Related
I'm trying to learn Haskell and comprehension lists but cannot find solution on this:
mylist = [x*y | x <- [1..], y <- [1..]]
After my trials the result is something like this
mylist = [1,2,3,4,5,...]
because in list comprehensions, x takes the value 1,and then y changes value repeatedly.
But my goal is to achieve a different assignment so as to have the following result:
mylist = [1,2,2,4,3,3,6.....]
I mean i want the combinations being mixed and not each one apart,because I have a serious problem to have the suitable result.
I will give a more specific example.
I want a list that will have all numbers of this form:
num = 2^x * 3^y
x and y must take all values >= 0.
My approach is the following:
powers = [2^x * 3^y | x <- [0..], y <- [0..]]
But in this way I only take powers of 3, because x is constantly 0.
I tried this one
multiples = nub (merge (<=) powers2 powers3)
powers3 = [2^x * 3^y | x <- [0..], y <- [0..]]
powers2 = [2^x * 3^y | y <- [0..], x <- [0..]]
so as to merge the different ones but again,the values 6,12,etc. are missing - the result is this:
mylist = [1,2,3,4,8,9,16,27,32,64,81...]
The code that you show,
multiples = nub (merge (<=) powers2 powers3)
powers3 = [2^x * 3^y | x <- [0..], y <- [0..]]
powers2 = [2^x * 3^y | y <- [0..], x <- [0..]]
is equivalent to
powers3 = [2^x * 3^y | x <- [0], y <- [0..]]
= [2^0 * 3^y | y <- [0..]]
= [3^y | y <- [0..]]
powers2 = [2^x * 3^y | y <- [0], x <- [0..]]
= [2^x * 3^0 | x <- [0..]]
= [2^x | x <- [0..]]
so you only produce the powers of 2 and 3, without any mixed multiples. As such, there are guaranteed to be no duplicates in the stream, and the nub was not necessary. And of course it's incomplete.
But let's look at it at another angle. It was proposed in the comments to create a 2D grid out of these numbers:
mults23_2D = [[2^x * 3^y | y <- [0..]] | x <- [0..]]
{-
1 3 9 27 81 ...
2 6 18 54 ...
4 12 36 108 ...
8 24 72 ...
16 ...
.......
-}
Now we're getting somewhere. At least now none are skipped. We just need to understand how to join them into one sorted, increasing stream of numbers. Simple concat of course won't do. We need to merge them in order. A well-known function merge does that, provided the arguments are already ordered, increasing lists.
Each row produced is already in increasing order, but there are infinitely many of them. Never fear, foldr can do it. We define
mults23 = foldr g [] [[2^x * 3^y | y <- [0..]] | x <- [0..]]
-- foldr g [] [a,b,c,...] == a `g` (b `g` (c `g` (....)))
where
g (x:xs) ys =
Here it is a little bit tricky. If we define g = merge, we'll have a run-away recursion, because each merge will want to know the head element of its "right" (second) argument stream.
To prevent that, we produce the leftmost element right away.
x : merge xs ys
And that's that.
Tool use
I needed an infinite Cartesian product function. An infinite function must take the diagonals of a table.
The pair pattern of a diagonal traversal is
0 0 – 0 1, 1 0 – 0 2, 1 1, 2 0 – 0 3, 1 2, 2 1, 3 0
I love the symmetries but the pattern is counting forward with first digit and backward with second which when expressed in an infinite function is
diag2 xs ys = [ (m,n) | i<- [1..], (m,n) <- zip (take i xs) (reverse.take i $ ys) ]
The infinite generation is just to take any amount however large to work with.
What may be important, also is taking a diagonal or triangular number for a complete set.
revt n makes a triangular number from you input. If you want 25 elements revt 25 will return 7. tri 7 will return 28 the parameter for take. revt and tri are
tri n = foldl (+) 1 [2..n]
revt n = floor (sqrt (n*2))
Making and using taket is good until you learn the first 10 or so triangular numbers.
taket n xs = take (tri $ revt n) xs
Now, with some tools in place we apply them (mostly 1) to a problem.
[ 2^a * 3^b | (a,b) <- sort.taket 25 $ diag2 [0..] [0..]]
[1,3,9,27,81,243,729, 2,6,18,54,162,486, 4,12,36,108,324, 8,24,72,216, 16,48,144, 32,96, 64]
And it’s a diagonal. The first group is 7 long, the second is 6 long, the second-to-the-last is 2 long and the last is 1 long. revt 25 is 7. tri 7 is 28 the length of the output list.
I am trying to teach myself Haskell and I am doing random exercises.
