I am trying to implement a function here which takes a list of Bool representing binary numbers such as [True, False, False] and convert that into corresponding decimal number according to Horners method.
Function type would be [Bool] -> Int.
Algorithms which i am following is:
Horners Algorithm Visual Explanation:
So far i have implemented the logic in which it says first it will check whether the list is empty or either one element in the list [True], will give 1 and [False] will give 0.
Then in this case binToDecList (x:xs) = binToDecList' x 0 what i did to treat first element whether this is True or False.
binToDecList :: [Bool] -> Int
binToDecList [] = error "Empty List"
binToDecList [True] = 1
binToDecList [False] = 0
binToDecList (x:xs) = binToDecList' x 0
binToDecList' x d | x == True = mul (add d 1)
| otherwise = mul (add d 0)
add :: Int -> Int -> Int
add x y = x + y
mul :: Int -> Int
mul x = x * 2
I want to use the result of binToDecList' in the next iteration calling itself recursively on the next element of the list. How can i store the result and then apply it to next element of the list recursively. Any kind of help would be appreciated.
The type* of foldl tells us how it must work.
foldl :: (b -> a -> b) -> b -> [a] -> b
Clearly [a], the third argument that is a list of something, must be the list of Bool to be handed to Horner’s algorithm. That means the type variable a must be Bool.
The type variable b represents a possibly distinct type. We are trying to convert [Bool] to Int, so Int is a decent guess for b.
foldl works by chewing through a list from the left (i.e., starting with its head) and somehow combining the result so far with the next element from the list. The second argument is typically named z for “zero” or the seed value for the folding process. When foldl reaches the end of the list, it returns the accumulated value.
We can see syntactically that the first argument is some function that performs some operation on items of type b and type a to yield a b. Now, a function that ignores the a item and unconditionally results in whatever the b is would fit but wouldn’t be very interesting.
Think about how Horner’s algorithm proceeds. The numbers at the elbows of the path on your diagram represent the notional “result so far” from the previous paragraph. We know that b is Int and a is Bool, so the function passed to foldl must convert the Bool to Int and combine it with the result.
The first step in Horner’s algorithm seems to be a special case that needs to be handled differently, but foldl uses the same function all the way through. If you imagine “priming the pump” with an invisible horizontal move (i.e., multiplying by two) to begin with, we can make the types fit together like puzzle pieces. It’s fine because two times zero is still zero.
Thus, in terms of foldl, Horner’s algorithm is
horners :: [Bool] -> Int
horners = foldl f 0
where f x b =
let b' = fromEnum b
in 2*x + b'
Notice that 2*x + b' combines subsequent horizontal and vertical moves.
This also suggests how to express it in direct recursion.
horners' :: [Bool] -> Int
horners' [] = 0
horners' l = go 0 l
where -- over then down
go x [] = x
go x (b:bs) =
let b' = fromEnum b
in go (2*x + b') bs
Here the inner go loop is performing the left-fold and combining each next Bool with the result so far in i.
* A pedagogical simplification: the actual type generalizes the list type into Foldable.
Related
I'm learning Haskell and have some problems with list comprehension.
If I define a function to get a list of the divisors of a given number, I get an error.
check n = [x | x <- [1..(floor (n/2))], mod n x == 0]
I don't get why it's causing an error. If I want to generate a list from 1 to n/2 I can do it with [1..(floor (n/2))], but not if I do it in the list comprehension.
I tried another way but I get also an error (in this code I want to get all so called "perfect numbers")
f n = [1..(floor (n/2))]
main = print $ filter (\t -> foldr (+) 0 (f t) == t) [2..100]
Usually it is better to start writing a signature. While signatures are often not required, it makes it easier to debug a single function.
The signature of your check function is:
check :: (RealFrac a, Integral a) => a -> [a]
The type of input (and output) a thus needs to be both a RealFrac and an Integral. While technically speaking we can make such type, it does not make much sense.
The reason this happens is because of the use of mod :: Integral a => a -> a -> a this requires x and n to be both of the same type, and a should be a member of the Integral typeclass.
Another problem is the use of n/2, since (/) :: Fractional a => a -> a -> a requires that n and 2 have the same type as n / 2, and n should also be of a type that is a member of Fractional. To make matters even worse, we use floor :: (RealFrac a, Integral b) => a -> b which enforces that n (and thus x as well) have a type that is a member of the RealFrac typeclass.
