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.
I have a list like this:
[(2,3),(2,5),(2,7),(3,2),(3,4),(3,6),(4,3),(4,5),(4,7),(5,2),(5,4),(5,6),(6,3),(6,5),(6,7),(7,2),(7,4),(7,6)]
The digits are from [2..7]. I want to take a set where there are any symmetrical pairs. e.g. [(1,2),(2,1)], but those two numbers aren't used again in the set. An example would be:
[(3,6),(6,3),(2,5),(5,2),(4,7),(7,4)]
I wanted to first put symmetric pairs together as I thought it might be easier to work with so i created this function, which actually creates the pairs and puts them in another list
g xs = [ (y,x):(x,y):[] | (x,y) <- xs ]
with which the list turns to this:
[[(3,2),(2,3)],[(5,2),(2,5)],[(7,2),(2,7)],[(2,3),(3,2)],[(4,3),(3,4)],[(6,3),(3,6)],[(3,4),(4,3)],[(5,4),(4,5)],[(7,4),(4,7)],[(2,5),(5,2)],[(4,5),(5,4)],[(6,5),(5,6)],[(3,6),(6,3)],[(5,6),(6,5)],[(7,6),(6,7)],[(2,7),(7,2)],[(4,7),(7,4)],[(6,7),(7,6)]]
Then from here I was hoping to somehow remove duplicates.
I made a function that will look at all of the fst elements of all of the pairs:
flatList xss = [ x | xs <- xss, (x,y) <- xs ]
to use with another function to remove the duplicates.
h (x:xs) | (fst (head x)) `elem` (flatList xs) = h xs
| otherwise = (head x):(last x):(h xs)
which gives me the list
[(3,6),(6,3),(5,6),(6,5),(2,7),(7,2),(4,7),(7,4),(6,7),(7,6)]
which has duplicate numbers. That function only takes into account the first element of the first pair in the list of lists,the problem is when I also take into account the first element of the second pair (or the second element of the first pair):
h (x:xs) | (fst (head x)) `elem` (flatList xs) || (fst (last x)) `elem` (flatList xs) = h xs
| otherwise = (head x):(last x):(h xs)
I only get these two pairs:
[(6,7),(7,6)]
I see that the problem is that this method of deleting duplicates grabs the last repeated element, and would work with a list of digits, but not a list of pairs, as it misses pairs it needs to take.
Is there another way to solve this, or an alteration I could make?
It probably makes more sense to use a 2-tuple of 2-tuples in your list comprehension, since that makes it more easy to do pattern matching, and thus "by contract" enforces the fact that there are two items. We thus can construct 2-tuples that contain the 2-tuples with:
g :: Eq a => [(a, a)] -> [((a, a), (a, a))]
g xs = [ (t, s) | (t#(x,y):ts) <- tails xs, let s = (y, x), elem s ts ]
Here the elem s ts checks if the "swapped" 2-tuple occurs in the rest of the list.
Then we still need to filter the elements. We can make use of a function that uses an accumulator for the thus far obtained items:
h :: Eq a => [((a, a), (a, a))] -> [(a, a)]
h = go []
where go _ [] = []
go seen ((t#(x, y), s):xs)
| notElem x seen && notElem y seen = t : s : go (x:y:seen) xs
| otherwise = go seen xs
For the given sample input, we thus get:
Prelude Data.List> (h . g) [(2,3),(2,5),(2,7),(3,2),(3,4),(3,6),(4,3),(4,5),(4,7),(5,2),(5,4),(5,6),(6,3),(6,5),(6,7),(7,2),(7,4),(7,6)]
[(2,3),(3,2),(4,5),(5,4),(6,7),(7,6)]
after reading a few times your question, I got an elegant solution to your problem. Thinking that if you have a list of pairs without any repeated number, you can get the list of swapped pairs easily, solving your problem. So your problem can be reduce to given a list, get the list of all pairs using each number just one.
