Related
I am pretty new to Haskell. I am trying to write a program that takes a list and returns a list of one copy of the first element of the input list, followed by two copies of the second element, three copies of the third, and so on. e.g. input [1,2,3,4], return [1,2,2,3,3,3,4,4,4,4].
import Data.List
triangle :: [a] -> [a]
triangle (x:xs)
|x/=null = result ++ xs
|otherwise = group(sort result)
where result = [x]
I try to use ++ to add each list into a new list then sort it, but it does not work. What I tried to achieve is, for example: the list is [1,2,3], result = [1,2,3]++[2,3]++[3] but sorted.
here is a short version
triangle :: [a] -> [a]
triangle = concat . zipWith replicate [1..]
How it works
zipWith takes a function f : x -> y -> z and two lists [x1,x2,...] [y1,y2,..] and produces a new list [f x1 y1, f x2 y2, ...]. Both lists may be infinite - zipWith will stop as soon one of the list run out of elements (or never if both are infinite).
replicate : Int -> a -> [a] works like this: replicate n x will produce a list with n-elements all x - so replicate 4 'a' == "aaaa".
[1..] = [1,2,3,4,...] is a infinite list counting up from 1
so if you use replicate in zipWith replicate [1..] [x1,x2,...] you get
[replicate 1 x1, replicate 2 x2, ..]
= [[x1], [x2,x2], ..]
so a list of lists - finally concat will append all lists in the list-of-lists together to the result we wanted
the final point: instead of triangle xs = concat (zipWith replicate [1..] xs) you can write triangle xs = (concat . zipWith repliate [1..]) xs by definition of (.) and then you can eta-reduce this to the point-free style I've given.
Here you go:
triangle :: [Int] -> [Int]
triangle = concat . go 1
where
go n [] = []
go n (x:xs) = (replicate n x) : (go (n+1) xs)
update: now I see what you mean here. you want to take diagonals on tails. nice idea. :) Here's how:
import Data.Universe.Helpers
import Data.List (tails)
bar :: [a] -> [a]
bar = concat . diagonals . tails
That's it!
Trying it out:
> concat . diagonals . tails $ [1..3]
[1,2,2,3,3,3]
Or simply,
> diagonal . tails $ [11..15]
[11,12,12,13,13,13,14,14,14,14,15,15,15,15,15]
(previous version of the answer:)
Have you heard about list comprehensions, number enumerations [1..] and the zip function?
It is all you need to implement your function:
foo :: [a] -> [a]
foo xs = [ x | (i,x) <- zip [1..] xs, j <- .... ]
Can you see what should go there instead of the ....? It should produce some value several times (how many do we need it to be?... how many values are there in e.g. [1..10]?) and then we will ignore the produced value, putting x each time into the resulting list, instead.
If I create a infinite list like this:
let t xs = xs ++ [sum(xs)]
let xs = [1,2] : map (t) xs
take 10 xs
I will get this result:
[
[1,2],
[1,2,3],
[1,2,3,6],
[1,2,3,6,12],
[1,2,3,6,12,24],
[1,2,3,6,12,24,48],
[1,2,3,6,12,24,48,96],
[1,2,3,6,12,24,48,96,192],
[1,2,3,6,12,24,48,96,192,384],
[1,2,3,6,12,24,48,96,192,384,768]
]
This is pretty close to what I am trying to do.
This current code uses the last value to define the next. But, instead of a list of lists, I would like to know some way to make an infinite list that uses all the previous values to define the new one.
So the output would be only
[1,2,3,6,12,24,48,96,192,384,768,1536,...]
I have the definition of the first element [1].
I have the rule of getting a new element, sum all the previous elements.
But, I could not put this in the Haskell grammar to create the infinite list.
Using my current code, I could take the list that I need, using the command:
xs !! 10
> [1,2,3,6,12,24,48,96,192,384,768,1536]
But, it seems to me, that it is possible doing this in some more efficient way.
Some Notes
I understand that, for this particular example, that was intentionally oversimplified, we could create a function that uses only the last value to define the next.
But, I am searching if it is possible to read all the previous values into an infinite list definition.
I am sorry if the example that I used created some confusion.