I was supposed to write a code that will do this 6 = [1*1 + 3*3 + 5*5]= 35
So I had to filter out all odd numbers and then calculate the sum if I multiply every single one with itself.
sumquad n = (potenzsum(filter odd (ones n)))
where
potenzsum [x] = x*x
potenzsum [x,y] = x*x + y*y
potenzsum (x:xs) = x + potenzsum xs
ones 0 = []
ones x = [ 1 .. x]
This code works ;)
Now I am supposed to do the same thing but with list comprehension (I am allowed to use this list [1...n]
I could only think of this... Could someone help me?
power1 xs = [x*x | x <- xs]
Actually, you did half the job by [x * x | x <- xs], just replace xs by odd numbers from the previous example:
[x * x | x <- filter odd (ones 6))]
And you'll receive a list of squares: [1, 9, 25], which can be summed by function sum:
f n = sum [x * x | x <- filter odd (ones n))]
it evaluates to 35
One more note regarding list comprehension: the iterated elements can be filtered out by specifying conditions, which are called guards. Thus, the code above can be refactored into:
f n = sum [x * x | x <- [1..n], odd x]
I've a question regarding list comprehensions in Haskell.
I have an exam later this week and therefore did some old exams where I found this question:
"Write a function that given a positive integer n returns a list of positive integers m ≤ n such that there are two positive integers x and y, such that x^2 + y^3 = m. The list needs to be sorted"
There were two possible answers,
either
squareCube::Int->[Int]
squareCube n =[a|a<-[1..n],x<-[1..n],y<-[1..n],x^2+y^3==a]
or
import Data.List
squareCube::Int->[Int]
squareCube n =
sort [a|x<-[1..n],y<-[1..n],a<-[1..n],x^2+y^3==a]
I wonder why I need to use the sort function when a comes after x and y in my comprehension. Why does the order between the arguments matter?
This list is sorted:
[ 1, 1, 1
, 2, 2, 2
, 3, 3, 3
, 4, 4, 4 ]
This one isn't:
[ 1, 2, 3, 4
, 1, 2, 3, 4
, 1, 2, 3, 4 ]
This is only vaguely related to the question: it addresses the programming challenge, but does not answer the question as asked about why the existing approaches work. But it was too fun to avoid writing a snippet about it, so here goes.
With appropriate imports, you can very efficiently generate even the infinite list of square-cube sums. The basic idea is to make an infinite list of infinite lists; we will maintain the invariant that the outer infinite list is sorted by the heads of the inner infinite lists. Then it's easy and efficient to merge all of these. With the appropriate package it's a one-liner, and very succinctly matches the problem description:
import Data.List.Ordered
squareCubes = unionAll [[x^2+y^3 | x <- [1..]] | y <- [1..]]
We can compare the efficiency of this to the existing two approaches. Here's the test program, which I compiled with -O2:
import Data.List
import Data.List.Ordered
import System.Environment
squareCubes = unionAll [[x^2+y^3 | x <- [1..]] | y <- [1..]]
squareCube n = takeWhile (<=n) squareCubes
squareCube' n = [a|a<-[1..n],x<-[1..n],y<-[1..n],x^2+y^3==a]
squareCube'' n = sort [a|x<-[1..n],y<-[1..n],a<-[1..n],x^2+y^3==a]
main = do
[kind, limit] <- getArgs
let f = case kind of
"inf" -> squareCube
"unsorted" -> squareCube'
"sorted" -> squareCube''
print . sum . f . read $ limit
And here are the timings, which are quite stark indeed:
% /usr/bin/time ./test unsorted 700
57465
9.60user 0.01system 0:09.63elapsed 99%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 4156maxresident)k
% /usr/bin/time ./test sorted 700
57465
1.87user 0.00system 0:01.87elapsed 99%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 4056maxresident)k
% /usr/bin/time ./test inf 700
50895
0.00user 0.00system 0:00.00elapsed 100%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 3616maxresident)k
The others take seconds (aeons in computer time) while the one that's in some ways more capable than the others doesn't even register on the timer! I also experimented to find how large of an input we could give before arriving at the timings for the other two implementations. I found that an input of 500000000 takes 8.88 seconds -- almost six orders of magnitude higher in the roughly the same time.
Wait, wait, you say: those outputs are different. So what gives? Well, it turns out that the slow implementations have what I consider to be a bug: they will spit out a single number multiple times if there are multiple ways to construct it as the sum of squares and cubes. For example,
> squareCube' 17
[2,5,9,10,12,17,17]
> squareCube 17
[2,5,9,10,12,17]
because 3^2 + 2^3 = 4^2 + 1^3. On the other hand, if this is the intended behavior, one can easily achieve it in the efficient, lazy one-liner by replacing unionAll with mergeAll.
