

0.0820000
3.1500000
1.9000000

3. lC1 = RandomReal[1, {300000, 2}];
lC2 = RandomReal[1, {900000, 2}];

Join[lC1, lC2]; // AbsoluteTiming // First
## & @@@ {lC1, lC2}; // AbsoluteTiming // First
{lC1, lC2}~Flatten~1; // AbsoluteTiming // First

0.0220000
0.9320000
0.6640000


We can see that Join is roughly about 20-30 times faster than {list1, list2}~Flatten~1; and the latter is about 1.5-2 times faster than ## & @@@.

-
One issue with Union is that it sorts the list, and if you don't wish to do that, other ways must be found (see Mr.Wizard's answer, in particular). –  rcollyer May 6 '12 at 14:36
@rcollyer FWIW there is a slighter richer copy of that answer here. –  Mr.Wizard May 6 '12 at 17:48
@Mr.Wizard couldn't find that when I was looking for it. –  rcollyer May 6 '12 at 19:28
rcollyer and Mr.Wizard Thanks for links. –  Artes May 6 '12 at 23:14

And another:

## & @@@ {list1, list2}

-
Neat trick, turning each sub-list into a Sequence that is then embedded in the outer list. +1 –  rcollyer May 6 '12 at 15:09
Another way to do this (by literally doing what @rcollyer described) is Sequence @@@ {list1, list2}. –  celtschk May 6 '12 at 15:50
@rcollyer One problem with this is that it will unpack both lists if they were packed. –  Leonid Shifrin May 6 '12 at 18:26
@LeonidShifrin does celtschk do that, also? –  rcollyer May 6 '12 at 19:28
@rcollyer Yep, he does. Anything that uses Apply on packed arrays, will unpack. –  Leonid Shifrin May 6 '12 at 19:32

Since there's always more than one way to do things in Mathematica, here's another alternative:

{list1, list2} ~Flatten~ 1


The above uses infix notation, which might be a little hard to grok at first, but can make the code very readable for functions that take 2 arguments and have descriptive names.

For comparison, here is the same expression written in 3 other forms:

Flatten[{list1, list2}, 1]           (* Matchfix *)
Flatten[#, 1] &@{list1, list2}       (*  Prefix  *)
{list1, list2} // Flatten[#, 1] &    (* Postfix  *)

-
Yup - you might gain some infix disciples once they realize the superior readability of the very same ;-) –  Yves Klett May 6 '12 at 15:23
@YvesKlett I'm a worshiper at the post-fix temple; it allows me to think of each subsequent function as a sequence of transformations. It isn't necessarily the most readable; however, it is easier to conceptualize. –  rcollyer May 6 '12 at 15:29
Of course consequent use of Infix syntax would lead to list1 ~List~ list2 ~Flatten~ 1 –  celtschk May 6 '12 at 15:42
@celtschk Nooooo. You don't want Mr.Wizard to read this conversation! –  The Toad May 6 '12 at 15:42
@celtschk while, yes, it can lead there, even Mr.W wouldn't do that: it requires to many extra key-strokes. And, while I think he's definitely along the s&m (sadism and masochism) spectrum as far as infix is concerned, he's not interested in wasting effort. –  rcollyer May 6 '12 at 16:03