In Haskell, I'm trying to solve a problem where I need to have a function that receives a list of integers and returns the biggest product of two adjacent numbers.
Example: f [5,6,1,3,9] would return 30, that is the product of 5 and 6
The function type would be something like this:
f :: [Int] -> Int
I thought to solve that using recursion to iterate the list getting the 2 head elements with a pattern like this: (x1:x2:xs)
The problem is that I don't know how to keep the product value to compare if the current product is bigger than the last product.
Any ideas?
Since Haskell lists are lazy, you can solve this problem using a list-based approach instead of explicitly holding onto a maximum without losing efficiency. Starting with the original list:
> let f x = x
> f [5,6,1,3,9]
[5,6,1,3,9]
get a list of pairs by zipping the entire list with a left-shifted list:
> let f x = zip x (tail x)
> f [5,6,1,3,9]
[(5,6),(6,1),(1,3),(3,9)]
use the related function zipWith to get products instead of pairs:
> let f x = zipWith (*) x (tail x)
> f [5,6,1,3,9]
[30,6,3,27]
and get the maximum from that list:
> let f x = maximum (zipWith (*) x (tail x))
> f [5,6,1,3,9]
30
Related
I have a Haskell problem and I came up with a solution but I just can't put pen to paper.
Basically I have a function calc that takes in an Int and returns a Float.
calc :: Int -> Int -> Float
In my function g I want to apply this function on an array
g :: [Int] -> [Float]
Since calc takes two Int parameters I want to consume two Ints (
x being the first index of the array and x+1 being second index). This will keep repeating the function on (index of array) [1][2], [2][3], [3][4] etc.
g :: [Int] -> [Float]
g [] = ""
g (x:xs) = map calc x x+1
calc :: Int -> Int -> Float
calc current last = (current - last / last) * 100
I've tried to research online on how to use map and it basically said like this? Any idea why the code doesn't want to compile and if x+1 is even a viable?
Unary map is map but binary map is zipWith. So what's to zip together? The two copies of the same list, shifted by one position one against the other:
calc :: Int -> Int -> Float
g :: [Int] -> [Float]
g xs = zipWith calc xs (drop 1 xs)
This is all. The zipping automatically stops when the shorter sequence runs out.
zipWith foo applies foo to each pair of arguments, each argument coming from the corresponding list, one element after the other. It could be implemented using zip as
zipWith foo xs ys = map (\ (x,y) -> foo x y) $ zip xs ys
= [ foo x y | (x,y) <- zip xs ys ]
but it already does this by itself.
As an illustration, drop 1 [1,2,3] == [2,3] and this means that
zipWith calc [1, 2, 3] (drop 1 [1, 2, 3]) ==
zipWith calc [1, 2, 3]
[2, 3 ] ==
[calc 1
2,
calc 2
3]
You wanted to use indices. Indices are practically never used in Haskell with lists. We instead achieve the same effect by structural jiggling, and then when we advance along the two lists one element at a time, each operation is O(1) because the next element is already at the top of the advanced list. Whereas with the indices we'd have to traverse the same list from the top anew each time, leading to O(k) time per each one (kth) element, i.e. quadratic behavior overall.
update: taking the zipping approach leads to a possibility of code fusion,
g2 xs = zipWith calc xs (drop 1 xs)
= [calc x y | (x,y) <- zip xs (drop 1 xs)]
= [calc x y | (x:y:_) <- tails xs] -- tails ~= iterate (drop 1)
because why build a new structure to house the two consecutive elements when they already appear in a structure ... the original list structure.
Interestingly, Common Lisp has this special kind of map, a map on tails, as part of the language. While the regular map is known there as mapcar, the map on tails is known there as maplist (it's a map on non-empty tails, to be precise).
I think the best a solution is
-- Returns the empty list on empty list due to laziness of zip
g xs = uncurry calc `map` zip xs (tail xs)
-- | |- this is the list of pairs with indeces: [(1,2), (2,3), (3,4) ...]
-- |- this converts a two arguments functions on a function with single 2-tuple argument
EDIT: #Will Ness solution is actually better.
Trying to double elements of a list that are greater than 5 for example.
to double every element in a list i would do this
doubleAll n = [2*x| x <-n]
now i want to double all elements in list that are greater than 5 using list comprehensions.
So if i do this
doubleAll n = [2*x| x <-n, x>5]
My list [1,2,3,4,5] would result in to [10]. But i want my list to show [1,2,3,4,10]
Can anyone explain what i did wrong and how can this be fixed?
An interpretation of [2*x| x <-n, x>5] is:
Take the next element from n and call it x
Proceed if x>5, otherwise go to step 1
Return the value 2*x as the next element of the list.