We can prevent the Fractional and RealFrac type constaints by making use of div :: Integral a => a -> a -> a instead. Since mod already required n to have a type that is a member of the Integral typeclass, this thus will not restrict the types further:
check n = [x | x <- [1 .. div n 2], mod n x == 0]
This for example prints:
Prelude> print (check 5)
[1]
Prelude> print (check 17)
[1]
Prelude> print (check 18)
[1,2,3,6,9]
Can somebody point me to how to feed data to:
twice f x = f (f x)
It's taken from Erik Meijer's lecture, and I have the feeling I can only truely understand when passing data to it. Now this only results in errors.
The derived type signature is (t -> t) -> t -> t. Pass any arguments that match and you won't get compiler errors. One example is twice (+1) 0.
The main mistake here is disregarding the type of twice. In Haskell types are very important, and explain precisely how you would call such a function.
twice :: (a -> a) -> a -> a
So, the function works in this way:
the caller chooses any type a they want
the caller passes a function f of type a -> a
the caller passes an argument of type a
twice finally produces a value of type a
Hence, we could do the following. We can choose, for instance, a = Int. Then define the function f as
myFun :: Int -> Int
myFun y = y*y + 42
then choose x :: Int as 10. Finally, we can make the call
twice myFun 10
Alternatively, we can use a lambda and skip the function definition above
twice (\y -> y*y + 42) 10
For illustration here are three functions called erik1, erik2, and erik3 with the same type signature.
erik1, erik2, erik3 ::(a -> a) -> a -> a
erik1 f x = f x
erik2 f x = f(f x) -- Equivalent to "twice"
erik3 f x = f(f(f x))
These eriks take two arguments, the first being a function and the second being a number. Let's choose sqrt as the function and the number to be 16 and run the three eriks. Here's what you get:
*Main> erik1 sqrt 16
4.0
*Main> erik2 sqrt 16
2.0
*Main> erik3 sqrt 16
1.4142135623730951
There are many things you can try, such as erik3 (/2) 16 = 2,because the f in the function allows you to use any appropriate function. In the particular case of sqrt, erik3 is equivalent to this statement in C:
printf ("Eighth root of 16 = %f \n", sqrt(sqrt(sqrt(16))));
Dr. Meijer Ch 7 1:48 to 3:37
As I watched this lecture last night a key point was made when Erik wrote the type signature as twice :: (a -> a) -> (a -> a) and said, "twice is a function that takes a to a and returns a new function from a to a, and by putting some extra parens it becomes painfully obvious that twice is a higher order function."
A C example that comes closer to illustrating that is:
#define eighthRoot(x) (sqrt(sqrt(sqrt(x))))
printf ("eigthtRoot(16) = %f \n", eighthRoot(16));
I am new to Haskell and I am trying to understand a game created in Haskell (tic tac toe). I know that if a function takes n parameters then you must provide n parameters in the function definition. Example:
f :: Int -> Int -> String
f a b = "This function makes no sense"
However in this Haskell script there is a function that takes two arguments but in the definition it has none. And of course, it's working but I can't seem to figure out why.
import Data.Map qualified as M
type Board = M.Map (Int, Int) Marker
data Marker = X | O | Blank deriving Eq
getMarker :: Board -> (Int, Int) -> Marker
getMarker = flip $ M.findWithDefault Blank
Any ideas on what this function does and more importantly, why it's working (you can see that getMarker takes 0 parameters at the last line) ?
The misconception is here:
... (you can see that getMarker takes 0 parameters at the last line) ...
and the thing that's puzzling you is partial application.
getMarker :: Board -> (Int, Int) -> Marker
getMarker = flip $ M.findWithDefault Blank
What that last line actually tells you is that the getMarker doesn't do anything with its arguments - but they still get passed to the function created by flip $ M.findWithDefault Blank.
Or, more accurately, getMarker evaluates to a function of the declared type which is applied to getMarker's arguments.
You have getMarker :: Board -> (Int, Int) -> Marker, so it's called like
getMarker board pos
Since you have getMarker = flip $ M.findWithDefault Blank, this is equivalent to:
(flip $ M.findWithDefault Blank) board pos
Expanding $:
(flip (M.findWithDefault Blank)) board pos
Function application is left associative, so (f x) y is equivalent to f x y.
flip (M.findWithDefault Blank) board pos
flip f x y is equivalent to f y x, so the expression is equal to:
(M.findWithDefault Blank) pos board
Again, thanks to left associativity of function application:
M.findWithDefault Blank pos board
And this is sensible.
