I am trying to define a function Sum f k that sums f from 0 up to k-1 such that
Sum f k = f 0 + ⋯ + f (k - 1).
I have defined it as follows:
fun Sum :: "(nat => nat) => nat => nat" where
"Sum f 1 = f 0"
| "Sum f k = f (k-1) + Sum f (k-1)"
However, this gives the following error message:
Malformed definition:
Non-constructor pattern not allowed in sequential mode.
⋀f. Sum f 1 = f 0
This error message disappears when I define Sum f 0 = f 0, but this is not the function I am trying to define. I can also use function and give a soundness proof myself, but I would be quite surprised if that was necessary
Could someone explain the error message and recommend a workaround/correction?
You can only use constructors in pattern matches. The constructors of nat are 0 and Suc. So if you write 1 as (Suc 0) it should work.
Related
I have to write a function sum that takes as first argument a value n. The second argument is a function f so that sum calculates the Gaussian sum.
In a second step, I have to implement thesum_gauss (int->int) using sum and a lambda expression.
This is my idea for the function sum:
let rec sum (n:int) (f:int->int) : int =
if n < 1 then 0
else sum (n-1) f + f n
And this is sum_gauss which throws an error:
let sum_gauss = sum ((i:int) -> fun (i:int) : int -> i)
The error is:
Line 1, characters 30-32:
Error: Syntax error: ')' expected
Line 1, characters 22-23:
This '(' might be unmatched
I don't understand why this error is raised because every left bracket is matched by a right bracket.
Rewriting with type inference cleaning things up:
let rec sum n f =
if n < 1 then 0
else sum (n-1) f + f n
If you wish to add all number from 1 to n. you need to pass the number and the function to sum_gauss as separate arguments.
let sum_gauss n = sum n (fun x -> x)
Of course, fun x -> x is really just Fun.id.
let sum_gauss n = sum n Fun.id
If you feel like being extra clever and you're already using the Fun module you can use Fun.flip to pass Fun.id as the second argument of sum and elide n from the definition entirely. The fact that sum is not polymorphic avoids weak typing issues with partial application.
let gauss_sum = Fun.(flip sum id)
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.
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.
I am trying to improve my Idris skill by looking at some of the exercises Software Foundations (originally for Coq, but I am hoping the translation to Idris not too bad). I am having trouble with the "Exercise: 1 star (plus_id_exercise)" which reads:
Remove "Admitted." and fill in the proof.
Theorem plus_id_exercise : ∀ n m o : nat,
n = m → m = o → n + m = m + o.
Proof.
(* FILL IN HERE *) Admitted.
I have translated to the following problem in Idris:
plusIdExercise : (n : Nat) ->
(m : Nat) ->
(o : Nat) ->
(n == m) = True ->
(m == o) = True ->
(n + m == m + o) = True
I am trying to perform a case by case analysis and I am having a lot of issues. The first case:
plusIdExercise Z Z Z n_eq_m n_eq_o = Refl
seems to work, but then I want to say for instance:
plusIdExercise (S n) Z Z n_eq_m n_eq_o = absurd
But this doesn't work and gives:
When checking right hand side of plusIdExercise with expected type
S n + 0 == 0 + 0 = True
Type mismatch between
t -> a (Type of absurd)
and
False = True (Expected type)
Specifically:
Type mismatch between
\uv => t -> uv
and
(=) FalseUnification failure
I am trying to say this case can never happen because n == m, but Z (= m) is never the successor of any number (n). Is there anything I can do to fix this? Am I approaching this correctly? I am somewhat confused.
I would argue that the translation is not entirely correct. The lemma stated in Coq does not use boolean equality on natural numbers, it uses the so-called propositional equality. In Coq you can ask the system to give you more information about things:
Coq < About "=".
eq : forall A : Type, A -> A -> Prop
The above means = (it is syntactic sugar for eq type) takes two arguments of some type A and produces a proposition, not a boolean value.
That means that a direct translation would be the following snippet
plusIdExercise : (n = m) -> (m = o) -> (n + m = m + o)
plusIdExercise Refl Refl = Refl
And when you pattern-match on values of the equality type, Idris essentially rewrites terms according to the corresponding equation (it's roughly equivalent to Coq's rewrite tactic).
By the way, you might find the Software Foundations in Idris project useful.
I need to make a function that given natural number n, calculates the product
of the numbers below n that are not divisible by
2 or by 3 im confused on how to use nested functions in order to solve this problem (also new to sml ) here is my code so far
fun countdown(x : int) =
if x=0
then []
else x :: countdown(x-1)
fun check(countdown : int list) =
if null countdown
then 0
else
It is not clear from the question itself (part of an exercise in some class?) how we are supposed to use nested functions since there are ways to write the function without nesting, for example like
fun p1 n =
if n = 1 then 1 else
let val m = n - 1
in (if m mod 2 = 0 orelse m mod 3 = 0 then 1 else m) * p1 m
end
and there are also many ways to write it with nested functions, like
fun p2 n =
if n = 1 then 1 else
let val m = n - 1
fun check m = (m mod 2 = 0 orelse m mod 3 = 0)
in (if check m then 1 else m) * p2 m
end
or
fun p3 n =
let fun check m = (m mod 2 = 0 orelse m mod 3 = 0)
fun loop m =
if m = n then 1 else
(if check m then 1 else m) * loop (m + 1)
in loop 1
end
or like the previous answer by #coder, just to give a few examples. Of these, p3 is somewhat special in that the inner function loop has a "free variable" n, which refers to a parameter of the outer p3.
Using the standard library, a function that produces the numbers [1; n-1],
fun below n = List.tabulate (n-1, fn i => i+1);
a function that removes numbers divisible by 2 or 3,
val filter23 = List.filter (fn i => i mod 2 <> 0 andalso i mod 3 <> 0)
a function that calculates the product of its input,
val product = List.foldl op* 1
and sticking them all together,
val f = product o filter23 o below
This generates a list, filters it and collapses it. This wastes more memory than necessary. It would be more efficient to do what #FPstudent and #coder do and generate the numbers and immediately either make them a part of the end product, or throw them away if they're divisible by 2 or 3. Two things you could do in addition to this is,
Make the function tail-recursive, so it uses less stack space.
Generalise the iteration / folding into a common pattern.
For example,
fun folditer f e i j =
if i < j
then folditer f (f (i, e)) (i+1) j
else e
fun accept i = i mod 2 <> 0 andalso i mod 3 <> 0
val f = folditer (fn (i, acc) => if accept i then i*acc else acc) 1 1
This is similar to Python's xrange.