I've heard that any recursive algorithm can always be expressed by using a stack. Recently, I've been working on programs in an environment with a prohibitively small available call stack size.
I need to do some deep recursion, so I was wondering how you could rework any recursive algorithm to use an explicit stack.
For example, let's suppose I have a recursive function like this
function f(n, i) {
if n <= i return n
if n % i = 0 return f(n / i, i)
return f(n, i + 1)
}
how could I write it with a stack instead? Is there a simple process I can follow to convert any recursive function into a stack-based one?
If you understand how a function call affects the process stack, you can understand how to do it yourself.
When you call a function, some data are written on the stack including the arguments. The function reads these arguments, does whatever with them and places the result on the stack. You can do the exact same thing. Your example in particular doesn't need a stack so if I convert that to one that uses stack it may look a bit silly, so I'm going to give you the fibonacci example:
fib(n)
if n < 2 return n
return fib(n-1) + fib(n-2)
function fib(n, i)
stack.empty()
stack.push(<is_arg, n>)
while (!stack.size() > 2 || stack.top().is_arg)
<isarg, argn> = stack.pop()
if (isarg)
if (argn < 2)
stack.push(<is_result, argn>)
else
stack.push(<is_arg, argn-1>)
stack.push(<is_arg, argn-2>)
else
<isarg_prev, argn_prev> = stack.pop()
if (isarg_prev)
stack.push(<is_result, argn>)
stack.push(<is_arg, argn_prev>)
else
stack.push(<is_result, argn+argn_prev>)
return stack.top().argn
Explanation: every time you take an item from the stack, you need to check whether it needs to be expanded or not. If so, push appropriate arguments on the stack, if not, let it merge with previous results. In the case of fibonacci, once fib(n-2) is computed (and is available at top of stack), n-1 is retrieved (one after top of stack), result of fib(n-2) is pushed under it, and then fib(n-1) is expanded and computed. If the top two elements of the stack were both results, of course, you just add them and push to stack.
If you'd like to see how your own function would look like, here it is:
function f(n, i)
stack.empty()
stack.push(n)
stack.push(i)
while (!stack.is_empty())
argi = stack.pop()
argn = stack.pop()
if argn <= argi
result = argn
else if n % i = 0
stack.push(n / i)
stack.push(i)
else
stack.push(n)
stack.push(i + 1)
return result
You can convert your code to use a stack like follows:
stack.push(n)
stack.push(i)
while(stack.notEmpty)
i = stack.pop()
n = stack.pop()
if (n <= i) {
return n
} else if (n % i = 0) {
stack.push(n / i)
stack.push(i)
} else {
stack.push(n)
stack.push(i+1)
}
}
Note: I didn't test this, so it may contain errors, but it gives you the idea.
Your particular example is tail-recursive, so with a properly optimising compiler, it should not consume any stack depth at all, as it is equivalent to a simple loop. To be clear: this example does not require a stack at all.
Both your example and the fibonacci function can be rewritten iteratively without using stack.
Here's an example where the stack is required, Ackermann function:
def ack(m, n):
assert m >= 0 and n >= 0
if m == 0: return n + 1
if n == 0: return ack(m - 1, 1)
return ack(m - 1, ack(m, n - 1))
Eliminating recursion:
def ack_iter(m, n):
stack = []
push = stack.append
pop = stack.pop
RETURN_VALUE, CALL_FUNCTION, NESTED = -1, -2, -3
push(m) # push function arguments
push(n)
push(CALL_FUNCTION) # push address
while stack: # not empty
address = pop()
if address is CALL_FUNCTION:
n = pop() # pop function arguments
m = pop()
if m == 0: # return n + 1
push(n+1) # push returned value
push(RETURN_VALUE)
elif n == 0: # return ack(m - 1, 1)
push(m-1)
push(1)
push(CALL_FUNCTION)
else: # begin: return ack(m - 1, ack(m, n - 1))
push(m-1) # save local value
push(NESTED) # save address to return
push(m)
push(n-1)
push(CALL_FUNCTION)
elif address is NESTED: # end: return ack(m - 1, ack(m, n - 1))
# old (m - 1) is already on the stack
push(value) # use returned value from the most recent call
push(CALL_FUNCTION)
elif address is RETURN_VALUE:
value = pop() # pop returned value
else:
assert 0, (address, stack)
return value
Note it is not necessary here to put CALL_FUNCTION, RETURN_VALUE labels and value on the stack.
Example
print(ack(2, 4)) # -> 11
print(ack_iter(2, 4))
assert all(ack(m, n) == ack_iter(m, n) for m in range(4) for n in range(6))
print(ack_iter(3, 4)) # -> 125
Related
In gnuplot, is there a way to pass a user defined function as an argument to another user defined function? For example, I can write a function loop which will sum shifts of a given function:
f(x) = (x <= 0) ? 0 : 1/(1+x)**2
loop(x, i, s) = (i == 0) ? f(x) : loop(x-s, i-1, s) + f(x)
Then I can do things like:
plot loop(x, 10, 1)
But, how do I define a function loop2 that does this for any function, as in something like:
loop2(g, x, i, s) = (i == 0) ? g(x) : loop2(g, x-s, i-1, s) + g(x)
so that I can then do things like:
f3(x) = (x <= 0) ? 0 : 1/(1+x)**3
plot loop2(f, x, 10, 1)
replot loop2(f3, x, 10, 1)
I think this is not possible in gnuplot 5.4.
