I am trying to learn Haskell programming language by trying to figure out some pieces of code.
I have these 2 small functions but I have no idea how to test them on ghci.
What parameters should I use when calling these functions?
total :: (Integer -> Integer) -> Integer -> Integer
total function count = foldr(\x count -> function x + count) 0 [0..count]
The function above is supposed to for the given value n, return f 0 + f 1 + ... + f n.
However when calling the function I don't understand what to put in the f part. n is just an integer, but what is f supposed to be?
iter :: Int -> (a -> a) -> (a -> a)
iter n f
| n > 0 = f . iter (n-1) f
| otherwise = id
iter' :: Int -> (a -> a) -> (a -> a)
iter' n = foldr (.) id . replicate n
This function is supposed to compose the given function f :: a -> a with itself n :: Integer times, e.g., iter 2 f = f . f.
Once again when calling the function I don't understand what to put instead of f as a parameter.
To your first question, you use any value for f such that
f 0 + f 1 + ... + f n
indeed makes sense. You could use any numeric function capable of accepting an Integer argument and returning an Integer value, like (1 +), abs, signum, error "error", (\x -> x^3-x^2+5*x-2), etc.
"Makes sense" here means that the resulting expression has type ("typechecks", in a vernacular), not that it would run without causing an error.
To your second question, any function that returns the same type of value as its argument, like (1+), (2/) etc.
Related
I am working on the following exercise:
Define a function libDiv which computes the list of natural divisors of some positive integer.
First define libDivInf, such that libDivInf n i is the list of divisors of n which are lesser than or equal to i
libDivInf : int -> int -> int list
For example:
(liDivInf 20 4) = [4;2;1]
(liDivInf 7 5) = [1]
(liDivInf 4 4) = [4;2;1]
Here's is my attempt:
let liDivInf : int -> int -> int list = function
(n,i) -> if i = 0 then [] (*ERROR LINE*)
else
if (n mod i) = 0 (* if n is dividable by i *)
then
i::liDivInf n(i-1)
else
liDivInf n(i-1);;
let liDiv : int -> int list = function
n -> liDivInf n n;;
I get:
ERROR: this pattern matches values of type 'a * 'b ,but a pattern
was expected which matches values of type int
What does this error mean? How can I fix it?
You've stated that the signature of liDivInf needs to be int -> int -> int list. This is a function which takes two curried arguments and returns a list, but then bound that to a function which accepts a single tuple with two ints. And then you've recursively called it in the curried fashion. This is leading to your type error.
The function keyword can only introduce a function which takes a single argument. It is primarily useful when you need to pattern-match on that single argument. The fun keyboard can have multiple arguments specified, but does not allow for pattern-matching the same way.
It is possible to write a function without using either.
let foo = function x -> x + 1
Can just be:
let foo x = x + 1
Similarly:
let foo = function x -> function y -> x + y
Can be written:
let foo x y = x + y
You've also defined a recursive function, but not included the rec keyword. It seems you're looking for something much more like the following slightly modified version of your attempt.
let rec liDivInf n i =
if i = 0 then
[]
else if (n mod i) = 0 then
i::liDivInf n (i-1)
else
liDivInf n (i-1)
I want a function maxfunct, with input f (a function) and input n (int), that computes all outputs of function f with inputs 0 to n, and checks for the max value of the output.
I am quite new to haskell, what I tried is something like that:
maxfunct f n
| n < 0 = 0
| otherwise = maximum [k | k <- [\(f, x)-> f x], x<- [0..n]]
Idea is that I store every output of f in a list, and check for the maximum in this list.
How can I achieve that?
You're close. First, let's note the type of the function we're trying to write. Starting with the type, in addition to helping you get a better feel for the function, also lets the compiler give us better error messages. It looks like you're expecting a function and an integer. The result of the function should be compatible with maximum (i.e. should satisfy Ord) and also needs to have a reasonable "zero" value (so we'll just say it needs Num, for simplicity's sake; in reality, we might consider using Bounded or Monoid or something, depending on your needs, but Num will suffice for now).
