I apologize if this is exceptionally elementary, but I just started programming in school, I have looked all over for the solution and unfortunately nothing has helped me with this.
I have this piece of code:
#define _CRT_SECURE_NO_WARNINGS
#include <stdio.h>
int logic(int a, int b)
{
int c = a % b;
a++;
b--;
printf("==%d %d %d==\n", a, b, c);
return b + a + c;
}
int main()
{
int a, c;
float d, f;
a = 10;
c = 5;
f = 2;
d = logic(a, logic(c, f));
printf("%d %d %.2f %.2f\n", a, c, d, f);
return 0;
}
Now the output for this is:
'== 6 1 1==
==11 7 2==
10 5 20.00 2.00'
Now the problem is how does the line 'd = logic(a, logic(c, f));' compile in regards to the logic function above. I assume to get the first output, the logic function takes the value of 5 and 2 for c and f and runs it through the function for a and b. But I am totally stumped as to why the next output is '==11 7 2=='. What does return 'c + b + a;' do exactly, when I replace the + operator with a comma only the first value in the output (which is 11 regardless of what order I place the variables) emerges, the rest are 0s.
Please help with this, I am incredibly stumped, have been at it for hours and still nothing.
I assume to get the first output, the logic function takes the value of 5 and 2 for c and f and runs it through the function for a and b.
That is correct. What happens at first is equivalent to calling logic( 5, 2 ). Note two things: a) Inside the function logic we have a printf which prints some output to the screen, and b) the function logic returns a value of type int.
That's what the first int in int logic(int a, int b) indicates.
Now let's look at the original call:
d = logic(a, logic(c, f));
This tells the machine that we want to get the value returned by the function logic and store in in variable d. However, to call logic we need two int parameters. The first one is given as variable a, but to find the value for the second parameter a function needs to be executed first, which happens to be logic in this case.
This is just the same as in plain math: To calculate f(g(x)) you'll have to first calculate g(x) and use the result as input for f. In a program, you could as well use another variable to store the intermediate result, like int g_result = g(x); f( g_result ); This is completely equivalent.
So, to calculate the result of logic(a, logic(c, f));, logic needs to run twice. Every time logic is executed it runs across the printf and produces some output on the screen.
And that's why we get two lines of output "== ... ==", one for each run of the function logic.
As said above, you could just equivalently write:
int first_result = logic( c, f ); // This call produces the output of "== 6 1 1==" and returns the value 8 (= 6 + 1 + 1) which gets assigned to "first_result"
d = logic( a, first_result ); // This call produces the output of "==11 7 2==" from the function parameters "a" (=10) and "first_result" (=8).
Related
I am trying to write a function in Julia that takes in a multi-dimensional array (a data cube) and rescales every entry from 0 to 1. However, whenever I run the code in atom, I get the error
LoadError: MethodError: no method matching -(::Array{Float64,2}, ::Float64)
Closest candidates are:
-(::Float64, ::Float64) at float.jl:397
-(::Complex{Bool}, ::Real) at complex.jl:298
-(::Missing, ::Number) at missing.jl:97
...
Stacktrace:
[1] rescale_zero_one(::Array{Float64,2}) at D:\Julio\Documents\Michigan_v2\CS\EECS_598_Data_Science\codex\Codex_3\svd_video.jl:40
[2] top-level scope at D:\Julio\Documents\Michigan_v2\CS\EECS_598_Data_Science\codex\Codex_3\svd_video.jl:50 [inlined]
[3] top-level scope at .\none:0
in expression starting at D:\Julio\Documents\Michigan_v2\CS\EECS_598_Data_Science\codex\Codex_3\svd_video.jl:48
I have the basics of what my function must do, but I really don't understand some of the notation and what the error is telling or how to fix it.
function rescale_zero_one(A::Array)
B = float(A)
B -= minimum(B)
B /= maximum(B)
return B
end
m,n,j = size(movie_cube)
println(j)
C = Array{Float64}(UndefInitializer(),m,n,j)
for k in 1:j
println(k)
C[:,:,j] = rescale_zero_one(movie_cube[:,:,j])
end
the variable movie_cube is a 3 dimensional data array of Float64 entries and I just want to rescale the entries from zero to one. However, the error that I mentioned keeps appearing. I would really appreciate any help with this code!
Try to use dot syntax for doing some operations in an array!
