I have a tuple of values representing some state, and want to translate it by an addition (shift). My values are a longer version of ( Int, [Int], Int), and I want something conceptually (but not literally) like this:
shift n = ??? (+n) (id, map, id) -- simple(?)
which would be equivalent to:
shift n (a, b, c) = (a+n, map (+n) b, c+n)
I am happy to just go with this explicit function usage, but wondered it there was a more idiomatic point-free version using Applicative or Arrows or ..., or if they would just end-up obfuscating things. I thought that the point-free version shows the basic structure of the operation more clearly.
You can just write
shift n (a,b,c) = (a+n, map (+n) b, c+n)
Or define new combinators similar to Arrow's (***) and (&&&),
prod3 (f,g,h) (a,b,c) = (f a, g b, h c) -- cf. (***)
call3 (f,g,h) x = (f x, g x, h x) -- cf. (&&&)
ap3 f (a,b,c) = (f a, f b, f c)
uncurry3 f (a,b,c) = f a b c
and then call
prod3 ( (+n), map (+n), (+n) ) (a,b,c)
or even (with appropriately set operator precedences)
ap3 ($ (+n)) (id, map, id) `prod3` (a,b,c)
Or, if you'd write your triples as nested pairs, you could use
Prelude Control.Arrow> ( (+5) *** map (+5) *** (+5) ) (1,([2,3],4))
(6,([7,8],9))
So for nested pairs,
shift' :: (Num b) => b -> (b, ([b], b)) -> (b, ([b], b))
shift' n = ( (+n) *** map (+n) *** (+n) )
(see also Multiple folds in one pass using generic tuple function)
With the DeriveFunctor language extension you can write
data MyState a = MyState a [a] a
deriving (Functor)
The derived instance looks like
instance Functor MyState where
fmap f (MyState a bs c) = MyState (f a) (map f bs) (f c)
Now you can define
shift :: MyState Int -> MyState Int
shift n = fmap (+n)
(You say your tuple is even longer than (Int, [Int], Int), so you may want to define your state type using record syntax.)
Applying a list of functions to a list of values is simply
zipWith ($)
Since tuples of different sizes are each their own type, you will have to write a function explicitly for 3-tuples. A general function to apply a 3-tuple of functions to a 3-tuple of values is
apply (f, g, h) (a, b, c) = (f a, g b, h c)
You have to explicitly write each function application because tuples don't have the recursive property of lists.
Related
I have the following two type signatures in Haskell:
foo :: (a -> (a,b)) -> a -> [b]
bar :: (a -> b) -> (a -> b -> c) -> a -> c
I want to write a concrete implementation of these two functions but I'm really struggling to understand where to start.
I understand that foo takes a function (a -> (a,b)) and returns a and a list containing b.
And bar takes a function (b -> c) which returns a function (a -> b -> c) which finally returns a and c.
Can anyone show me an example of a concrete implementation?
How do I know where to start with something like this and what goes on the left side of the definition?
You have some misunderstandings there:
I understand that foo takes a function (a -> (a,b)) and returns a and a list containing b.
No, it doesn't return a. It expects it as another argument, in addition to that function.
And bar takes a function (b -> c) which returns a function (a -> b -> c) which finally returns a and c.
Same here. Given g :: a -> b, bar returns a function bar g :: (a -> b -> c) -> a -> c. This function, in turn, given a function h :: (a -> b -> c), returns a function of type a -> c. And so it goes.
It's just like playing with pieces of a puzzle:
foo :: (a -> (a,b)) -> a -> [b]
-- g :: a -> (a,b)
-- x :: a
-- g x :: (a,b)
foo g x = [b] where
(a,b) = g x
bar :: (a -> b) -> (a -> b -> c) -> a -> c
-- g :: a -> b
-- x :: a
-- g x :: b
-- h :: a -> b -> c
-- h x :: b -> c
-- h x (g x) :: c
bar g h x = c where
c = ....
There's not much free choice for us here. Although, there are more ways to get more values of type b, for foo. Instead of ignoring that a in (a,b) = g x, we can use it in more applications of g, so there actually are many more possibilities there, like
foo2 :: (a -> (a,b)) -> a -> [b]
foo2 g x = [b1,b2] where
(a1,b1) = g x
(a2,b2) = g a1
and many more. Still, the types guide the possible implementations. foo can even make use of foo in its implementation, according to the types:
foo3 :: (a -> (a,b)) -> a -> [b]
foo3 g x = b : bs where
(a,b) = g x
bs = ...
So now, with this implementation, the previous two become its special cases: foo g x === take 1 (foo3 g x) and foo2 g x === take 2 (foo3 g x). Having the most general definition is probably best.