So here's what I propose as the type signature.
maxfunct :: (Num a, Ord a) => (Int -> a) -> Int -> a
Technically, we could generalize a bit more and make the Int a type argument as well (requires Num, Enum, and Ord), but that's probably overkill. Now, let's look at your implementation.
maxfunct f n
| n < 0 = 0
| otherwise = maximum [k | k <- [\(f, x)-> f x], x<- [0..n]]
Not bad. The first case is definitely good. But I think you may have gotten a bit confused in the list comprehension syntax. What we want to say is: take every value from 0 to n, apply f to it, and then maximize.
maxfunct :: (Num a, Ord a) => (Int -> a) -> Int -> a
maxfunct f n
| n < 0 = 0
| otherwise = maximum [f x | x <- [0..n]]
and there you have it. For what it's worth, you can also do this with map pretty easily.
maxfunct :: (Num a, Ord a) => (Int -> a) -> Int -> a
maxfunct f n
| n < 0 = 0
| otherwise = maximum $ map f [0..n]
It's just a matter of which you find more easily readable. I'm a map / filter guy myself, but lots of folks prefer list comprehensions, so to each his own.
Im pretty much new to Haskell, so if Im missing key concept, please point it out.
Lets say we have these two functions:
fact n
| n == 0 = 1
| n > 0 = n * (fact (n - 1))
The polymorphic type for fact is (Eq t, Num t) => t -> t Because n is used in the if condition and n must be of valid type to do the == check. Therefor t must be a Number and t can be of any type within class constraint Eq t
fib n
| n == 1 = 1
| n == 2 = 1
| n > 2 = fib (n - 1) + fib (n - 2)
Then why is the polymorphic type of fib is (Eq a, Num a, Num t) => a -> t?
I don't understand, please help.
Haskell always aims to derive the most generic type signature.
Now for fact, we know that the type of the output, should be the same as the type of the input:
fact n | n == 0 = 1
| n > 0 = n * (fact (n - 1))
This is due to the last line. We use n * (fact (n-1)). So we use a multiplication (*) :: a -> a -> a. Multiplication thus takes two members of the same type and returns a member of that type. Since we multiply with n, and n is input, the output is of the same type as the input. Since we use n == 0, we know that (==) :: Eq a => a -> a -> Bool so that means that that input type should have Eq a =>, and furthermore 0 :: Num a => a. So the resulting type is fact :: (Num a, Eq a) => a -> a.
Now for fib, we see:
fib n | n == 1 = 1
| n == 2 = 1
| n > 2 = fib (n - 1) + fib (n - 2)
Now we know that for n, the type constraints are again Eq a, Num a, since we use n == 1, and (==) :: Eq a => a -> a -> Bool and 1 :: Num a => a. But the input n is never directly used in the output. Indeed, the last line has fib (n-1) + fib (n-2), but here we use n-1 and n-2 as input of a new call. So that means we can safely asume that the input type and the output type act independently. The output type, still has a type constraint: Num t: this is since we return 1 for the first two cases, and 1 :: Num t => t, and we also return the addition of two outputs: fib (n-1) + fib (n-2), so again (+) :: Num t => t -> t -> t.
The difference is that in fact, you use the argument directly in an arithmetic expression which makes up the final result:
fact n | ... = n * ...
IOW, if you write out the expanded arithmetic expression, n appears in it:
fact 3 ≡ n * (n-1) * (n-2) * 1
This fixes that the argument must have the same type as the result, because
(*) :: Num n => n -> n -> n
Not so in fib: here the actual result is only composed of literals and of sub-results. IOW, the expanded expression looks like
fib 3 ≡ (1 + 1) + 1
No n in here, so no unification between argument and result required.