For a given list, there are many solutions to this, ex: for [1,2,3,4] valid solutions are: [(2,4),(4,2),(1,3),(3,1)] and [(2,3),(3,2),(1,4),(4,1)], etc... The approach here is:
take a permutation if the original list (say [1,4,3,2])
pick one element for each half and pair them together (for simplicity, you can pick consecutive elements too)
for each pair, create a the swapped pair and put all together
By doing so you end up with a list of non repeating numbers of pairs and its symmetric. More over, looping around all permutaitons, you can get all the solutions to your problem.
import Data.List (permutations, splitAt)
import Data.Tuple (swap)
-- This function splits a list by the half of the length
splitHalf :: [a] -> ([a], [a])
splitHalf xs = splitAt (length xs `quot` 2) xs
-- This zip a pair of list into a list of pairs
zipHalfs :: ([a], [a]) -> [(a,a)]
zipHalfs (xs, ys) = zip xs ys
-- Given a list of tuples, creates a larger list with all tuples and all swapped tuples
makeSymetrics :: [(a,a)] -> [(a,a)]
makeSymetrics xs = foldr (\t l -> t:(swap t):l) [] xs
-- This chain all of the above.
-- Take all permutations of xs >>> for each permutations >>> split it in two >>> zip the result >>> make swapped pairs
getPairs :: [a] -> [[(a,a)]]
getPairs xs = map (makeSymetrics . zipHalfs . splitHalf) $ permutations xs
>>> getPairs [1,2,3,4]
[[(1,3),(3,1),(2,4),(4,2)],[(2,3),(3,2),(1,4),(4,1)] ....
I'm trying to solve the following problem found in "Introduction to functional programming" First edition Bird-Wadler.
5 .6.2 The function choose k xs returns a list of all subsequences of xs whose
length is exactly k. For example:
? choose 3 "list"
["ist" , "lst" , "lit" , "lis"]
Give a recursive definition of choose. Show that if xs has length n then
choose k xs has length nk
I only could come up with a non-recursive solution based on a function that returns the list of subsets of an array:
subs :: [a] -> [[a]]
subs [] = [[]]
subs (x:xs) = subs xs ++ map (x:) (subs xs)
choose :: Int -> [a] -> [[a]]
choose x = filter ((== x) . length) . subs
I think you are asking:
What is a lone, recursive function solution to this problem?
These problems usually can be solved if you mentally walk through the base and recursive cases carefully. For example:
Choose is a function from ints and list of values to a list of lists of values:
choose :: Int -> [a] -> [[a]]
If the result is supposed to be 0 length then there is exactly one sublist of said length:
choose 0 _ = [ [] ]
If the result is non-zero but we have no more characters with which to make a sublist then there are no solutions:
choose _ [] = []
Otherwise we can take the first character and append that to all solutions of length one shorter:
choose n (x : xs) =
map (x :) (choose (n - 1) xs)
Or we discard this character (ex, drop 'l' and get the result "ist") and look for a solution with the substring:
++ choose n xs
I want to iterate 2 (or 3) infinite lists and find the "smallest" pair that satisfies a condition, like so:
until pred [(a,b,c) | a<-as, b<-bs, c<-cs]
where pred (a,b,c) = a*a + b*b == c*c
as = [1..]
bs = [1..]
cs = [1..]
The above wouldn't get very far, as a == b == 1 throughout the run of the program.
Is there a nice way to dovetail the problem, e.g. build the infinite sequence [(1,1,1),(1,2,1),(2,1,1),(2,1,2),(2,2,1),(2,2,2),(2,2,3),(2,3,2),..] ?
Bonus: is it possible to generalize to n-tuples?
There's a monad for that, Omega.
Prelude> let as = each [1..]