Here another example, that is not possible to fix using reading only the last value:
isMultipleByList :: Integer -> [Integer] -> Bool
isMultipleByList _ [] = False
isMultipleByList v (x:xs) = if (mod v x == 0)
then True
else (isMultipleByList v xs)
nextNotMultipleLoop :: Integer -> Integer -> [Integer] -> Integer
nextNotMultipleLoop step v xs = if not (isMultipleByList v xs)
then v
else nextNotMultipleLoop step (v + step) xs
nextNotMultiple :: [Integer] -> Integer
nextNotMultiple xs = if xs == [2]
then nextNotMultipleLoop 1 (maximum xs) xs
else nextNotMultipleLoop 2 (maximum xs) xs
addNextNotMultiple xs = xs ++ [nextNotMultiple xs]
infinitePrimeList = [2] : map (addNextNotMultiple) infinitePrimeList
take 10 infinitePrimeList
[
[2,3],
[2,3,5],
[2,3,5,7],
[2,3,5,7,11],
[2,3,5,7,11,13],
[2,3,5,7,11,13,17],
[2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19],
[2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23],
[2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23,29],
[2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23,29,31]
]
infinitePrimeList !! 10
[2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23,29,31,37]
You can think so:
You want to create a list (call them a) which starts on [1,2]:
a = [1,2] ++ ???
... and have this property: each next element in a is a sum of all previous elements in a. So you can write
scanl1 (+) a
and get a new list, in which any element with index n is sum of n first elements of list a. So, it is [1, 3, 6 ...]. All you need is take all elements without first:
tail (scanl1 (+) a)
So, you can define a as:
a = [1,2] ++ tail (scanl1 (+) a)
This way of thought you can apply with other similar problems of definition list through its elements.
If we already had the final result, calculating the list of previous elements for a given element would be easy, a simple application of the inits function.
Let's assume we already have the final result xs, and use it to compute xs itself:
import Data.List (inits)
main :: IO ()
main = do
let is = drop 2 $ inits xs
xs = 1 : 2 : map sum is
print $ take 10 xs
This produces the list
[1,2,3,6,12,24,48,96,192,384]
(Note: this is less efficient than SergeyKuz1001's solution, because the sum is re-calculated each time.)
unfoldr has a quite nice flexibility to adapt to various "create-a-list-from-initial-conditions"-problems so I think it is worth mentioning.
A little less elegant for this specific case, but shows how unfoldr can be used.
import Data.List
nextVal as = Just (s,as++[s])
where s = sum as
initList = [1,2]
myList =initList ++ ( unfoldr nextVal initList)
main = putStrLn . show . (take 12) $ myList
Yielding
[1,2,3,6,12,24,48,96,192,384,768,1536]
in the end.
As pointed out in the comment, one should think a little when using unfoldr. The way I've written it above, the code mimicks the code in the original question. However, this means that the accumulator is updated with as++[s], thus constructing a new list at every iteration. A quick run at https://repl.it/languages/haskell suggests it becomes quite memory intensive and slow. (4.5 seconds to access the 2000nd element in myList
Simply swapping the acumulator update to a:as produced a 7-fold speed increase. Since the same list can be reused as accumulator in every step it goes faster. However, the accumulator list is now in reverse, so one needs to think a little bit. In the case of predicate function sum this makes no differece, but if the order of the list matters, one must think a little bit extra.
You could define it like this:
xs = 1:2:iterate (*2) 3
For example:
Prelude> take 12 xs
[1,2,3,6,12,24,48,96,192,384,768,1536]
So here's my take. I tried not to create O(n) extra lists.
explode ∷ Integral i ⇒ (i ->[a] -> a) -> [a] -> [a]
explode fn init = as where
as = init ++ [fn i as | i <- [l, l+1..]]
l = genericLength init
This convenience function does create additional lists (by take). Hopefully they can be optimised away by the compiler.
explode' f = explode (\x as -> f $ take x as)
Usage examples:
myList = explode' sum [1,2]
sum' 0 xs = 0
sum' n (x:xs) = x + sum' (n-1) xs
myList2 = explode sum' [1,2]
In my tests there's little performance difference between the two functions. explode' is often slightly better.
The solution from #LudvigH is very nice and clear. But, it was not faster.
I am still working on the benchmark to compare the other options.