I have function 'my_a' in OCaml, which could have a very complicated return type:
exception Backtrack
exception Continue of (* How do I put the type of function 'my_a' here? *)
let my_a arg = try do_stuff (List.hd arg)
with
| Backtrack -> my_a (List.tl arg)
| Continue (found_answer) -> (try my_a (List.tl arg)
with
| Backtrack -> raise Continue(found_answer)
| Continue (other_answer) ->
raise Continue (compare_answer(found_answer,other_answer));;
(* the caller of my_a will handle the Continue exception to catch the found value
if something was found*)
This is my problem: I'm using backtrack to find a solution. When a backtrack exception is raised by do_stuff, there was no solution going that path. However, when it raises an exception of type Continue, it means it found a solution, but, it may not be the best solution there is, that's when I try again with a different path. If there is another exception, I want to return the answer it already had found.
The thing is, to be able to use that feature of OCaml I need to to tell it what data type Continue will be carrying. What the OCaml top level returns when i define my_a:
'a * ('a -> ('a, 'b) symbol list list) ->
'b list -> ('a * ('a, 'b) symbol list) list * 'b list = <fun>
Does anyone have any idea of how to do that, or a different solution to that?
It's hard to tell exactly what you're asking. I think you might be asking how to get the type inside the Two exception to be set to the return type of A without having to specifically declare this type. I can't think of any way to do it.
Things might go better if you used option types instead of exceptions. Or you can just declare the return type of A explicitly. It might be good documentation.
A couple of side comments: (a) function names have to start with a lower case letter (b) this code looks quite convoluted and hard to follow. There might be a simpler way to structure your computation.
You are gaining nothing by using exceptions. Here is a possible solution.
(** There are many ways to implement backtracking in Ocaml. We show here one
possibility. We search for an optimal solution in a search space. The
search space is given by an [initial] state and a function [search] which
takes a state and returns either
- a solution [x] together with a number [a] describing how good [x] is
(larger [a] means better solution), or
- a list of states that need still to be searched.
An example of such a problem: given a number [n], express it as a sum
[n1 + n2 + ... + nk = n] such that the product [n1 * n2 * ... * nk] is
as large as possible. Additionally require that [n1 <= n2 <= ... <= nk].
The state of the search can be expressed as pair [(lst, s, m)] where
[lst] is the list of numbers in the sum, [s] is the sum of numbers in [lst],
and [m] is the next number we will try to add to the list. If [s = n] then
[lst] is a solution. Otherwise, if [s + m <= n] then we branch into two states:
- either we add [m] to the list, so the next state is [(m :: lst, m+s, m)], or
- we do not add [m] to the list, and the next state is [(lst, s, m+1)].
The return type of [search] is described by the following datatype:
*)
type ('a, 'b, 'c) backtrack =
| Solution of ('a * 'b)
| Branches of 'c list
(** The main function accepts an initial state and the search function. *)
let backtrack initial search =
(* Auxiliary function to compare two optional solutions, and return the better one. *)
let cmp x y =
match x, y with
| None, None -> None (* no solution *)
| None, Some _ -> y (* any solution is better than none *)
| Some _, None -> x (* any solution is better than none *)
| Some (_, a), Some (_, b) ->
if a < b then y else x
in
(* Auxiliary function which actually performs the search, note that it is tail-recursive.
The argument [best] is the best (optional) solution found so far, [branches] is the
list of branch points that still needs to be processed. *)
let rec backtrack best branches =
match branches with
| [] -> best (* no more branches, return the best solution found *)
| b :: bs ->
(match search b with
| Solution x ->
let best = cmp best (Some x) in
backtrack best bs
| Branches lst ->
backtrack best (lst # bs))
in
(* initiate the search with no solution in the initial state *)
match backtrack None [initial] with
| None -> None (* nothing was found *)
| Some (x, _) -> Some x (* the best solution found *)
(** Here is the above example encoded. *)
let sum n =
let search (lst, s, m) =
if s = n then
(* solution found, compute the product of [lst] *)
let p = List.fold_left ( * ) 1 lst in
Solution (lst, p)
else
if s + m <= n then
(* split into two states, one that adds [m] to the list and another
that increases [m] *)
Branches [(m::lst, m+s, m); (lst, s, m+1)]
else
(* [m] is too big, no way to proceed, return empty list of branches *)
Branches []
in
backtrack ([], 0, 1) search
;;
(** How to write 10 as a sum of numbers so that their product is as large as possible? *)
sum 10 ;; (* returns Some [3; 3; 2; 2] *)
OCaml happily informs us that the type of backtrack is
'a -> ('a -> ('b, 'c, 'a) backtrack) -> 'b option
This makes sense:
the first argument is the initial state, which has some type 'a
the second argument is the search function, which takes a state of type 'a and
returns either a Solution (x,a) where x has type 'b and a has type 'c,
or Branches lst where lst has type 'a list.