In addition to #will-nes's answer, it will be useful to treat (->) as a right-associative infix operator. So something like f: a -> b -> c is the same as f: a -> (b -> c). So this is saying f is a function that takes a value of type a and returns you a value of type b -> c, which is, another function, one that takes a value of type b and returns you a value of type c.
So the types in your example can be re-written as follows
foo :: (a -> (a,b)) -> (a -> [b])
bar :: (a -> b) -> ((a -> (b -> c)) -> (a -> c))
Similarly, you can think of arguments to a function in pieces as well, as being left-associative (like + and -), though there's no explicit operator in this case. foo a b c d e is the same as ((((foo a) b) c) d) e. For example, let's say we have a function f: Int -> Int -> Int (which is the same as f: Int -> (Int -> Int)). You don't have to provide both arguments at once. So you can write g = f 1, which has the type (Int -> Int). And then you can provide an argument to g, like g 2, which has the type Int. f 1 2 and let g = f 1 in g 2 are more or less the same. Here's a more concrete example of how this works:
Prelude> f = (+)
Prelude> g = f 1
Prelude> g 2
3
Prelude> :t f
f :: Num a => a -> a -> a
Prelude> :t g
g :: Num a => a -> a
Prelude> :t g 2
g 2 :: Num a => a
In #will-nes's sample implementation examples, he defines the functions with all of the arguments up front, but you don't have to think of them that way. Just think of f: a -> b -> c as taking a value of type a and returning another function. While most of the methods you encounter will use all of their arguments up-front, there might be cases in which you don't want to do that. Here's an example:
veryExpensive :: A -> B
unstagedFun :: A -> (B -> C) -> C
unstagedFun a f = f (veryExpensive a)
stagedFun :: A -> (B -> C) -> C
stagedFun a = let b = veryExpensive a in \f -> f b
(You can also rewrite the latter as let b = veryExpensive a in ($ b))
Of course, with compiler optimizations, I wouldn't be surprised if the unstaged version staged automatically, but hopefully this offers some motivation for thinking of functions as not having multiple arguments, but rather, as a single argument, but they may return other functions that may themselves return functions (but also only take a single argument).
In pure functional languages like Haskell, is there an algorithm to get the inverse of a function, (edit) when it is bijective? And is there a specific way to program your function so it is?
In some cases, yes! There's a beautiful paper called Bidirectionalization for Free! which discusses a few cases -- when your function is sufficiently polymorphic -- where it is possible, completely automatically to derive an inverse function. (It also discusses what makes the problem hard when the functions are not polymorphic.)
What you get out in the case your function is invertible is the inverse (with a spurious input); in other cases, you get a function which tries to "merge" an old input value and a new output value.
No, it's not possible in general.
Proof: consider bijective functions of type
type F = [Bit] -> [Bit]
with
data Bit = B0 | B1
Assume we have an inverter inv :: F -> F such that inv f . f ≡ id. Say we have tested it for the function f = id, by confirming that
inv f (repeat B0) -> (B0 : ls)
Since this first B0 in the output must have come after some finite time, we have an upper bound n on both the depth to which inv had actually evaluated our test input to obtain this result, as well as the number of times it can have called f. Define now a family of functions
g j (B1 : B0 : ... (n+j times) ... B0 : ls)
= B0 : ... (n+j times) ... B0 : B1 : ls
g j (B0 : ... (n+j times) ... B0 : B1 : ls)
= B1 : B0 : ... (n+j times) ... B0 : ls
g j l = l
Clearly, for all 0<j≤n, g j is a bijection, in fact self-inverse. So we should be able to confirm
inv (g j) (replicate (n+j) B0 ++ B1 : repeat B0) -> (B1 : ls)
but to fulfill this, inv (g j) would have needed to either
evaluate g j (B1 : repeat B0) to a depth of n+j > n
evaluate head $ g j l for at least n different lists matching replicate (n+j) B0 ++ B1 : ls
Up to that point, at least one of the g j is indistinguishable from f, and since inv f hadn't done either of these evaluations, inv could not possibly have told it apart – short of doing some runtime-measurements on its own, which is only possible in the IO Monad.
⬜
You can look it up on wikipedia, it's called Reversible Computing.
In general you can't do it though and none of the functional languages have that option. For example:
f :: a -> Int
f _ = 1
This function does not have an inverse.
Not in most functional languages, but in logic programming or relational programming, most functions you define are in fact not functions but "relations", and these can be used in both directions. See for example prolog or kanren.