For now, this is the best solution that I could find:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- # infinite sum of the previous using fuse
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
recursiveSum xs = [nextValue] ++ (recursiveSum (nextList)) where
nextValue = sum(xs)
nextList = xs ++ [nextValue]
initialSumValues = [1]
infiniteSumFuse = initialSumValues ++ recursiveSum initialSumValues
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- # infinite prime list using fuse
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- calculate the current value based in the current list
-- call the same function with the new combined value
recursivePrimeList xs = [nextValue] ++ (recursivePrimeList (nextList)) where
nextValue = nextNonMultiple(xs)
nextList = xs ++ [nextValue]
initialPrimes = [2]
infiniteFusePrimeList = initialPrimes ++ recursivePrimeList initialPrimes
This approach is fast and makes good use of many cores.
Maybe there is some faster solution, but I decided to post this to share my current progress on this subject so far.
In general, define
xs = x1 : zipWith f xs (inits xs)
Then it's xs == x1 : f x1 [] : f x2 [x1] : f x3 [x1, x2] : ...., and so on.
Here's one example of using inits in the context of computing the infinite list of primes, which pairs them up as
ps = 2 : f p1 [p1] : f p2 [p1,p2] : f p3 [p1,p2,p3] : ...
(in the definition of primes5 there).
I'm really new to programming and Haskell in particular (so new that I actually don't know if this is a stupid question or not). But I was watching the lecture given by Eric Meijer (http://channel9.msdn.com/Series/C9-Lectures-Erik-Meijer-Functional-Programming-Fundamentals) and i was fascinated by the program written by Dr. Graham Hutton in lecture 11; The countdown problem.
My question is:
Is there a way of "filtering" the list of solutions by the length (number of elements), so that the list of solutions are restricted to the solutions that only uses (for example) three of the source numbers? In other words, I would like to change the question from "given the numbers [1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9] construct 18 using the operators..." to "given the numbers [..] which three numbers can be used to construct..."
In my futile attempts, I've been trying to put a kind restriction on his function subbags (which returns all permutations and subsequences of a list)
subbags :: [a] -> [[a]]
subbags xs = [zs | ys <- subs xs, zs <- perms ys]
So that I get all the permutations and subsequences that only contain three of the source numbers. Is this possible? If so, how?
Like I said, I have no idea if this is even a legitimate question - but I have gone from curious to obsessed, so any form of help or hint would be greatly appreciated!
The simplest way would be to just select from the candidates three times
[ (x, y, z) | x <- xs, y <- xs, z <- xs ]
although this assumes that repeat use of a single number is OK.
If it's not, we'll have to get smarter. In a simpler scenario we'd like to pick just two candidates:
[ (x, y) | x <- xs, y <- ys, aboveDiagonal (x, y) ]
in other words, if we think of this as a cartesian product turning a list into a grid of possibilities, we'd like to only consider the values "above the diagonal", where repeats don't happen. We can express this by zipping the coordinates along with the values
[ (x, y) | (i, x) <- zip [1..] xs
, (j, y) <- zip [1..] xs
, i < j
]
which can be extended back out to the n=3 scenario
[ (x, y, z) | (i, x) <- zip [1..] xs
, (j, y) <- zip [1..] xs
, (k, z) <- zip [1..] xs
, i < j
, j < k
]
Ultimately, however, this method is inefficient since it still has to scan through all of the possible pairs and then prune the repeats. We can be a bit smarter by only enumerating the above diagonal values to begin with. Returning to n=2 we'll write this as
choose2 :: [a] -> [(a, a)]
choose2 [] = []
choose2 (a:as) = map (a,) as ++ choose2 as
In other words, we pick first all of the pairs where the head of the list comes first and a value in the tail of the list comes second—this captures one edge of the upper triangle—and then we recurse by adding all of the upper diagonal values of the list of candidates sans the head.