I wrote my first program in Haskell today. It compiles and runs successfully. And since it is not a typical "Hello World" program, it in fact does much more than that, so please congrats me :D
Anyway, I've few doubts regarding my code, and the syntax in Haskell.
Problem:
My program reads an integer N from the standard input and then, for each integer i in the range [1,N], it prints whether i is a prime number or not. Currently it doesn't check for input error. :-)
Solution: (also doubts/questions)
To solve the problem, I wrote this function to test primality of an integer:
is_prime :: Integer -> Bool
is_prime n = helper n 2
where
helper :: Integer -> Integer -> Bool
helper n i
| n < 2 * i = True
| mod n i > 0 = helper n (i+1)
| otherwise = False
It works great. But my doubt is that the first line is a result of many hit-and-trials, as what I read in this tutorial didn't work, and gave this error (I suppose this is an error, though it doesn't say so):
prime.hs:9:13:
Type constructor `Integer' used as a class
In the type signature for `is_prime':
is_prime :: Integer a => a -> Bool
According to the tutorial (which is a nicely-written tutorial, by the way), the first line should be: (the tutorial says (Integral a) => a -> String, so I thought (Integer a) => a -> Bool should work as well.)
is_prime :: (Integer a) => a -> Bool
which doesn't work, and gives the above posted error (?).
And why does it not work? What is the difference between this line (which doesn't work) and the line (which works)?
Also, what is the idiomatic way to loop through 1 to N? I'm not completely satisfied with the loop in my code. Please suggest improvements. Here is my code:
--read_int function
read_int :: IO Integer
read_int = do
line <- getLine
readIO line
--is_prime function
is_prime :: Integer -> Bool
is_prime n = helper n 2
where
helper :: Integer -> Integer -> Bool
helper n i
| n < 2 * i = True
| mod n i > 0 = helper n (i+1)
| otherwise = False
main = do
n <- read_int
dump 1 n
where
dump i x = do
putStrLn ( show (i) ++ " is a prime? " ++ show (is_prime i) )
if i >= x
then putStrLn ("")
else do
dump (i+1) x
You are misreading the tutorial. It would say the type signature should be
is_prime :: (Integral a) => a -> Bool
-- NOT Integer a
These are different types:
Integer -> Bool
This is a function that takes a value of type Integer and gives back a value of type Bool.
Integral a => a -> Bool
This is a function that takes a value of type a and gives back a value of type Bool.
What is a? It can be any type of the caller's choice that implements the Integral type class, such as Integer or Int.
(And the difference between Int and Integer? The latter can represent an integer of any magnitude, the former wraps around eventually, similar to ints in C/Java/etc.)
The idiomatic way to loop depends on what your loop does: it will either be a map, a fold, or a filter.
Your loop in main is a map, and because you're doing i/o in your loop, you need to use mapM_.
let dump i = putStrLn ( show (i) ++ " is a prime? " ++ show (is_prime i) )
in mapM_ dump [1..n]
Meanwhile, your loop in is_prime is a fold (specifically all in this case):
is_prime :: Integer -> Bool
is_prime n = all nondivisor [2 .. n `div` 2]
where
nondivisor :: Integer -> Bool
nondivisor i = mod n i > 0
(And on a minor point of style, it's conventional in Haskell to use names like isPrime instead of names like is_prime.)
Part 1: If you look at the tutorial again, you'll notice that it actually gives type signatures in the following forms:
isPrime :: Integer -> Bool
-- or
isPrime :: Integral a => a -> Bool
isPrime :: (Integral a) => a -> Bool -- equivalent
Here, Integer is the name of a concrete type (has an actual representation) and Integral is the name of a class of types. The Integer type is a member of the Integral class.
The constraint Integral a means that whatever type a happens to be, a has to be a member of the Integral class.
Part 2: There are plenty of ways to write such a function. Your recursive definition looks fine (although you might want to use n < i * i instead of n < 2 * i, since it's faster).
If you're learning Haskell, you'll probably want to try writing it using higher-order functions or list comprehensions. Something like:
module Main (main) where
import Control.Monad (forM_)
isPrime :: Integer -> Bool
isPrime n = all (\i -> (n `rem` i) /= 0) $ takeWhile (\i -> i^2 <= n) [2..]
main :: IO ()
main = do n <- readLn
forM_ [1..n] $ \i ->
putStrLn (show (i) ++ " is a prime? " ++ show (isPrime i))
It is Integral a, not Integer a. See http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Converting_numbers.
map and friends is how you loop in Haskell. This is how I would re-write the loop:
main :: IO ()
main = do
n <- read_int
mapM_ tell_prime [1..n]
where tell_prime i = putStrLn (show i ++ " is a prime? " ++ show (is_prime i))