This function should take two arguments a list and an int. if an element of the list and the number “a” parity is equal then they’d have to be summed, else the two numbers should be subtracted.
The calculation should be done in this order :
At the beginning, the residual value r is the value of a,
Each element e of lst (taken in the order given by the list) affects the residual value: if e and r are of the same parity (both odd or both even) then the new r’ is equal to the sum of r + e, if not then it should be equal to the subtraction of r - e,
The last r is the result expected.
To put this into an example:
par [4;7;3;6] 5
should return -1, it would work as follows :
5 and 4 have a different parity so we subtract -> 5 - 4 = 1
1 and 7 are both odd, so we add them together -> 1 + 7 = 8
8 and 3 have a different parity -> 8 - 3 = 5
Finally, 5 and 6 have different parity -> 5 - 6 = -1
I have thought of something like this below :
let rec par lst a =
match lst with
| [] -> 0
| h::t -> if (h mod 2 == 0 && a mod 2 == 0) || (h mod 2 == 1 && a mod 2 == 1) then a + h
| h::t -> if (h mod 2 == 0 && a mod 2 == 1) || (h mod 2 == 1 && a mod 2 == 0) then a - h :: par t a ;;
EDIT1 : Here is the error I get from the compiler :
Line 4, characters 83-88: Error: This expression has type int but an
expression was expected of type unit because it is in the result of a
conditional with no else branch
The idea is to build this function using no more than the following predefined functions List.hd, List.tl et List.length.
What is disturbing in my proposition above and how to remediate it? Anyone can help me resolve this, please?
EDIT 2:
I was able to do what is needed with if...then... else syntax (not the best I know for OCaml) but I personally have more difficulties sometimes understanding the pattern matching. Anyhow here's what I got :
let rec par lst a = (* Sorry it might hurt some sensible eyes *)
if List.length lst = 0 then a
else
let r = if (List.hd lst + a) mod 2 == 0 then (a + (List.hd lst))
else (a - (List.hd lst)) in
par (List.tl lst) r ;;
val par : int list -> int -> int = <fun>
Suggestions and help to put it into a pattern-matching syntax are welcomed.
Your code doesn't compile. Did you try compiling it? Did you read the errors and warnings produced by the compiler? Could you please add them to your question?
A few comments about your code:
| h::t -> if ... then ... should be | h::t when ... -> ...;
(h mod 2 == 0 && a mod 2 == 0) || (h mod 2 == 1 && a mod 2 == 1) can be simplified to (h - a) mod 2 == 0;
The compiler likes to know that the matching was exhaustive; in particular, you don't need to repeat the test in the third line of the matching (the third line will only be read if the test was false in the second line);
You are missing the recursive call in the second line of the matching;
In the third line of the matching, you are returning a list rather than a number (the compiler should have explicitly told you about that type mismatch!! did you not read the compiler error message?);
In the first line of the matching, in case the list is empty, you return 0. Are you sure that 0 is the value you want to return, when you've reached the end of the list? What about the residual value that you have calculated?
Once you have fixed this version of your code as a recursive function, I recommend trying to write a code solving the same problem using List.fold_left, rather than List.hd and List.tl as you are suggesting.
When I first wrote my answer, I included a fixed version of your code, but I think I'd be doing you a disservice by handing out the solution rather than letting you figure it out.
Related
Write a function sumdv that holds a list of integers and adds up all numbers in the list that are divisible by 3 or 4 but not by 6. The functions sum, filter, convolutions and list generators are forbidden.
sumdv :: [Integer] -> [a] -> [Integer]
sumdv = add
sumdv [] = 0
sumdv (x:xs)
| mod 3 x == 0 || mod 4 x == 0 = x + sumdv (x:xs)
| mod 6 x == 0 = sumdv (x:xs)
Hey guys again, I´m a little bit confused about the right type, because the system shows only "Variable not in scope: sumdv :: [Integer] -> t". My thoughs are that at first I have a list with Integer, because of the fact that it must be "whole numbers" then the gave me a list of different elements that must be add together for me it is: [Integer] -> [a] -> a but it didnt work :( –
I would say that there are multiple mistakes:
type is wrong (based on the description you should accept collection of elements and return one)
seems like sumdv = add should be just removed
sumdv (x:xs) calls lead to infinite recursion (you are calling function passing the same input without modification)
mod arguments are in the wrong order
mod x 6 == 0 pattern guard should be before mod x 3 == 0 || mod x 4 == 0 cause only first matching guard is evaluated, and you will not filter out number divisible by 6 if mod x 3 == 0 is placed first
you are missing pattern guard for otherwise case (when number is not divisible by 3,4 or 6)
Taking in account all the notes above sample implementation can look like this:
sumdv [] = 0
sumdv (x:xs)
| mod x 6 == 0 = sumdv (xs)
| mod x 3 == 0 || mod x 4 == 0 = x + sumdv (xs)
| otherwise = sumdv (xs)
I seem to be stuck on a question and have no idea how to approach it or what Im doing wrong with my current code.