This method can be straightforwardly extended to the n=3 case by using the n=2 case as a building block
choose3 :: [a] -> [(a, a, a)]
choose3 [] = []
choose3 (a:as) = map (\(y, z) -> (a, y, z)) (choose2 as) ++ choose3 as
which also provides a direct generalization to the fully general n dimensional solution
choose :: Int -> [a] -> [[a]]
choose 0 as = [[]] -- there's one way to choose 0 elements
choose _ [] = [] -- there are 0 ways to choose (n>0) elements of none
choose 1 as = map (:[]) as -- there are n ways to choose 1 element of n
choose n (a:as) = map (a:) (choose (n-1) as) ++ choose n as
I like this solution, which does not require the list elements to be an instance of Eq:
import Data.List (tails)
triples ls = [[x,y,z] | (x:xs) <- tails ls,
(y:ys) <- tails xs,
z <- ys]
This returns only subsequences, not permutations, though.
How do I manually split [1,2,4,5,6,7] into [[1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7]]? Manually means without using break.
Then, how do I split a list into sublists according to a predicate? Like so
f even [[1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7]] == [[1],[2,3],[4,5],[6,7]]
PS: this is not homework, and I've tried for hours to figure it out on my own.
To answer your first question, this is rather an element-wise transformation than a split. The appropriate function to do this is
map :: (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b]
Now, you need a function (a -> b) where b is [a], as you want to transform an element into a singleton list containing the same type. Here it is:
mkList :: a -> [a]
mkList a = [a]
so
map mkList [1,2,3,4,5,6,7] == [[1],[2],...]
As for your second question: If you are not allowed (homework?) to use break, are you then allowed to use takeWhile and dropWhile which form both halves of the result of break.
Anyway, for a solution without them ("manually"), just use simple recursion with an accumulator:
f p [] = []
f p (x:xs) = go [x] xs
where go acc [] = [acc]
go acc (y:ys) | p y = acc : go [y] ys
| otherwise = go (acc++[y]) ys
This will traverse your entire list tail recursively, always remembering what the current sublist is, and when you reach an element where p applies, outputting the current sublist and starting a new one.
Note that go first receives [x] instead of [] to provide for the case where the first element already satisfies p x and we don't want an empty first sublist to be output.
Also, this operates on the original list ([1..7]) instead of [[1],[2]...]. But you can use it on the transformed one as well:
> map concat $ f (odd . head) [[1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7]]
[[1,2],[3,4],[5,6],[7]]
For the first, you can use a list comprehension:
>>> [[x] | x <- [1,2,3,4,5,6]]
[[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]]
For the second problem, you can use the Data.List.Split module provided by the split package:
import Data.List.Split
f :: (a -> Bool) -> [[a]] -> [[a]]
f predicate = split (keepDelimsL $ whenElt predicate) . concat
This first concats the list, because the functions from split work on lists and not list of lists. The resulting single list is the split again using functions from the split package.
First:
map (: [])
Second:
f p xs =
let rs = foldr (\[x] ~(a:r) -> if (p x) then ([]:(x:a):r) else ((x:a):r))
[[]] xs
in case rs of ([]:r) -> r ; _ -> rs
foldr's operation is easy enough to visualize:
foldr g z [a,b,c, ...,x] = g a (g b (g c (.... (g x z) ....)))
So when writing the combining function, it is expecting two arguments, 1st of which is "current element" of a list, and 2nd is "result of processing the rest". Here,
g [x] ~(a:r) | p x = ([]:(x:a):r)
| otherwise = ((x:a):r)
So visualizing it working from the right, it just adds into the most recent sublist, and opens up a new sublist if it must. But since lists are actually accessed from the left, we keep it lazy with the lazy pattern, ~(a:r). Now it works even on infinite lists:
Prelude> take 9 $ f odd $ map (:[]) [1..]
[[1,2],[3,4],[5,6],[7,8],[9,10],[11,12],[13,14],[15,16],[17,18]]
The pattern for the 1st argument reflects the peculiar structure of your expected input lists.
how can i get the most frequent value in a list example:
[1,3,4,5,6,6] -> output 6
[1,3,1,5] -> output 1
Im trying to get it by my own functions but i cant achieve it can you guys help me?