Tasks like this are almost always undecidable. You can have a solution for some specific functions, but not in general.
Here, you cannot even recognize which functions have an inverse. Quoting Barendregt, H. P. The Lambda Calculus: Its Syntax and Semantics. North Holland, Amsterdam (1984):
A set of lambda-terms is nontrivial if it is neither the empty nor the full set. If A and B are two nontrivial, disjoint sets of lambda-terms closed under (beta) equality, then A and B are recursively inseparable.
Let's take A to be the set of lambda terms that represent invertible functions and B the rest. Both are non-empty and closed under beta equality. So it's not possible to decide whether a function is invertible or not.
(This applies to the untyped lambda calculus. TBH I don't know if the argument can be directly adapted to a typed lambda calculus when we know the type of a function that we want to invert. But I'm pretty sure it will be similar.)
If you can enumerate the domain of the function and can compare elements of the range for equality, you can - in a rather straightforward way. By enumerate I mean having a list of all the elements available. I'll stick to Haskell, since I don't know Ocaml (or even how to capitalise it properly ;-)
What you want to do is run through the elements of the domain and see if they're equal to the element of the range you're trying to invert, and take the first one that works:
inv :: Eq b => [a] -> (a -> b) -> (b -> a)
inv domain f b = head [ a | a <- domain, f a == b ]
Since you've stated that f is a bijection, there's bound to be one and only one such element. The trick, of course, is to ensure that your enumeration of the domain actually reaches all the elements in a finite time. If you're trying to invert a bijection from Integer to Integer, using [0,1 ..] ++ [-1,-2 ..] won't work as you'll never get to the negative numbers. Concretely, inv ([0,1 ..] ++ [-1,-2 ..]) (+1) (-3) will never yield a value.
However, 0 : concatMap (\x -> [x,-x]) [1..] will work, as this runs through the integers in the following order [0,1,-1,2,-2,3,-3, and so on]. Indeed inv (0 : concatMap (\x -> [x,-x]) [1..]) (+1) (-3) promptly returns -4!
The Control.Monad.Omega package can help you run through lists of tuples etcetera in a good way; I'm sure there's more packages like that - but I don't know them.
Of course, this approach is rather low-brow and brute-force, not to mention ugly and inefficient! So I'll end with a few remarks on the last part of your question, on how to 'write' bijections. The type system of Haskell isn't up to proving that a function is a bijection - you really want something like Agda for that - but it is willing to trust you.
(Warning: untested code follows)
So can you define a datatype of Bijection s between types a and b:
data Bi a b = Bi {
apply :: a -> b,
invert :: b -> a
}
along with as many constants (where you can say 'I know they're bijections!') as you like, such as:
notBi :: Bi Bool Bool
notBi = Bi not not
add1Bi :: Bi Integer Integer
add1Bi = Bi (+1) (subtract 1)
and a couple of smart combinators, such as:
idBi :: Bi a a
idBi = Bi id id
invertBi :: Bi a b -> Bi b a
invertBi (Bi a i) = (Bi i a)
composeBi :: Bi a b -> Bi b c -> Bi a c
composeBi (Bi a1 i1) (Bi a2 i2) = Bi (a2 . a1) (i1 . i2)
mapBi :: Bi a b -> Bi [a] [b]
mapBi (Bi a i) = Bi (map a) (map i)
bruteForceBi :: Eq b => [a] -> (a -> b) -> Bi a b
bruteForceBi domain f = Bi f (inv domain f)
I think you could then do invert (mapBi add1Bi) [1,5,6] and get [0,4,5]. If you pick your combinators in a smart way, I think the number of times you'll have to write a Bi constant by hand could be quite limited.
After all, if you know a function is a bijection, you'll hopefully have a proof-sketch of that fact in your head, which the Curry-Howard isomorphism should be able to turn into a program :-)
I've recently been dealing with issues like this, and no, I'd say that (a) it's not difficult in many case, but (b) it's not efficient at all.
Basically, suppose you have f :: a -> b, and that f is indeed a bjiection. You can compute the inverse f' :: b -> a in a really dumb way:
import Data.List
-- | Class for types whose values are recursively enumerable.
class Enumerable a where
-- | Produce the list of all values of type #a#.
enumerate :: [a]
-- | Note, this is only guaranteed to terminate if #f# is a bijection!
invert :: (Enumerable a, Eq b) => (a -> b) -> b -> Maybe a
invert f b = find (\a -> f a == b) enumerate
If f is a bijection and enumerate truly produces all values of a, then you will eventually hit an a such that f a == b.