Prelude> let x = liftA3 (,,) as as as
Prelude> let x' = mfilter (\(a,b,c) -> a*a + b*b == c*c) x
Prelude> take 10 $ runOmega x'
[(3,4,5),(4,3,5),(6,8,10),(8,6,10),(5,12,13),(12,5,13),(9,12,15),(12,9,15),(8,15,17),(15,8,17)]
Using it's applicative features, you can generalize to arbitrary tuples:
quadrupels = (,,,) <$> as <*> as <*> as <*> as -- or call it liftA4
But: this alone does not eliminate duplication, of course. It only gives you proper diagonalization. Maybe you could use monad comprehensions together with an approach like Thomas's, or just another mfilter pass (restricting to b /= c, in this case).
List comprehensions are great (and concise) ways to solve such problems. First, you know you want all combinations of (a,b,c) that might satisfy a^2 + b^2 = c^2 - a helpful observation is that (considering only positive numbers) it will always be the case that a <= c && b <= c.
To generate our list of candidates we can thus say c ranges from 1 to infinity while a and b range from one to c.
[(a,b,c) | c <- [1..], a <- [1..c], b <- [1..c]]
To get to the solution we just need to add your desired equation as a guard:
[(a,b,c) | c <- [1..], a <- [1..c], b <- [1..c], a*a+b*b == c*c]
This is inefficient, but the output is correct:
[(3,4,5),(4,3,5),(6,8,10),(8,6,10),(5,12,13),(12,5,13),(9,12,15)...
There are more principled methods than blind testing that can solve this problem.
{- It depends on what is "smallest". But here is a solution for a concept of "smallest" if tuples were compared first by their max. number and then by their total sum. (You can just copy and paste my whole answer into a file as I write the text in comments.)
We will need nub later. -}
import Data.List (nub)
{- Just for illustration: the easy case with 2-tuples. -}
-- all the two-tuples where 'snd' is 'n'
tuples n = [(i, n) | i <- [1..n]]
-- all the two-tuples where 'snd' is in '1..n'
tuplesUpTo n = concat [tuples i | i <- [1..n]]
{-
To get all results, you will need to insert the flip of each tuple into the stream. But let's do that later and generalize first.
Building tuples of arbitrary length is somewhat difficult, so we will work on lists. I call them 'kList's, if they have a length 'k'.
-}
-- just copied from the tuples case, only we need a base case for k=1 and
-- we can combine all results utilizing the list monad.
kLists 1 n = [[n]]
kLists k n = do
rest <- kLists (k-1) n
add <- [1..head rest]
return (add:rest)
-- same as above. all the klists with length k and max number of n
kListsUpTo k n = concat [kLists k i | i <- [1..n]]
-- we can do that unbounded as well, creating an infinite list.
kListsInf k = concat [kLists k i | i <- [1..]]
{-
The next step is rotating these lists around, because until now the largest number is always in the last place. So we just look at all rotations to get all the results. Using nub here is admittedly awkward, you can improve that. But without it, lists where all elements are the same are repeated k times.