function rescale_zero_one(A::Array)
B = float.(A)
B .-= minimum(B)
B ./= maximum(B)
return B
end
This code is a bit faster and simpler (it only makes two passes over the input matrix rather than five in the previous answer):
function rescale(A::Matrix)
(a, b) = extrema(A)
return (A .- a) ./ (b - a)
end
This can be generalized to three dimensions, so that you don't need the outer loop over the dimensions in C. Warning: this solution is actually a bit slow, since extrema/maximum/minimum are slow when using the dims keyword, which is quite strange:
function rescale(A::Array{T, 3}) where {T}
mm = extrema(A, dims=(1,2))
a, b = first.(mm), last.(mm)
return (A .- a) ./ (b .- a)
end
Now you could just write C = rescale(movie_cube). You can even generalize this further:
function rescale(A::Array{T, N}; dims=ntuple(identity, N)) where {T,N}
mm = extrema(A, dims=dims)
a, b = first.(mm), last.(mm)
return (A .- a) ./ (b .- a)
end
Now you can normalize your multidimensional array along any dimensions you like. Current behaviour becomes
C = rescale(movie_cube, dims=(1,2))
Rescaling each row is
C = rescale(movie_cube, dims=(1,))
Default behaviour is to rescale the entire array:
C = rescale(movie_cube)
One more thing, this is a bit odd:
C = Array{Float64}(UndefInitializer(),m,n,j)
It's not wrong, but it is more common to use the shorter and more elegant:
C = Array{Float64}(undef, m, n, j)
You might also consider simply writing: C = similar(movie_cube) or C = similar(movie_cube, Float64).
Edit: Another general solution is to not implement the dimension handling in the rescale function, but to rather leverage mapslices. Then:
function rescale(A::Array)
(a, b) = extrema(A)
return (A .- a) ./ (b - a)
end
C = mapslices(rescale, A, dims=(1,2))
This is also not the fastest solution, for reasons I don't understand. I really think this ought to be fast, and might be sped up in a future version of Julia.
Apologies for the rather long name, but I wanted to be specific. I am rather new to R and coding so please go easy on me.
I have a function as follows:
myfun = function(x, y, g) {return(1 / (1 + exp(y*g%*%x)))}
where x is any data frame with n rows and d columns, y is a scalar and integer, and g is a vector of length d (i.e. same as x). I want to run this function for each row of x without using loops.
I have tried various function in the apply family similar to the code below:
apply(x = a, 1, myfun(y = 1, g = b)
where a is a 3x3 data frame and b is a vector 3 elements long. The above code gives an error that I am missing an argument from myfun, but I am obviously clueless on what to try.
Thanks for any help in advance!
Edit: My actual data frame is huge, sparse, and not very straight forward (I think), so I will include an example data frame and other variables:
a = data.frame(c1 = seq(1,3,1), c2 = seq(4,6,1), c3 = seq(7,9,1))
b = c(1,2,3)
c = 1
Also, I think I may have not clearly stated an important piece of information. I want to actually do a summation of myfun over all the rows and values of b, so I actually want the following:
answer = myfun(a[1,], c, b[1]) + myfun(a[2,], c, b[2]) + myfun(a[3,], c, b[3])
In other words, a[1,] should be applied to myfun with b[1] as they are grouped together. I also made an edit to the function above because I forgot to include return(). Hopefully, this makes things more clear. Apologies for the confusion!
I am studying for a final, and I have a practice problem here.
The question asks for the result of
val y = ref 1;
fun f x = (!y) + (x + x);
(f (y := (!y)+1; !y)) + (!y);
under the following parameter passing techniques:
Call by value
Call by name
Call by need.
It seems to me that for call by value, the answer is 8.
However, I believe the answer for call by name is also 8, but I would expect it to be different. The reason I think it is 8:
y := (!y)+1 derefs y as 1, adds 1, and then sets y to 2
!y in line 3 serves as the argument to f, and since it is being dereferenced it is
passed as a value rather than as a reference (this may be where I am
going wrong?)
The function call returns 6, but does not set y as y was passed in as a value from the previous step
6 is added to the dereferenced value of y, which is 2.
This returns 8
Is this the correct answer, and if not, can someone please point out where I have gone wrong? Also, can someone explain to me how call by need would work in this situation also?
Many thanks.
I found out how it works:
(y := (!y)+1; !y) is the parameter passed to f.
f then looks like:
fun f x = (!y) + ((y:= (!y)+1; !y) + (y:= (!y)+1; !y));
so this ends up being 1+2+3, and the final step + (!y) adds 3 as this is the current value of y, giving 9.
Thanks for pointing out that I was still doing call-by-value.
What's the difference in the outcome between call by reference and copy/restore?
Background: I'm currently studying distributed systems. Concerning the passing of reference parameters for remote procedure calls, the book states that: "the call by reference has been replaced by copy/restore. Although this is not always identical, it is good enough". I understand how call by reference and copy/restore work in principle, but I fail to see where a difference in the result may be?
Examples taken from here.
Main code:
#include <stdio.h>
int a;
int main() {
a = 3;
f( 4, &a );
printf("%d\n", a);
return 0;
}
Call by Value:
f(int x, int &y){
// x will be 3 as passed argument
x += a;
// now a is added to x so x will be 6
// but now nothing is done with x anymore
a += 2*y;
// a is still 3 so the result is 11
}
Value is passed in and has no effect on the value of the variable passed in.
Call by Reference:
f(int x, int &y){
// x will be 3 as passed argument
x += a;
// now a is added to x so x will be 6
// but because & is used x is the same as a
// meaning if you change x it will change a
a += 2*y;
// a is now 6 so the result is 14
}
Reference is passed in. Effectively the variable in the function is the same as the one outside.