I have to write a function called oddDigits which takes a single integer argument and returns a boolean result. It should return True if and only if the argument is a positive integer with an odd number of digits. If the argument is zero or negative, the function should stop with an error message.
Also, cant convert the argument into a string. Have to use recursion.
I have a feeling each digit could be stored in a list recursively and then the length of the list could determine the answer.
So far, I have this:
oddDigits :: Integer -> Bool
lst = []
oddDigits x
| (x < 0) || (x == 0) = error
| x `mod` 10 ++ lst ++ oddDigits(x `div` 10)
| length(lst) `mod` 2 /= 0 = True
| otherwise = False
Sorry if the code looks horrible. I am new to Haskell and still learning. What exactly am I doing wrong and how could I correct it?
First off, this seems a pretty weird thing to check. Perhaps what you're doing wrong is to ever consider this problem...
But if you persist you want to know the property of an integer having an odd number of digits... oh well. There's a lot that could be improved. For starters, (x < 0) || (x == 0) doesn't need the parentheses – < and == (infix 4) bind more tightly than ||. If you're not sure about this, you can always ask GHCi:
Prelude> :i ==
class Eq a where
(==) :: a -> a -> Bool
...
-- Defined in ‘GHC.Classes’
infix 4 ==
Prelude> :i ||
(||) :: Bool -> Bool -> Bool -- Defined in ‘GHC.Classes’
infixr 2 ||
But here you don't need || anyway because there's a dedicated operator for less-than-or-equal. Hence you can just write
oddDigits x
| x <= 0 = error "bla bla"
| ...
Then, you can “convert” the number to a string. Converting to string is generally a really frowned-upon thing to do because it throws all structure, typechecking etc. out of the window; however “number of digits” basically is a property of a string (the decimal expansion), rather than a number itself, so this is not entirely unsensible for this specific task. This would work:
oddDigits x
| x <= 0 = error "blearg"
| length (show x)`mod`2 /= 0 = True
| otherwise = False
however it's a bit redundancy department redundant. You're checking if something is True, then give True as the result... why not just put it in one clause:
oddDigits x
| x <= 0 = error "blearg"
| otherwise = length (show x)`mod`2 /= 0
That's perhaps in fact the best implementation.
For any proper, sensible task, I would not recommend going the string route. Recursion is better. Here's what it could look like:
oddDigits 1 = True
oddDigits x
| x <= 0 = error "blearg"
| otherwise = not . oddDigits $ x`div`10
There's nothing wrong with your general approach of converting to a list of digits, then finding the length of the list. Really where you went wrong is trying to cram everything into one function. As you found out first hand, it makes it very difficult to debug. Functional programming works best with very small functions.
If you separate out the responsibility of converting an integer to a list of digits, using a digs function like the one from this answer, the rest of your algorithm simplifies to:
oddDigits x | x <= 0 = error
oddDigits x = odd . length $ digs x
leftaroundabout's eventual answer is very nice, however it fails for numbers like 2,3 and 23. Here's a fix.
oddDigits x
| x <= 0 = error "blearg"
| x < 10 = True
| otherwise = not . oddDigits $ x`div`10
Its much more elegant than my initial answer, below. I'm including it to introduce a common functional paradigm, a worker/wrapper transformation of the problem. Here the wrapper gives the interface and passes off the work to another function. Notice that the negativity check only needs to be done once now.
oddDigits :: Integer -> Bool
oddDigits x
| x <= 0 = False
| otherwise = oddDigits' True x
oddDigits' :: Bool -> Integer -> Bool
oddDigits' t x
| x < 10 = t
| otherwise = oddDigits' (not t) $ x `div` 10
oddDigits' carries a piece of internal data with it, the initial Bool. My first first thought was to have that Bool be a digit accumulator, counting the number of digits. In that case, an "unwrapper" needs to be supplied, in this case the standard "odd" function:
oddDigits x
| x <= 0 = False
| otherwise = odd . oddDigits'' 1 $ x
where oddDigits'' :: Integer -> Integer -> Integer.