Types that have a Bounded and an Enum instance can be trivially made RecursivelyEnumerable. Pairs of Enumerable types can also be made Enumerable:
instance (Enumerable a, Enumerable b) => Enumerable (a, b) where
enumerate = crossWith (,) enumerate enumerate
crossWith :: (a -> b -> c) -> [a] -> [b] -> [c]
crossWith f _ [] = []
crossWith f [] _ = []
crossWith f (x0:xs) (y0:ys) =
f x0 y0 : interleave (map (f x0) ys)
(interleave (map (flip f y0) xs)
(crossWith f xs ys))
interleave :: [a] -> [a] -> [a]
interleave xs [] = xs
interleave [] ys = []
interleave (x:xs) ys = x : interleave ys xs
Same goes for disjunctions of Enumerable types:
instance (Enumerable a, Enumerable b) => Enumerable (Either a b) where
enumerate = enumerateEither enumerate enumerate
enumerateEither :: [a] -> [b] -> [Either a b]
enumerateEither [] ys = map Right ys
enumerateEither xs [] = map Left xs
enumerateEither (x:xs) (y:ys) = Left x : Right y : enumerateEither xs ys
The fact that we can do this both for (,) and Either probably means that we can do it for any algebraic data type.
Not every function has an inverse. If you limit the discussion to one-to-one functions, the ability to invert an arbitrary function grants the ability to crack any cryptosystem. We kind of have to hope this isn't feasible, even in theory!
In some cases, it is possible to find the inverse of a bijective function by converting it into a symbolic representation. Based on this example, I wrote this Haskell program to find inverses of some simple polynomial functions:
bijective_function x = x*2+1
main = do
print $ bijective_function 3
print $ inverse_function bijective_function (bijective_function 3)
data Expr = X | Const Double |
Plus Expr Expr | Subtract Expr Expr | Mult Expr Expr | Div Expr Expr |
Negate Expr | Inverse Expr |
Exp Expr | Log Expr | Sin Expr | Atanh Expr | Sinh Expr | Acosh Expr | Cosh Expr | Tan Expr | Cos Expr |Asinh Expr|Atan Expr|Acos Expr|Asin Expr|Abs Expr|Signum Expr|Integer
deriving (Show, Eq)
instance Num Expr where
(+) = Plus
(-) = Subtract
(*) = Mult
abs = Abs
signum = Signum
negate = Negate
fromInteger a = Const $ fromIntegral a
instance Fractional Expr where
recip = Inverse
fromRational a = Const $ realToFrac a
(/) = Div
instance Floating Expr where
pi = Const pi
exp = Exp
log = Log
sin = Sin
atanh = Atanh
sinh = Sinh
cosh = Cosh
acosh = Acosh
cos = Cos
tan = Tan
asin = Asin
acos = Acos
atan = Atan
asinh = Asinh
fromFunction f = f X
toFunction :: Expr -> (Double -> Double)
toFunction X = \x -> x
toFunction (Negate a) = \a -> (negate a)
toFunction (Const a) = const a
toFunction (Plus a b) = \x -> (toFunction a x) + (toFunction b x)
toFunction (Subtract a b) = \x -> (toFunction a x) - (toFunction b x)
toFunction (Mult a b) = \x -> (toFunction a x) * (toFunction b x)
toFunction (Div a b) = \x -> (toFunction a x) / (toFunction b x)
with_function func x = toFunction $ func $ fromFunction x
simplify X = X
simplify (Div (Const a) (Const b)) = Const (a/b)
simplify (Mult (Const a) (Const b)) | a == 0 || b == 0 = 0 | otherwise = Const (a*b)
simplify (Negate (Negate a)) = simplify a
simplify (Subtract a b) = simplify ( Plus (simplify a) (Negate (simplify b)) )
simplify (Div a b) | a == b = Const 1.0 | otherwise = simplify (Div (simplify a) (simplify b))
simplify (Mult a b) = simplify (Mult (simplify a) (simplify b))
simplify (Const a) = Const a
simplify (Plus (Const a) (Const b)) = Const (a+b)
simplify (Plus a (Const b)) = simplify (Plus (Const b) (simplify a))
simplify (Plus (Mult (Const a) X) (Mult (Const b) X)) = (simplify (Mult (Const (a+b)) X))
simplify (Plus (Const a) b) = simplify (Plus (simplify b) (Const a))
simplify (Plus X a) = simplify (Plus (Mult 1 X) (simplify a))
simplify (Plus a X) = simplify (Plus (Mult 1 X) (simplify a))
simplify (Plus a b) = (simplify (Plus (simplify a) (simplify b)))
simplify a = a
inverse X = X
inverse (Const a) = simplify (Const a)
inverse (Mult (Const a) (Const b)) = Const (a * b)
inverse (Mult (Const a) X) = (Div X (Const a))
inverse (Plus X (Const a)) = (Subtract X (Const a))
inverse (Negate x) = Negate (inverse x)
inverse a = inverse (simplify a)
inverse_function x = with_function inverse x
This example only works with arithmetic expressions, but it could probably be generalized to work with lists as well. There are also several implementations of computer algebra systems in Haskell that may be used to find the inverse of a bijective function.