We need a sort function when a comes after x and y in the comprehension because of the order of evaluation. If a <- [1..] is called first, each of the subsequent statements will be evaluated against each a in turn, so the a's already form an increasing list:
a = 1
x <- [1..n]
y <- [1..n]
...return a if there's a valid match
a = 2
x <- [1..n]
y <- [1..n]
...return a if there's a valid match
etc.
However, if a <- [1..n] is evaluated last, we may not get an ordered sequence of as:
x = 1
y <- [1..n]
...
y = 1
a <- [1..n]
...
a = 2 2
y = 2
a <- [1..n]
...
a = 9 9
x = 2
y <- [1..n]
...
y = 1
a <- [1..n]
...
a = 5 5
To see clearly what's going on with list comprehensions, try
do { print [ (x,[10..13]) | x <- [1,2]]
; print [ [(x,y) | y <- [10..13]] | x <- [1,2]]
; print [ r | x <- [1,2], r <- [(x,y) | y <- [10..13]]]
; print [ (x,y) | x <- [1,2], y <- [10..13] ]
}
=>
[ (1,[10,11,12,13]), (2,[10,11,12,13]) ]
[[(1,10),(1,11),(1,12),(1,13)], [(2,10),(2,11),(2,12),(2,13)]]
[ (1,10),(1,11),(1,12),(1,13), (2,10),(2,11),(2,12),(2,13) ]
[ (1,10),(1,11),(1,12),(1,13), (2,10),(2,11),(2,12),(2,13) ]
On the other hand,
do { print [ ([1,2],y) | y <- [10..13] ]
; print [ (x,y) | y <- [10..13], x <- [1,2] ]
}
=>
[ ([1,2],10), ([1,2],11), ([1,2],12), ([1,2],13) ]
[ (1,10),(2,10), (1,11),(2,11), (1,12),(2,12), (1,13),(2,13) ]
List comprehensions work in the nested fashion.
You could re-write your first code as
map (\(a,_,_) -> a) $
filter (\(a,x,y) -> x^2+y^3==a) $
liftA3 (,,) [1..n] [1..n] [1..n] -- (1)
and the second as
map (\(_,_,a) -> a) $
filter (\(x,y,a) -> x^2+y^3==a) $
liftA3 (,,) [1..n] [1..n] [1..n] -- (2)
You could be tempted to see (1) and (2) as a very general "all combinations of three elements drawn from same list" thing. But Haskell is a deterministic language. It produces the same results for the same inputs. Thus it imposes a certain order on the resulting list.
And this is what it means when we say that list comprehensions work in a nested fashion — the leftmost list's element changes the slowest, and the rightmost's the fastest, in the resulting combination — like in an odometer.
To solve your problem, you could write
sort [a | x2 <- takeWhile (<= n) [x^2 | x <- [1..]]
, a <- takeWhile (<= n) [x2+y^3 | y <- [1..]] ]
but this requires careful thought, the code doesn't express the original intent as clearly, and isn't still as optimal as the one using Data.List.Ordered.mergeAll (from data-ordlist package) as seen in the answer by Daniel Wagner,
takeWhile (<= n) . mergeAll $ [[x^2+y^3 | x <- [1..]] | y <- [1..]]
although both have the same time complexity, more or less. mergeAll merges the ordered non-decreasing lists it is presented with, by using pairwise merges arranged in a tree slanted to the right.
Come to think of it, we too could write the more natural-looking
sort . concat . map (takeWhile (<= n))
$ [[x^2+y^3 | x <- [1..n]] | y <- [1..n]]
This doesn't work with the infinite list of lists. To fix this, we could write
-- sort . concat . takeWhile (not . null) . map (takeWhile (<= n))
sort . concat . map (takeWhile (<= n)) . takeWhile ((<= n).head)
$ [[x^2+y^3 | x <- [1..]] | y <- [1..]]
In Haskell, it is quite often better not to try too hard to figure it all out ourselves, but leave it to the lazy evaluation to take care of things. Here it didn't quite worked unfortunately, and we had to take special care to be able to deal with infinite list1, with those explicit takeWhiles superfluous to the task's logic.
Indeed it is true, for any n, that
under n (union a b) == nub . sort $ under n a ++ under n b
under n . unionAll . take m == under n . foldl union [] . take m
under n . unionAll == nub . sort . concat
. takeWhile (not.null) . map (under n)
and
under n (merge a b) == sort $ under n a ++ under n b
under n . mergeAll . take m == under n . foldl merge [] . take m
under n . mergeAll == sort . concat
. takeWhile (not.null) . map (under n)
using under n = takeWhile (<= n), with ordered increasing lists.