The development version (gnuplot 5.5) has recently gained the ability to label a block of text commands as a named executable function, known as a "function block". This gives you access to commands in a function block that are not possible in a one-line user defined function. Here is your example run in a recent build of the development version. At the top level the name of the function ("f" or "f3") is passed as a parameter that can be used to construct a call of the function itself.
function $loop2(name, x, i, s) << EOF
local temp = 0
eval sprintf("temp = %s(x)", name)
return (i == 0) ? temp : temp + $loop2(name, x-s, i-1, s)
EOF
f(x) = (x <= 0) ? 0 : 1/(1+x)**2
f3(x) = (x <= 0) ? 0 : 1/(1+x)**3
set key left Left reverse
set tics nomirror
set border 3
set xrange [0:10]
set yrange [0:1.5]
plot $loop2("f", x, 10, 1), $loop2("f3", x, 10, 1)
And here is a link to an example in the demo collection that illustrates calling one function block from another, wrapping both in a top-level user defined function.
function_block demo
Goal: Plot the graph using a non-linear function.
Function and graph
This is my first time working at Octave. To plot the graph, I need to calculate a function in the range Fx (0.1 ... 10).
I tried to implement this by looping the function through the for loop, writing the results to an array (x-axis - Fn, y-axis - function value), then loading the arrays into the plot() function.
Fn = 1
Ln = 5
Q = 0.5
function retval = test (Fn, Ln, Q)
# Fn squared (for common used)
Fn = Fn^2
# Node A + Node B
nodeA = Fn * (Ln - 1)
nodeB = (Ln * Fn - 1)^2 + Fn * (Fn - 1)^2 * (Ln - 1)^2 * Q^2
nodeB = sqrt(nodeB)
# Result
result = nodeA / nodeB
retval = result
return;
endfunction
frequencyArray = {}
gainArray = {}
fCount = 1
gCount = 1
for i = 0:0.5:5
# F
Fn = i
frequencyArray{fCount} = Fn
fCount = fCount + 1
# G
gainArray{gCount} = test(Fn, Ln, Q)
gCount = gCount + 1
end
plot(frequencyArray, gainArray);
As a result, I get an error about the format of the arrays.
>> plot(frequencyArray, gainArray);
error: invalid value for array property "xdata"
error: __go_line__: unable to create graphics handle
error: called from
__plt__>__plt2vv__ at line 495 column 10
__plt__>__plt2__ at line 242 column 14
__plt__ at line 107 column 18
plot at line 223 column 10
In addition to the error, I believe that these tasks are solved in more correct ways, but I did not quite understand what to look for.
Questions:
Did I choose the right way to solve the problem? Are there any more elegant ways?
How can I fix this error?
Thank you!
If I have correctly interpreted what you are trying to do, the following should work. Firstly, you need to use the term-by-term versions of all arithmetic operators that act on Fn. These are the same as the normal operators except preceded by a dot. Next, you need to put Fn equal to a vector containing the x-values of all the points you wish to plot and put Q equal to a vector containing the values of Q for which you want to draw curves. Use a for-loop to loop through the values of Q and plot a single curve in each iteration of the loop. You don't need a loop to plot each curve because Octave will apply your "test" function to the whole Fn vector and return the result as a vector of the same size. To plot the curves on a log axis, use the function "semilogx(x, y)" insetad of "plot(x, y)". To make the plots appear on the same figure, rather than separate ones put "hold on" before the loop and "hold off" afterwards. You used cell arrays instead of vectors in your for-loop, which the plotting functions don't accept. Also, you don't need an explicit return statement in an Octave function.
The following code produces a set of curves that look like the ones in the figure you pasted in your question:
Ln = 5
function result = test (Fn, Ln, Q)
# Fn squared (for common used)
Fn = Fn.^2;
# Node A + Node B
nodeA = Fn .* (Ln - 1);
nodeB = (Ln .* Fn .- 1).^2 + Fn .* (Fn .- 1).^2 .* (Ln - 1)^2 * Q^2;
nodeB = sqrt(nodeB);
# Result
result = nodeA ./ nodeB;
endfunction
Fn = linspace(0.1, 10, 500);
Q = [0.1 0.2 0.5 0.8 1 2 5 8 10];
hold on
for q = Q
K = test(Fn, Ln, q);
semilogx(Fn, K);
endfor
hold off
I was trying to write a function that solves following;
persistence 39 = 3 // because 3*9 = 27, 2*7 = 14, 1*4=4
// and 4 has only one digit
persistence 999 = 4 // because 9*9*9 = 729, 7*2*9 = 126,
// 1*2*6 = 12, and finally 1*2 = 2
persistence 4 = 0 // because 4 is already a one-digit number
After I solved the question I tried to make all functions looks like Ramda.js function styles like this;
This code works;
let multiply = List.reduce (*)
let gt from input = input > from
let just input = fun _ -> input
let ifElse cond trueFn falseFn input =
if cond input then trueFn input else falseFn input
let digits n =
(string n) |> Seq.toList |> List.map (System.Char.GetNumericValue >> int)
let rec persRec iter current =
current
|> digits
|> multiply
|> ifElse (gt 9) (persRec (iter + 1)) (just iter)
let persistence n = if n > 9 then persRec 1 n else 0
But when I tried to modify persRec function with a curried composed version like following, it makes this stack overflow.
