Suppose that you have a function f: List a -> a such that f is associative and f(x, y, z) === f(x, f(y, z)). Is there a conventional name for this latter property?
Examples of functions with this property are AND, XOR, sum, product, and GCD. Examples of associative functions without this property are NAND and XNOR.
I believe that the property is equivalent to saying that f(xs) === reduce(f, xs).
It looks like this is also equivalent to saying that f is a catamorphism of an associative binary function and its neutral element. Doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.
(Also, NAND is not associative. My bad.)
Related
Say I want to implement the Fermi function (the simplest example of a logistic curve) so that if it's passed a Float it returns a Float and if it's passed a Double it returns a Double. Here's what I've got:
e = 2.7182845904523536
fermiFunc :: (Floating a) => a -> a
fermiFunc x = let one = fromIntegral 1 in one/(one + e^(-x))
The problem is that ghc says e is a Double. Defining the variable one is also kinda gross. The other solution I've thought of is to just define the function for doubles:
e = 2.7182845904523536
fermiFuncDouble :: Double -> Double
fermiFuncDouble x = 1.0/(1.0 + e^(-x))
Then using Either:
fermiFunc :: (Floating a) => Either Float Double -> a
fermiFunc Right x = double2Float (fermiFuncDouble (float2Double x))
fermiFunc Left x = fermiFuncDouble x
This isn't very exciting though because I might as well have just written a separate function for the Float case that just handles the casting and calls fermiFuncDouble. Is there a nice way to write a function for both types?
Don't write e^x, ever, in any language. That is not the exponential function, it's the power function.
The exponential function is called exp, and its definition actually has little to do with the power operation โ it's defined, depending on your taste, as a Taylor series or as the unique solution to the ordinary differential equation dโd๐ฅ exp ๐ฅ = exp ๐ฅ with boundary condition exp 0 = 1. Now, it so happens that, for any rational n, we have exp n โก (exp 1)n and that motivates also defining the power operation for numbers in โ or โ addition to โ, namely as
az := exp (z ยท ln a)
...but e๐ฅ should be understood as really just a shortcut for writing exp(๐ฅ) itself.
So rather than defining e somewhere and trying to take some power of it, you should use exp just as it is.
fermiFunc :: Floating a => a -> a
fermiFunc x = 1/(1 + exp (-x))
...or indeed
fermiFunc = recip . succ . exp . negate
Assuming that you want floating point exponent, that's (**). (^) is integral exponent. Rewriting your function to use (**) and letting GHC infer the type gives:
fermiFunc x = 1/(1 + e ** (-x))
and
> :t fermiFunc
fermiFunc :: (Floating a) => a -> a
Since Float and Double both have Floating instances, fermiFunc is now sufficiently polymorphic to work with both.
(Note: you may need to declare a polymorphic type for e to get around the monomorphism restriction, i.e., e :: Floating a => a.)
In general, the answer to "How do I write a function that works with multiple types?" is either "Write it so that it works universally for all types." (parametric polymorphism, like map), "Find (or create) one or more typeclasses that they share that provides the behaviour you need." (ad hoc polymorphism, like show), or "Create a new type that is the sum of those types." (like Either).
The latter two have some tradeoffs. For instance, type classes are open (you can add more at any time) while sum types are closed (you must modify the definition to add more types). Sum types require you to know which type you are dealing with (because it must be matched up with a constructor) while type classes let you write polymorphic functions.
You can use :i in GHCi to list instances and to list instance methods, which might help you to locate a suitable typeclass.
I am trying to understand what's useful and how to actually use lambda expression in Haskell.
I don't really understand the advantage of using lambda expression over the convention way of defining functions.
For example, I usually do the following:
let add x y = x+y
and I can simply call
add 5 6
and get the result of 11
I know I can also do the following:
let add = \x->(\y-> x+y)
and get the same result.
But like I mentioned before, I don't understand the purpose of using lambda expression.
Also, I typed the following code (a nameless function?) into the prelude and it gave me an error message.
let \x -> (\y->x+y)
parse error (possibly incorrect indentation or mismatched backets)
Thank you in advance!
Many Haskell functions are "higher-order functions", i.e., they expect other functions as parameters. Often, the functions we want to pass to such a higher-order function are used only once in the program, at that particular point. It's simply more convenient then to use a lambda expression than to define a new local function for that purpose.
Here's an example that filters all even numbers that are greater than ten from a given list:
ghci> filter (\ x -> even x && x > 10) [1..20]
[12,14,16,18,20]
Here's another example that traverses a list and for every element x computes the term x^2 + x:
ghci> map (\ x -> x^2 + x) [1..10]
[2,6,12,20,30,42,56,72,90,110]
In lisp, a symbol can be bound to both a value and a function at the same time.