1Data.List.Ordered.mergeAll takes care of the infinite lists all by itself, and is better in the sense that it is on-line - it starts producing its output much earlier than our tortured constructed function. The point wasn't that the library function isn't needed, but just to see what can be done without it.
I'm having trouble with going through a list. I made this code which gives me a list of numbers which are evenly divided by the sum of their digits. For example, consider the number 123: 123/6 = 20.5, so it will not be in the list. One the other hand 280 will be on the list, because 280/10 = 28.
let inaHelper x = (floor(x)`mod`10)+ (floor(x/10)`mod`10)+(floor(x/100)`mod`10)
let ina = [x | x <- [1..999] , x `mod` (inaHelper x) == 0 ]
[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,12,18,20,21,24,27,30,36,40,42,45,48,50,54,60,63,70,72,80,81,84,90,100,102,108,110,111,112,114,117,120,126,132,133,135,140,144,150,152,153,156,162,171,180,190,192,195,198,200,201,204,207,209,210,216,220,222,224,225,228,230,234,240,243,247,252,261,264,266,270,280,285,288,300,306,308,312,315,320,322,324,330,333,336,342,351,360,364,370,372,375,378,392,396,399,400,402,405,407,408,410,414,420,423,432,440,441,444,448,450,460,465,468,476,480,481,486,500,504,506,510,511,512,513,516,518,522,531,540,550,552,555,558,576,588,592,594,600,603,605,612,621,624,629,630,640,644,645,648,660,666,684,690,700,702,704,711,715,720,730,732,735,736,738,756,770,774,777,780,782,792,800,801,803,804,810,820,825,828,832,840,846,864,870,874,880,882,888,900,902,910,912,915,918,935,936,954,960,966,972,990,999]
But my problem now is: from the list above I only want the numbers that will not have a "neighbour" within a gap of 5 units. For example, the number 300 will be in the new list because it's neighbors (288 and 306) are not within the 5 unit gap.
I came up it this code:
let rare = [ x | x <- [ina] , ((x-5) >= [ina-1]) && ((x+5) <= [ina+1]) ]
I'm a beginner, can someone help?
An easy, though not very efficient, way would be to make a helper function which checks whether there is an element of a list within a certain range:
hasElemInRange :: (Int,Int) -> [Int] -> Bool
hasElemInRange (lo, hi) xs = -- left as exercise
(hint: you can use the any function)
and then you can include it in your list comprehension:
let rare = [ x | x <- ina, hasElemInRange (x-5,x+5) ina ]
Another idiom that you might consider is zipping a list with its own tail. So you can do:
ghci> let xs = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7]
ghci> zip3 xs (tail xs) (tail (tail xs))
[(1,2,3),(2,3,4),(3,4,5),(4,5,6),(5,6,7)]
Which will give you each element of the list with its "context", the element just before and after. Maybe you can figure out how to use that for what you need.
Hi I am trying to implement a simple function that does this with list comprehension:
duplicate "asdf" = "assdff"
duplicate "123456" = "122344566"
and this is what I came up with
duplicate xs =
[ y | x <- xs
, i <- [0..]
, y <- if i `mod` 2 == 0
then replicate 2 x
else x ]
I wanted i to act as a counter to keep track of the position of the list, and x to hold the list.
Is there a way to make this work?
The reason yours is not working is that your else branch does not produce an list inside your function - you can easily fix the syntax issue like this:
duplicate xs =
[ y | x <- xs
, i <- [0..]
, y <- if i `mod` 2 == 0
then replicate 2 x
else [x] ]
but this would give you nothing but an endless list of the first thing in xs (because there are infinite many is)
Now my guess is that you indeed want to replicate every other element 2 times and yes zip is a great idea and you are almost there (with your comment):
just make sure that you fix the syntax/type error there as well:
duplicate xs =
[ y | (i, x) <- zip [0..] xs
, y <- if i `mod` 2 == 0
then replicate 2 x
else [x] ]
this will give you:
λ> duplicate "Hello"
"HHellloo"
which is hopefully what you are looking for
exercise
You can rewrite this into
duplicate = concat . zipWith replicate (cycle [2, 1])
try to find out how this works
Hint: it's based on the idea of: take 2 of the first, then 1 of the second, then 2 of the third, then 1 of the forth, ... - only obfuscated by Haskells higher-order function and operator zoo ;)
You can use zip to provide items with indexes:
Prelude> zip "asdf" [0..]
[('a',0),('s',1),('d',2),('f',3)]