-}
rotate n l = let (init, end) = splitAt n l
in end ++ init
rotations k l = nub [rotate i l | i <- [0..k-1]]
rotatedKListsInf k = concatMap (rotations k) $ kListsInf k
{- What remains is to convert these lists into tuples. This is a bit awkward, because every n-tuple is a separate type. But it's straightforward, of course. -}
kListToTuple2 [x,y] = (x,y)
kListToTuple3 [x,y,z] = (x,y,z)
kListToTuple4 [x,y,z,t] = (x,y,z,t)
kListToTuple5 [x,y,z,t,u] = (x,y,z,t,u)
kListToTuple6 [x,y,z,t,u,v] = (x,y,z,t,u,v)
{- Some tests:
*Main> take 30 . map kListToTuple2 $ rotatedKListsInf 2
[(1,1),(1,2),(2,1),(2,2),(1,3),(3,1),(2,3),(3,2),(3,3),(1,4),(4,1),(2,4),(4,2),(3,4),
(4,3),(4,4),(1,5),(5,1),(2,5),(5,2),(3,5),(5,3),(4,5),(5,4),(5,5),(1,6),(6,1),
(2,6), (6,2), (3,6)]
*Main> take 30 . map kListToTuple3 $ rotatedKListsInf 3
[(1,1,1),(1,1,2),(1,2,1),(2,1,1),(1,2,2),(2,2,1),(2,1,2),(2,2,2),(1,1,3),(1,3,1),
(3,1,1),(1,2,3),(2,3,1),(3,1,2),(2,2,3),(2,3,2),(3,2,2),(1,3,3),(3,3,1),(3,1,3),
(2,3,3),(3,3,2),(3,2,3),(3,3,3),(1,1,4),(1,4,1),(4,1,1),(1,2,4),(2,4,1),(4,1,2)]
Edit:
I realized there is a bug: Just rotating the ordered lists isn't enough of course. The solution must be somewhere along the lines of having
rest <- concat . map (rotations (k-1)) $ kLists (k-1) n
in kLists, but then some issues with repeated outputs arise. You can figure that out, I guess. ;-)
-}
It really depends on what you mean by "smallest", but I assume you want to find a tuple of numbers with respect to its maximal element - so (2,2) is less than (1,3) (while standard Haskell ordering is lexicographic).
There is package data-ordlist, which is aimed precisely at working with ordered lists. It's function mergeAll (and mergeAllBy) allows you to combine a 2-dimensional matrix ordered in each direction into an ordered list.
First let's create a desired comparing function on tuples:
import Data.List (find)
import Data.List.Ordered
compare2 :: (Ord a) => (a, a) -> (a, a) -> Ordering
compare2 x y = compare (max2 x, x) (max2 y, y)
where
max2 :: Ord a => (a, a) -> a
max2 (x, y) = max x y
Then using mergeAll we create a function that takes a comparator, a combining function (which must be monotonic in both arguments) and two sorted lists. It combines all possible elements from the two lists using the function and produces a result sorted list:
mergeWith :: (b -> b -> Ordering) -> (a -> a -> b) -> [a] -> [a] -> [b]
mergeWith cmp f xs ys = mergeAllBy cmp $ map (\x -> map (f x) xs) ys
With this function, it's very simple to produce tuples ordered according to their maximum:
incPairs :: [(Int,Int)]
incPairs = mergeWith compare2 (,) [1..] [1..]
Its first 10 elements are:
> take 10 incPairs
[(1,1),(1,2),(2,1),(2,2),(1,3),(2,3),(3,1),(3,2),(3,3),(1,4)]
and when we (for example) look for the first pair whose sum of squares is equal to 65:
find (\(x,y) -> x^2+y^2 == 65) incPairs
we get the correct result (4,7) (as opposed to (1,8) if lexicographic ordering were used).
This answer is for a more general problem for a unknown predicate. If the predicate is known, more efficient solutions are possible, like others have listed solutions based on knowledge that you don't need to iterate for all Ints for a given c.
When dealing with infinite lists, you need to perform breadth-first search for solution. The list comprehension only affords depth-first search, that is why you never arrive at a solution in your original code.
counters 0 xs = [[]]
counters n xs = concat $ foldr f [] gens where
gens = [[x:t | t <- counters (n-1) xs] | x <- xs]
f ys n = cat ys ([]:n)
cat (y:ys) (x:xs) = (y:x): cat ys xs
cat [] xs = xs
cat xs [] = [xs]
main = print $ take 10 $ filter p $ counters 3 [1..] where
p [a,b,c] = a*a + b*b == c*c
counters generates all possible counters for values from the specified range of digits, including a infinite range.
First, we obtain a list of generators of valid combinations of counters - for each permitted digit, combine it with all permitted combinations for counters of smaller size. This may result in a generator that produces a infinite number of combinations. So, we need to borrow from each generator evenly.