my code:
del x [] = []
del x (y:ys) = if x /= y
then y:del x y
else del x ys
obj x []= []
obj x (y:ys) = if x== y then y:obj x y else(obj x ys)
tam [] = 0
tam (x:y) = 1+tam y
fun (n1:[]) (n:[]) [] =n1
fun (n1:[]) (n:[]) (x:s) =if (tam(obj x (x:s)))>n then fun (x:[]) ((tam(obj x (x:s))):[]) (del x (x:s)) else(fun (n1:[]) (n:[]) (del x (x:s)))
rep (x:s) = fun (x:[]) ((tam(obj x (x:s))):[]) (del x (x:s))
Expanding on Satvik's last suggestion, you can use (&&&) :: (b -> c) -> (b -> c') -> (b -> (c, c')) from Control.Arrow (Note that I substituted a = (->) in that type signature for simplicity) to cleanly perform a decorate-sort-undecorate transform.
mostCommon list = fst . maximumBy (compare `on` snd) $ elemCount
where elemCount = map (head &&& length) . group . sort $ list
The head &&& length function has type [b] -> (b, Int). It converts a list into a tuple of its first element and its length, so when it is combined with group . sort you get a list of each distinct value in the list along with the number of times it occurred.
Also, you should think about what happens when you call mostCommon []. Clearly there is no sensible value, since there is no element at all. As it stands, all the solutions proposed (including mine) just fail on an empty list, which is not good Haskell. The normal thing to do would be to return a Maybe a, where Nothing indicates an error (in this case, an empty list) and Just a represents a "real" return value. e.g.
mostCommon :: Ord a => [a] -> Maybe a
mostCommon [] = Nothing
mostCommon list = Just ... -- your implementation here
This is much nicer, as partial functions (functions that are undefined for some input values) are horrible from a code-safety point of view. You can manipulate Maybe values using pattern matching (matching on Nothing and Just x) and the functions in Data.Maybe (preferable fromMaybe and maybe rather than fromJust).
In case you would like to get some ideas from code that does what you wish to achieve, here is an example:
import Data.List (nub, maximumBy)
import Data.Function (on)
mostCommonElem list = fst $ maximumBy (compare `on` snd) elemCounts where
elemCounts = nub [(element, count) | element <- list, let count = length (filter (==element) list)]
Here are few suggestions
del can be implemented using filter rather than writing your own recursion. In your definition there was a mistake, you needed to give ys and not y while deleting.
del x = filter (/=x)
obj is similar to del with different filter function. Similarly here in your definition you need to give ys and not y in obj.
obj x = filter (==x)
tam is just length function
-- tam = length
You don't need to keep a list for n1 and n. I have also made your code more readable, although I have not made any changes to your algorithm.
fun n1 n [] =n1
fun n1 n xs#(x:s) | length (obj x xs) > n = fun x (length $ obj x xs) (del x xs)
| otherwise = fun n1 n $ del x xs
rep xs#(x:s) = fun x (length $ obj x xs) (del x xs)
Another way, not very optimal but much more readable is
import Data.List
import Data.Ord
rep :: Ord a => [a] -> a
rep = head . head . sortBy (flip $ comparing length) . group . sort
I will try to explain in short what this code is doing. You need to find the most frequent element of the list so the first idea that should come to mind is to find frequency of all the elements. Now group is a function which combines adjacent similar elements.
> group [1,2,2,3,3,3,1,2,4]
[[1],[2,2],[3,3,3],[1],[2],[4]]
So I have used sort to bring elements which are same adjacent to each other
> sort [1,2,2,3,3,3,1,2,4]
[1,1,2,2,2,3,3,3,4]
> group . sort $ [1,2,2,3,3,3,1,2,4]
[[1,1],[2,2,2],[3,3,3],[4]]
Finding element with the maximum frequency just reduces to finding the sublist with largest number of elements. Here comes the function sortBy with which you can sort based on given comparing function. So basically I have sorted on length of the sublists (The flip is just to make the sorting descending rather than ascending).
> sortBy (flip $ comparing length) . group . sort $ [1,2,2,3,3,3,1,2,4]
[[2,2,2],[3,3,3],[1,1],[4]]
Now you can just take head two times to get the element with the largest frequency.
Let's assume you already have argmax function. You can write
your own or even better, you can reuse list-extras package. I strongly suggest you
to take a look at the package anyway.
Then, it's quite easy:
import Data.List.Extras.Argmax ( argmax )
-- >> mostFrequent [3,1,2,3,2,3]
-- 3
mostFrequent xs = argmax f xs
where f x = length $ filter (==x) xs