Call with Copy/Restore:
int a;
void unsafe(int x) {
x= 2; //a is still 1
a= 0; //a is now 0
}//function ends so the value of x is now stored in a -> value of a is now 2
int main() {
a= 1;
unsafe(a); //when this ends the value of a will be 2
printf("%d\n", a); //prints 2
}
Value is passed in and has no effect on the value of the variable passed in UNTIL the end of the function, at which point the FINAL value of the function variable is stored in the passed in variable.
The basic difference between call by reference and copy/restore then is that changes made to the function variable will not show up in the passed in variable until after the end of the function while call by reference changes will be seen immediately.
Call by Copy/Restore is a special case of call-by-reference where the provided reference is unique to the caller. The final result on the referenced values will not be saved until the end of the function.
This type of calling is useful when a method in RPC called by reference. The actual data is sent to the server side and the final result will send to the client. This will reduce the traffic, since the server will not update the reference each time.
Call By Reference:
In call-by-reference, we pass a pointer to the called function. Any changes that happens to the data pointed by that pointer will be reflected immediately.
Suppose if there are numerous changes to be made to that data, while it wouldn’t incur much cost locally, it’ll be expensive in terms of network cost as for each change data will have to be copied back to the client.
C Code:
void addTwo(int *arr, int n){
for(int i=0;i<n;i++){
arr[i]+=2; //change is happening in the original data as well
}
}
int main(){
int arr[100]={1,2,3,...}; // assuming it to be initialised
addTwo(arr,100);
}
Call By Copy/Restore:
In call-by-copy/restore, the idea is that when the function is called with the reference to the data, only the final result of the changes made to the data is copied back to the original data(when the function is about to return) without making any changes to the original data during the function call, requiring only one transfer back to the client.
In the C code below, the data pointed by arr is copied in the function and stored back to arr after all the changes to the local data are finalised.
C Code:
void addTwo(int *arr, int n){
// copy data locally
larr = (int*)malloc(n*sizeof(int));
for(int i=0;i<n;i++){
larr[i]=arr[i];
}
for(int i=0;i<n;i++){
// change is happening to the local variable larr
larr[i]+=2;
}
//copy all the changes made to the local variable back to the original data
for(int i=0;i<n;i++){
arr[i]=larr[i];
}
}
int main(){
int arr[100]={1,2,3,...}; // assuming it to be initialised
addTwo(arr,100);
}
Note: Code shown above doesn’t represent actual RPC implementation, just an illustration of the concepts. In real RPC, complete data is passed in the message instead of pointers(addresses).
I'm trying to determine the function for determining the number of unordered combinations with non-unique choices.
Given:
n = number of unique symbols to select from
r = number of choices
Example... for n=3, r=3, the result would be: (edit: added missing values pointed out by Dav)
000
001
002
011
012
022
111
112
122
222
I know the formula for permutations (unordered, unique selections), but I can't figure out how allowing repetition increases the set.
In C++ given the following routine:
template <typename Iterator>
bool next_combination(const Iterator first, Iterator k, const Iterator last)
{
/* Credits: Mark Nelson http://marknelson.us */
if ((first == last) || (first == k) || (last == k))
return false;
Iterator i1 = first;
Iterator i2 = last;
++i1;
if (last == i1)
return false;
i1 = last;
--i1;
i1 = k;
--i2;
while (first != i1)
{
if (*--i1 < *i2)
{
Iterator j = k;
while (!(*i1 < *j)) ++j;
std::iter_swap(i1,j);
++i1;
++j;
i2 = k;
std::rotate(i1,j,last);
while (last != j)
{
++j;
++i2;
}
std::rotate(k,i2,last);
return true;
}
}
std::rotate(first,k,last);
return false;
}
You can then proceed to do the following:
std::string s = "12345";
std::size_t r = 3;
do
{
std::cout << std::string(s.begin(),s.begin() + r) << std::endl;
}
while(next_combination(s.begin(), s.begin() + r, s.end()));
If you have N unique symbols, and want to select a combination of length R, then you are essentially putting N-1 dividers into R+1 "slots" between cumulative total numbers of symbols selected.
0 [C] 1 [C] 2 [C] 3
The C's are choices, the numbers are the cumulative count of choices made so far. You're essentially putting a divider for each possible thing you could choose of when you "start" choosing that thing (it's assumed that you start with choosing a particular thing before any dividers are placed, hence the -1 in the N-1 dividers).
If you place all of the dividers are spot 0, then you chose the final thing for all of the choices. If you place all of the dividers at spot 3, then you choose the initial thing for all of the choices. In general, if you place the ith divider at spot k, then you chose thing i+1 for all of the choices that come between that spot and the spot of the next divider.
Since we're trying to put N-1 non-unique items (the dividers are non-unique, they're just dividers) around R slots, we really just want to permute N-1 1's and R 0's, which is effectively
(N+R-1) choose (N-1) =(N+R-1)!/((N-1)!R!).
Thus the final formula is (N+R-1)!/((N-1)!R!) for the number of unordered combinations with non-unique selection of items.
Note that this evaluates to 10 for N=3, R=3, which matches with your result... after you add the missing options that I pointed out in comments above.