I'm trying to sum all numbers from 1 to 1000 that are either divisible by 3 or 5.
The first attempt is straight forward:
ans1 = 0
for x in 3:999
ans1 += x % 3 == 0 || x % 5 == 0 ? x : 0
end
When I try the same approach using function chaining, it fails to return the answer I expect, it instead returns 0.
ans2 = [3:999] |> x -> x % 3 == 0 || x % 5 == 0 ? x : 0 |> sum
I believe the problem is the center function, since the code below prints all values within the range of 3 to 999. So i know there is no problem with iteration.
[3:999] |> x -> println(x)
Could anyone please help me.
I discovered the reason was because I did not understand the type being parsed. Here is an example:
[3:999] |> println(typeof(x)) # Array{Int64,1}
Meaning the value being parsed is an array of integer64. So evaluating the following:
[1:999] % 3 == 0 # false
So my answer was to instead use the filter function, here is an example:
ans3 = sum(filter(x -> x % 3 == 0 || x % 5 == 0,[1:999]))
The final answer using function chaining is:
ans4 = [1:999] |> x -> filter(y -> y % 3 == 0 || y % 5 == 0,x) |> sum
Which evaluates to the expected answer.
I'm new to Haskell, started learning a couple of days ago and I have a question on a function I'm trying to make.
I want to make a function that verifies if x is a factor of n (ex: 375 has these factors: 1, 3, 5, 15, 25, 75, 125 and 375), then removes the 1 and then the number itself and finally verifies if the number of odd numbers in that list is equal to the number of even numbers!
I thought of making a functions like so to calculate the first part:
factor n = [x | x <- [1..n], n `mod`x == 0]
But if I put this on the prompt it will say Not in scope 'n'. The idea was to input a number like 375 so it would calculate the list. What I'm I doing wrong? I've seen functions being put in the prompt like this, in books.
Then to take the elements I spoke of I was thinking of doing tail and then init to the list. You think it's a good idea?
And finally I thought of making an if statement to verify the last part. For example, in Java, we'd make something like:
(x % 2 == 0)? even++ : odd++; // (I'm a beginner to Java as well)
and then if even = odd then it would say that all conditions were verified (we had a quantity of even numbers equal to the odd numbers)
But in Haskell, as variables are immutable, how would I do the something++ thing?
Thanks for any help you can give :)
This small function does everything that you are trying to achieve:
f n = length evenFactors == length oddFactors
where evenFactors = [x | x <- [2, 4..(n-1)], n `mod` x == 0]
oddFactors = [x | x <- [3, 5..(n-1)], n `mod` x == 0]
If the "command line" is ghci, then you need to
let factor n = [x | x <- [2..(n-1)], n `mod` x == 0]
In this particular case you don't need to range [1..n] only to drop 1 and n - range from 2 to (n-1) instead.
The you can simply use partition to split the list of divisors using a boolean predicate:
import Data.List
partition odd $ factor 10
In order to learn how to write a function like partition, study recursion.
For example:
partition p = foldr f ([],[]) where
f x ~(ys,ns) | p x = (x:ys,ns)
f x ~(ys,ns) = (ys, x:ns)
(Here we need to pattern-match the tuples lazily using "~", to ensure the pattern is not evaluated before the tuple on the right is constructed).
Simple counting can be achieved even simpler:
let y = factor 375
(length $ filter odd y) == (length y - (length $ filter odd y))
Create a file source.hs, then from ghci command line call :l source to load the functions defined in source.hs.
To solve your problem this may be a solution following your steps:
-- computers the factors of n, gets the tail (strips 1)
-- the filter functions removes n from the list
factor n = filter (/= n) (tail [x | x <- [1..n], n `mod` x == 0])
-- checks if the number of odd and even factors is equal
oe n = let factors = factor n in
length (filter odd factors) == length (filter even factors)
Calling oe 10 returns True, oe 15 returns False
(x % 2 == 0)? even++ : odd++;
We have at Data.List a partition :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> ([a], [a]) function
So we can divide odds like
> let (odds,evens) = partition odd [1..]