For example,
Symbol f bound to a function
(defun f(x)
(* 2 x))
Symbol f bound to a value
(setq f 10)
So i write something like this:
(f f)
=> 20
What is the benefit of such a feature?
The symbol can have both a function and a value. The function can be retrieved with SYMBOL-FUNCTION and the value with SYMBOL-VALUE.
This is not the complete view. Common Lisp has (at least) two namespaces, one for functions and one for variables. Global symbols participate in this. But for local functions the symbols are not involved.
So what are the advantages:
no name clashes between identifiers for functions and variables.
Scheme: (define (foo lst) (list lst))
CL: (defun foo (list) (list list))
no runtime checks whether something is really a function
Scheme: (define (foo) (bar))
CL: (defun foo () (bar))
In Scheme it is not clear what BAR is. It could be a number and that would lead to a runtime error when calling FOO.
In CL BAR is either a function or undefined. It can never be anything else. It can for example never be a number. It is not possible to bind a function name to a number, thus this case never needs to be checked at runtime.
It's useful for everyday tasks, but the main reason is because of macros, you'll understand why once you study it.
Which are the uses for id function in Haskell?
It's useful as an argument to higher order functions (functions which take functions as arguments), where you want some particular value left unchanged.
Example 1: Leave a value alone if it is in a Just, otherwise, return a default of 7.
Prelude Data.Maybe> :t maybe
maybe :: b -> (a -> b) -> Maybe a -> b
Prelude Data.Maybe> maybe 7 id (Just 2)
2
Example 2: building up a function via a fold:
Prelude Data.Maybe> :t foldr (.) id [(+2), (*7)]
:: (Num a) => a -> a
Prelude Data.Maybe> let f = foldr (.) id [(+2), (*7)]
Prelude Data.Maybe> f 7
51
We built a new function f by folding a list of functions together with (.), using id as the base case.
Example 3: the base case for functions as monoids (simplified).
instance Monoid (a -> a) where
mempty = id
f `mappend` g = (f . g)
Similar to our example with fold, functions can be treated as concatenable values, with id serving for the empty case, and (.) as append.
Example 4: a trivial hash function.
Data.HashTable> h <- new (==) id :: IO (HashTable Data.Int.Int32 Int)
Data.HashTable> insert h 7 2
Data.HashTable> Data.HashTable.lookup h 7
Just 2
Hashtables require a hashing function. But what if your key is already hashed? Then pass the id function, to fill in as your hashing method, with zero performance overhead.
If you manipulate numbers, particularly with addition and multiplication, you'll have noticed the usefulness of 0 and 1. Likewise, if you manipulate lists, the empty list turns out to be quite handy. Similarly, if you manipulate functions (very common in functional programming), you'll come to notice the same sort of usefulness of id.
In functional languages, functions are first class values
that you can pass as a parameter.
So one of the most common uses of id comes up when
you pass a function as a
parameter to another function to tell it what to do.
One of the choices of what to do is likely to be
"just leave it alone" - in that case, you pass id
as the parameter.
Suppose you're searching for some kind of solution to a puzzle where you make a move at each turn. You start with a candidate position pos. At each stage there is a list of possible transformations you could make to pos (eg. sliding a piece in the puzzle). In a functional language it's natural to represent transformations as functions so now you can make a list of moves using a list of functions. If "doing nothing" is a legal move in this puzzle, then you would represent that with id. If you didn't do that then you'd need to handle "doing nothing" as a special case that works differently from "doing something". By using id you can handle all cases uniformly in a single list.
This is probably the reason why almost all uses of id exist. To handle "doing nothing" uniformly with "doing something".
For a different sort of answer:
I'll often do this when chaining multiple functions via composition:
foo = id
. bar
. baz
. etc
over
foo = bar
. baz
. etc
It keeps things easier to edit. One can do similar things with other 'zero' elements, such as
foo = return
>>= bar
>>= baz
foos = []
++ bars
++ bazs
Since we are finding nice applications of id. Here, have a palindrome :)
import Control.Applicative
pal :: [a] -> [a]
pal = (++) <$> id <*> reverse
Imagine you are a computer, i.e. you can execute a sequence of steps. Then if I want you to stay in your current state, but I always have to give you an instruction (I cannot just mute and let the time pass), what instruction do I give you? Id is the function created for that, for returning the argument unchanged (in the case of the previous computer the argument would be its state) and for having a name for it. That necessity appears only when you have high order functions, when you operate with functions without considering what's inside them, that forces you to represent symbolically even the "do nothing" implementation. Analogously 0 seen as a quantity of something, is a symbol for the absence of quantity. Actually in Algebra both 0 and id are considered the neutral elements of the operations + and โ (function composition) respectively, or more formally:
for all x of type number:
0 + x = x
x + 0 = x
for all f of type function:
id โ f = f
f โ id = f
I can also help improve your golf score. Instead of using
($)
you can save a single character by using id.
e.g.
zipWith id [(+1), succ] [2,3,4]
An interesting, more than useful result.