let rec persRec iter =
digits
>> multiply
>> ifElse (gt 9) (persRec (iter + 1)) (just iter)
What's wrong with this?
The function persRec is calling itself unconditionally. Here:
>> ifElse (gt 9) (persRec (iter + 1)) (just iter)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
unconditional recursive call
This happens always. Every time persRec is called by somebody, it immediately calls itself right away.
You may expect that the recursive call should only happen when gt 9, because, after all, it's inside an ifElse, right? But that doesn't matter: ifElse is not special, it's just a function. In order to call a function, F# has to compute all its parameter before the call (aka "applicative order of evaluation"), which means it has to call persRec (iter + 1) before it can call ifElse, and it has to call ifElse before it can call (>>), and it has to call (>>) in order to compute result of persRec. So ultimately, it needs to call persRec in order to compute the result of persRec. See where this is going?
The previous version works, because the body of persRec is not actually executed before the call to ifElse. The body of persRec will only be executed when all its parameters are supplied, and the last parameter will only be supplied inside the body of ifElse when the condition is true.
The way I see it, the confusion stems from the difference between denotational and operational semantics. Yes, mathematically, logically, the functions are equivalent. But execution also matters. Normal vs. applicative evaluation order. Memory concerns. Performance. Those are all outside of the domain of lambda-calculus.
I would like to define a list using a for loop and I need to do it using a function of the n-iterate.
I have:
Initialization
In[176]: Subscript[y, 0] = {1, 2, 3}
Out[180]: {1,2,3}
The function:
In[181]: F[n_] := For[l = 1, l++, l <= 3, Subscript[y, n + 1][[l]] :=Subscript[y, n][[l]]+ n]
I call the function
F[0]
and I get:
In[183]: Subscript[y, 1]
Out[183]: Subscript[0, 1]
I should have {1,2,3}.
Anyone know why it isn't working as it should?
I have troubles recreating your error, problem.
I understand you want to add n to your vector, where n is the number of the subscript.
Here's another way to have a go at your question, avoiding the loop and the subscripts:
Clear#y;
y[0] = {1, 2, 3};
y[n_Integer] : =y[n - 1] + n
(as Plus is Listable, you can just add n to the vector, avoiding the For)
and then call it using, e.g.
y[0]
{1,2,3}
or
y[5]
{16,17,18}
Alternatively, using memoization, you could define y as follows:
y[n_Integer] := y[n] = y[n - 1] + n
This will then store already calculated values (check ?y after executing e.g. y[5]). Don't forget to Clear y, if y changes.
Obviously, for a function as this one, you might want to consider:
y[n_Integer] := y[0] + Total[Range[n]]
This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Passing a function as argument to another function
Below is a simple code for the bisection method. I would like to know how to be able to pass in any function I choose as a parameter instead of hard coding functions.
% This is an implementation of the bisection method
% for a solution to f(x) = 0 over an interval [a,b] where f(a) and f(b)
% Input: endpoints (a,b),Tolerance(TOL), Max # of iterations (No).
% Output: Value p or error message.
function bjsect(a,b,TOL,No)
% Step 0
if f(a)*f(b)>0
disp('Function fails condition of f(a),f(b) w/opposite sign'\n);
return
end
% Step 1
i = 1;
FA = f(a);
% Step 2
while i <= No
% Step 3
p = a +(b - a)/2;
FP = f(p);
% Step 4
if FP == 0 || (b - a)/2 < TOL
disp(p);
return
end
% Step 5
i = i + 1;
% Step 6
if FA*FP > 0
a = p;
else
b = p;
end
% Step 7
if i > No
disp('Method failed after No iterations\n');
return
end
end
end
% Hard coded test function
function y = f(x)
y = x - 2*sin(x);
end
I know this is an important concept so any help is greatly appreciated.
The simplest method is using anonymous functions. In your example, you would define your anonymous function outside bjsect using:
MyAnonFunc = #(x) (x - 2 * sin(x));
You can now pass MyAnonFunc into bjsect as an argument. It has the object type of function handle, which can be validated using isa. Inside bjsect simply use MyAnonFunc as if it is a function, ie: MyAnonFunc(SomeInputValue).
Note, you can of course wrap any function you've written in an anonymous function, ie:
MyAnonFunc2 = #(x) (SomeOtherCustomFunction(x, OtherInputArgs));
is perfectly valid.
EDIT: Oops, just realized this is almost certainly a duplicate of another question - thanks H. Muster, I'll flag it.