No, not all functions even have inverses. For instance, what would the inverse of this function be?
f x = 1
What does the following expression means in haskell?
($ 3)
ghci shows the following type
($ 3) :: Num a => (a -> b) -> b.
($ 3) is a section, and is equivalent to \f -> f 3, which takes a function argument and applies it to 3.
If we considered 3 to be an integer, we would have that the type of f is Int -> b (for any b), so the type of ($ 3) would be (Int -> b) -> b.
Things in Haskell are a bit more complex, since 3 can be of any numeric type, so we don't really need f :: Int -> b, it's enough if f :: a -> b where a is a numeric type.
Hence we get ($ 3) :: Num a => (a -> b) -> b.
(# x) for any operator # is equivalent to \a -> a # x; so ($ 3) is equivalent to \f -> f $ 3, i.e. a function that applies any function you pass it to 3. This syntax is called "sections".
> let f = ($ 3)
> f show
"3"
> f square
9
Another way to look at it is
($) :: (a -> b) -> a -> b
3 :: Num a => a
and when you "insert 3" in the ($) it will become
($ 3) :: Num a => (a -> b) -> b.
due to that you no longer need to supply the a, but the function you need to supply is now restricted to num, since the 3 can be any numeric type.
This is at least how I look at functions in Haskell, like substitution in algebra.
I've recently been learning haskell from this awesome site, and I just learned about passing functions as parameters in the Higher Order Functions chapter. I can see how passing functions as parameters can be extremely useful, but from my current(lowley) understanding you need to specify the amount of parameters in this function, which can be quite limited given this function:
--takes a function and returns a function that has flipped arguments
flip' :: (a -> b -> c) -> (b -> a -> c) --very limited
flip' f = g
where g x y = f y x
useful, but only to the point of functions taking two parameters, is there a way to write a function definition that accepts functions with an arbitrary amount of parameters? My guess would have to be some sort of parameter list, but I can't seem to find any information on it. Thanks!
Actually flip works with functions with more than two parameters, but might not be exactly what you need:
Prelude> :t (,,,)
(,,,) :: a -> b -> c -> d -> (a, b, c, d)
Prelude> :t flip (,,,)
flip (,,,) :: b -> a -> c -> d -> (a, b, c, d)
since
(,,,) :: a -> b -> c -> d -> (a, b, c, d)
is
(,,,) :: a -> (b -> (c -> (d -> (a, b, c, d))))
the first two parameters get flipped. Here a is a, b is b, but c is c -> d -> (a, b, c, d).
And then again, what do you expect to achieve by flipping a 3 parameter function like in this example?
EDIT: And also, there are vararg functions - one example is printf. This Haskell.org page is pretty nice. In short, some typeclass magic could be used to achieve this effect.
Say we have a list of coordinates like:
(1,2)
(0,3)
(4,1)
(0,3)
(-2,3)
(6,5)
And we wanted to result in the following list, which is defined as the summation of each consecutive coordinates. (Sorry bad definition) like so:
(1,5)
(4,4)
(4,4)
(-2,6)
(4,8)
So there exists a set A = (a,b,c,...,n) where a,b,c,...,n are coordinates in R^2.
There exists a function f such that f(A) = B = (a+b,b+c,c+d,...,n-1+n).
~
How would you write something like that in a functional language like Haskell? A program that applies f to a given A to give B.
You can use zip to zip the list with its tail, you get pairs of pairs like [((1,2), (0,3)), ((0,3),(4,1)), ...]. Then you can use map to replace each pair of pairs with its sum. Or you can use zipWith which is basically zip + map in one function, except the function given to zipWith has type a -> b -> c, not (a,b) -> c:
summedCoords = zipWith (\ (a,b) (c,d) -> (a+c, b+d)) coords (tail coords)
You can write a generic function like this
g:: (a -> a -> b) -> [a] -> [b]
g f (x1:x2:xs) = (f x1 x2):(g (x2:xs))
g _ (x1:[]) = []
and pass it your add function
f = g f' where
f' (a,b) (a',b') = (a+a', b+b')