Whenever you need to have a function somewhere, but want to do more than just hold its place (with 'undefined' as an example).
It's also useful, as (soon-to-be) Dr. Stewart mentioned above, for when you need to pass a function as an argument to another function:
join = (>>= id)
or as the result of a function:
let f = id in f 10
(presumably, you will edit the above function later to do something more "interesting"... ;)
As others have mentioned, id is a wonderful place-holder for when you need a function somewhere.
Not having them used them all that much, I'm not quite sure about all the ways
lambda-definitions can be used (other than map/collect/do/lightweight local function syntax). For anyone interested in posting some examples:
provide explanations to help readers understand how lambda-definitions are being used;
preferred languages for the examples: Python, Smalltalk, Haskell.
You can make a functional data structure out of lambdas. Here is a simple one - a functional list (Python), supporting add and contains methods:
empty = lambda x : None
def add(lst, item) :
return lambda x : x == item or lst(x)
def contains(lst, item) :
return lst(item) or False
I just coded this quickly for fun - notice that you're not allowed to add any falsy values as is. It also is not tail-recursive, as a good functional structure should be. Exercises for the reader!
You can use them for control flow. For example, in Smalltalk, the "ifTrue:ifFalse:" method is a method on Boolean objects, with a different implementation on each of True and False classes. The expression
someBoolean ifTrue: [self doSomething] ifFalse: [self doSomethingElse]
uses two closures---blocks, in [square brackets] in Smalltalk syntax---one for the true branch, and one for the false branch. The implementation of "ifTrue:ifFalse:" for instances of class True is
ifTrue: block1 ifFalse: block2
^ block1 value
and for class False:
ifTrue: block1 ifFalse: block2
^ block2 value
Closures, here, are used to delay evaluation so that a decision about control flow can be taken, without any specialised syntax at all (besides the syntax for blocks).
Haskell is a little different, with its lazy evaluation model effectively automatically producing the effect of closures in many cases, but in Scheme you end up using lambdas for control flow a lot. For example, here is a utility to retrieve a value from an association-list, supplying an optionally-computed default in the case where the value is not present:
(define (assq/default key lst default-thunk)
(cond
((null? lst) (default-thunk)) ;; actually invoke the default-value-producer
((eq? (caar lst) key) (car lst))
(else (assq/default key (cdr lst) default-thunk))))
It would be called like this:
(assq/default 'mykey my-alist (lambda () (+ 3 4 5)))
The key here is the use of the lambda to delay computation of the default value until it's actually known to be required.
See also continuation-passing-style, which takes this to an extreme. Javascript, for instance, relies on continuation-passing-style and closures to perform all of its blocking operations (like sleeping, I/O, etc).
ETA: Where I've said closures above, I mean lexically scoped closures. It's the lexical scope that's key, often.
You can use a lambda to create a Y Combinator, that is a function that takes another function and returns a recursive form of it. Here is an example:
def Y(le):
def _anon(cc):
return le(lambda x: cc(cc)(x))
return _anon(_anon)
This is a thought bludgeon that deserves some more explanation, but rather than regurgitate it here check out this blog entry (above sample comes from there too).
Its C#, but I personally get a kick out of this article every time I read it:
Building Data out of Thin Air - an implementation of Lisp's cons, car, and cdr functions in C#. It shows how to build a simple stack data structure entirely out of lambda functions.
It isn't really quite the same concept as in haskell etc, but in C#, the lambda construct has (optionally) the ability to compile to an objcet model representing the code (expression-trees) rather than code itself (this is itself one of the cornerstones of LINQ).
This in turn can lead to some very expressive meta-programming opportunities, for example (where the lambda here is expressing "given a service, what do you want to do with it?"):
var client = new Client<ISomeService>();
string captured = "to show a closure";
var result = client.Invoke(
svc => svc.SomeMethodDefinedOnTheService(123, captured)
);
(assuming a suitable Invoke signature)
There are lots of uses for this type of thing, but I've used it to build an RPC stack that doesn't require any runtime code generation - it simply parses the expression-tree, figures out what the caller intended, translates it to RPC, invokes it, gathers the response, etc (discussed more here).
An example in Haskell to compute the derivative of a single variabled function using a numerical approximation:
deriv f = \x -> (f (x + d) - f x) / d
where
d = 0.00001
f x = x ^ 2
f' = deriv f -- roughly equal to f' x = 2 * x