Of course, in both cases you also used n to decide how this arithmetic expression looks, but for that you've just used equality comparisons with literals, whose type is not connected to the final result.
Note that you can also give fib a type-preservig signature: (Eq a, Num a, Num t) => a -> t is strictly more general than (Eq t, Num t) => t -> t. Conversely, you can make a fact that doesn't require input- and output to be the same type, by following it with a conversion function:
fact' :: (Eq a, Integral a, Num t) => a -> t
fact' = fromIntegral . fact
This doesn't make a lot of sense though, because Integer is pretty much the only type that can reliably be used in fact, but to achieve that in the above version you need to start out with Integer. Hence if anything, you should do the following:
fact'' :: (Eq t, Integral a, Num t) => a -> t
fact'' = fact . fromIntegral
This can then be used also as Int -> Integer, which is somewhat sensible.
I'd recommend to just keep the signature (Eq t, Num t) => t -> t though, and only add conversion operations where it's actually needed. Or really, what I'd recommend is to not use fact at all – this is a very expensive function that's hardly ever really useful in practice; most applications that naïvely end up with a factorial really just need something like binomial coefficients, and those can be implemented more efficiently without a factorial.
I'm reviewing an old exam in my Haskell programming course and I can't seem to wrap my head around this function (I think there is just too little information given).
The code given is
myId x = x
function n f
| n > 0 = f . function (n-1) f
| otherwise = myId
I know that if I for example call the function with the input 2 (*2), I will get a function as result. And if I call it with (-2) (*2) 1 I will get the result 1.
I just don't know how? Also I can't wrap my head around the typecast of the function.
I know that these two options are correct but I don't understand why (probably parentheses that confuse me at the moment).
function :: (Num a, Ord a) => a -> (a -> a) -> a -> a
function :: (Num a, Ord b) => a -> (b -> b) -> b -> b
Anyone that can clarify how I should "read" this function and how I should understand how the typecast works (been reading my Programming in Haskell literature and from Learn You a Haskell but been going in circle for a few days now).
function takes some number n and a function f :: a -> a, and composes that function with itself n times, returning another function of type a -> a. When the returned function is applied to a value of type a, the result is essentially the same as executing f in a loop n times, using the output of each previous step as the input for the next.
Perhaps it is easier to see the similarity if the final parameter is made explicit:
function :: (Ord a, Num a) -> a -> (b -> b) -> b -> b
function n f x
| n > 0 = f (function (n-1) f x)
| otherwise = x
This is functionally equivalent to your point-free function.
In Haskell, a function f :: a -> b -> c can be interpreted either as "a function that takes an a and a b and returns a c" or "a function that takes an a and returns a function from b to c". When you apply a function to one or more inputs, think of each input as eliminating one of the function's arguments. In this instance, function 10 returns a new function with type (a -> a) -> a -> a, and function 2 (*2) returns a function with type Num a => a -> a.
When you think of it this way, it should hopefully be clear why function (-2) (*2) 1 returns a number while function 2 (*2) returns a function. There is no type casting going on; when you are applying the three argument function to two inputs, you get another function back instead of a value, since you didn't provide the final input needed to compute that value.
I have two functions f and g and I am trying to return f(g(x)) but I do not know the value of x and I am not really sure how to go about this.
A more concrete example: if I have functions f = x + 1 and g = x * 2 and I am trying to return f(g(x)) I should get a function equal to (x*2) + 1
It looks like you have it right, f(g(x)) should work fine. I'm not sure why you have a return keyword there (it's not a keyword in ocaml). Here is a correct version,
let compose f g x = f (g x)
The type definition for this is,
val compose : ('b -> 'c) -> ('a -> 'b) -> 'a -> 'c = <fun>
Each, 'a,'b,'c are abstract types; we don't care what they are, they just need to be consistent in the definition (so, the domain of g must be in the range of f).
let x_plus_x_plus_1 = compose (fun x -> x + 1) (fun x -> x * 2)