> take 10 odds
[1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15,17,19]
> take 10 evens
[2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18,20]
Here is a minimal fix for your factor attempt using comprehensions:
factor nn = [x | n <- [1..nn], x <- [1..n], n `mod`x == 0]
I am having an expression, suppose,
a = 1 && (b = 1 || b != 0 ) && (c >= 35 || d != 5) && (c >= 38 || d = 6)
I expect it to be reduced to,
a = 1 && b != 0 && (c >= 38 || d = 6)
Does anyone have any suggestions? Pointers to any algorithm?
Nota Bene: Karnaugh Map or Quine-McCluskey are not an option here, I believe. As these methods don't handle grey cases. I mean, expression can only be reduced as far as things are like, A or A' or nothing, or say black or white or absense-of-colour. But here I'm having grey shades, as you folks can see.
Solution: I have written the program for this in Clojure. I used map of a map containing a function as value. That came pretty handy, just a few rules for a few combinations and you are good. Thanks for your helpful answers.
I think you should be able to achieve what you want by using Constraint Handling Rules. You would need to write rules that simplify the OR- and AND-expressions.
The main difficulty would be the constraint entailment check that tells you which parts you can drop. E.g., (c >= 35 || d != 5) && (c >= 38 || d = 6) simplifies to (c >= 38 || d = 6) because the former is entailed by the latter, i.e., the latter is more specific. For the OR-expressions, you would need to choose the more general part, though.
Google found a paper on an extension of CHR with entailment check for user-defined constraints. I don't know enough CHR to be able to tell you whether you would need such an extension.
I believe these kinds of things are done regularly in constraint logic programming. Unfortunatly I'm not experienced enough in it to give more accurate details, but that should be a good starting point.
The general principle is simple: an unbound variable can have any value; as you test it against inequalities, it's set of possible values are restricted by one or more intervals. When/if those intervals converge to a single point, that variable is bound to that value. If, OTOH, any of those inequalities are deemed unsolvable for every value in the intervals, a [programming] logic failure occurs.
See also this, for an example of how this is done in practice using swi-prolog. Hopefully you will find links or references to the underlying algorithms, so you can reproduce them in your platform of choice (maybe even finding ready-made libraries).
Update: I tried to reproduce your example using swi-prolog and clpfd, but didn't get the results I expected, only close ones. Here's my code:
?- [library(clpfd)].
simplify(A,B,C,D) :-
A #= 1 ,
(B #= 1 ; B #\= 0 ) ,
(C #>= 35 ; D #\= 5) ,
(C #>= 38 ; D #= 6).
And my results, on backtracking (line breaks inserted for readability):
10 ?- simplify(A,B,C,D).
A = 1,
B = 1,
C in 38..sup ;
A = 1,
B = 1,
D = 6,
C in 35..sup ;
A = 1,
B = 1,
C in 38..sup,
D in inf..4\/6..sup ;
A = 1,
B = 1,
D = 6 ;
A = 1,
B in inf.. -1\/1..sup,
C in 38..sup ;
A = 1,
D = 6,
B in inf.. -1\/1..sup,
C in 35..sup ;
A = 1,
B in inf.. -1\/1..sup,
C in 38..sup,
D in inf..4\/6..sup ;
A = 1,
D = 6,
B in inf.. -1\/1..sup.
11 ?-
So, the program yielded 8 results, among those the 2 you were interested on (5th and 8th):
A = 1,
B in inf.. -1\/1..sup,
C in 38..sup ;
A = 1,
D = 6,
B in inf.. -1\/1..sup.
The other were redundant, and maybe could be eliminated using simple, automatable logic rules:
1st or 5th ==> 5th [B == 1 or B != 0 --> B != 0]
2nd or 4th ==> 4th [C >= 35 or True --> True ]
3rd or 1st ==> 1st ==> 5th [D != 5 or True --> True ]
4th or 8th ==> 8th [B == 1 or B != 0 --> B != 0]
6th or 8th ==> 8th [C >= 35 or True --> True ]
7th or 3rd ==> 3rd ==> 5th [B == 1 or B != 0 --> B != 0]
I know it's a long way behind being a general solution, but as I said, hopefully it's a start...
P.S. I used "regular" AND and OR (, and ;) because clpfd's ones (#/\ and #\/) gave a very weird result that I couldn't understand myself... maybe someone more experienced can cast some light on it...