So gens is a list of generators. Think of this as a list of all counters starting with one digit: gens !! 0 is a list of all counters starting with 1, gens !! 1 is a list of all counters starting with 2, etc.
In order to borrow from each generator evenly, we could transpose the list of generators - that way we would get a list of first elements of the generators, followed by a list of second elements of the generators, etc.
Since the list of generators may be infinite, we cannot afford to transpose the list of generators, because we may never get to look at the second element of any generator (for a infinite number of digits we'd have a infinite number of generators). So, we enumerate the elements from the generators "diagonally" - take first element from the first generator; then take the second element from the first generator and the first from the second generator; then take the third element from the first generator, the second from the second, and the first element from the third generator, etc. This can be done by folding the list of generators with a function f, which zips together two lists - one list is the generator, the other is the already-zipped generators -, the beginning of one of them being offset by one step by adding []: to the head. This is almost zipWith (:) ys ([]:n) - the difference is that if n or ys is shorter than the other one, we don't drop the remainder of the other list. Note that folding with zipWith (:) ys n would be a transpose.
For this answer I will take "smallest" to refer to the sum of the numbers in the tuple.
To list all possible pairs in order, you can first list all of the pairs with a sum of 2, then all pairs with a sum of 3 and so on. In code
pairsWithSum n = [(i, n-i) | i <- [1..n-1]]
xs = concatMap pairsWithSum [2..]
Haskell doesn't have facilities for dealing with n-tuples without using Template Haskell, so to generalize this you will have to switch to lists.
ntuplesWithSum 1 s = [[s]]
ntuplesWithSum n s = concatMap (\i -> map (i:) (ntuplesWithSum (n-1) (s-i))) [1..s-n+1]
nums n = concatMap (ntuplesWithSum n) [n..]
Here's another solution, with probably another slightly different idea of "smallest". My order is just "all tuples with max element N come before all tuples with max element N+1". I wrote the versions for pairs and triples:
gen2_step :: Int -> [(Int, Int)]
gen2_step s = [(x, y) | x <- [1..s], y <- [1..s], (x == s || y == s)]
gen2 :: Int -> [(Int, Int)]
gen2 n = concatMap gen2_step [1..n]
gen2inf :: [(Int, Int)]
gen2inf = concatMap gen2_step [1..]
gen3_step :: Int -> [(Int, Int, Int)]
gen3_step s = [(x, y, z) | x <- [1..s], y <- [1..s], z <- [1..s], (x == s || y == s || z == s)]
gen3 :: Int -> [(Int, Int, Int)]
gen3 n = concatMap gen3_step [1..n]
gen3inf :: [(Int, Int, Int)]
gen3inf = concatMap gen3_step [1..]
You can't really generalize it to N-tuples, though as long as you stay homogeneous, you may be able to generalize it if you use arrays. But I don't want to tie my brain into that knot.
I think this is the simplest solution if "smallest" is defined as x+y+z because after you find your first solution in the space of Integral valued pythagorean triangles, your next solutions from the infinite list are bigger.
take 1 [(x,y,z) | y <- [1..], x <- [1..y], z <- [1..x], z*z + x*x == y*y]
-> [(4,5,3)]
It has the nice property that it returns each symmetrically unique solution only once. x and z are also infinite, because y is infinite.
This does not work, because the sequence for x never finishes, and thus you never get a value for y, not to mention z. The rightmost generator is the innermost loop.
take 1 [(z,y,x)|z <- [1..],y <- [1..],x <- [1..],x*x + y*y == z*z]
Sry, it's quite a while since I did haskell, so I'm going to describe it with words.
As I pointed out in my comment. It is not possible to find the smallest anything in an infinite list, since there could always be a smaller one.
What you can do is, have a stream based approach that takes the lists and returns a list with only 'valid' elements, i. e. where the condition is met. Lets call this function triangle
You can then compute the triangle list to some extent with take n (triangle ...) and from this n elements you can find the minium.
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.