Repeat
From this it is clear that the x>5 filters out elements of n. The expression is equivalent to:
map (\x -> 2*x) ( filter (\x -> x>5) n )
As Arthur mentioned, you want something like:
[ if x > 5 then 2*x else x | x <- n ]
It's interpretation is:
Take the next value of n and call it x
Return the value if x > 5 then 2*x else x as then next value of the list.
This is clearer to understand if you don't use list comprehensions and use the map and filter operations instead:
-- Apply a function to every element of the list.
map :: (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b]
-- Throw out list elements that don't pass the test.
filter :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [a]
Your original doubleAll is equivalent this:
-- Multiply every element of the list by two.
doubleAll xs = map (*2) xs
The version where you double only if x > 5 would be this:
-- Apply the `step` function to every element of the list. This step function
-- multiplies by two if x >= 5, otherwise it just returns its argument.
doubleAll xs = map step xs
where step x | x >= 5 = 2*x
| otherwise = x
The problem with the list comprehension version that you wrote is that it's instead equivalent to this:
-- Filter out list elements that are smaller than 5, then double the remaining ones.
doubleAll xs = map (*2) (filter (>=5) xs)
The list comprehension solution that produces the result you want would instead be this:
doubleAll xs = [if x >= 5 then x*2 else x | x <- xs]
As a more general remark, I always recommend to newcomers to stay away from list comprehensions and learn the higher-order list functions, which are more general and less magical.
Currently I am using
takeWhile (\x -> x /= 1 && x /= 89) l
to get the elements from a list up to either a 1 or 89. However, the result doesn't include these sentinel values. Does Haskell have a standard function that provides this variation on takeWhile that includes the sentinel in the result? My searches with Hoogle have been unfruitful so far.
Since you were asking about standard functions, no. But also there isn't a package containing a takeWhileInclusive, but that's really simple:
takeWhileInclusive :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [a]
takeWhileInclusive _ [] = []
takeWhileInclusive p (x:xs) = x : if p x then takeWhileInclusive p xs
else []
The only thing you need to do is to take the value regardless whether the predicate returns True and only use the predicate as a continuation factor:
*Main> takeWhileInclusive (\x -> x /= 20) [10..]
[10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20]
Is span what you want?
matching, rest = span (\x -> x /= 1 && x /= 89) l
then look at the head of rest.
The shortest way I found to achieve that is using span and adding a function before it that takes the result of span and merges the first element of the resulting tuple with the head of the second element of the resulting tuple.
The whole expression would look something like this:
(\(f,s) -> f ++ [head s]) $ span (\x -> x /= 1 && x /= 89) [82..140]
The result of this expression is
[82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89]
The first element of the tuple returned by span is the list that takeWhile would return for those parameters, and the second element is the list with the remaining values, so we just add the head from the second list to our first list.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Split list and make sum from sublist?
Im trying to solve this problem.
I need to do a sum of elements from a list which are separated from each other only with "0".
So for example I can have something like this as input: [1,2,3,0,3,4,0,2,1]
and the output should be [6,7,3].
So far I managed to do something like this:
cut (x:xs) | x > 0 = x : (cut xs)
| otherwise = []
first (xs) = ( (foldl (+) 0 (cut (xs))) ) : []
second (xs) = ( (foldl (+) 0 (cut (reverse (xs)))) ) : []
test (xs) = first(xs) ++ second(xs)
Problem is that this only works with only 1 instance of "0" in my list.
I was trying to solve this by editing my cut function:
cut [] = []
cut (x:xs) | x > 0 = foldl (+) 0 ( x : cut xs) : []
| x == 0 = (cut xs)
But I cant figure out how to adjust it, so it will separate the sums. Right now it just throws the sum of all the elements as the output.
You can divide your problem into two tasks
Split a list into parts on zeros.
Sum parts.
For the first task we have Data.List.Split module which exports splitOn function.
It does precisely what we need:
> splitOn [1] [0,0,0,1,0,0,0,1,0]
[[0,0,0],[0,0,0],[0]]
For the second task there is well-known map-function which applies a function to the each element of the list.
In our case this function is sum:
> map sum [[1,2,3],[4,5,6],[7,8,9]]
[6,15,24]
So:
> :m +Data.List.Split
> map sum . splitOn [0] $ [1,2,3,0,3,4,0,2,1]
[6,7,3]
For homework you should definitely follow dave's answer. However, here is a more advanced solution, employing groupBy as poor man's split:
import Data.List (groupBy)
map sum $ groupBy (const (/=0)) list
This might look cute, but note that there are still the zeros at the beginning of the sub-lists present, so you can't use this solution without changes if that matters (e.g if you need products instead of sums)
[Explanation]
groupBy looks if the first element of the current group "fits together" with the current element of the list. In that case the current element will be added to the group, else a new group starts. E.g.
groupBy (\x y -> x `mod` y == 0) [81,3,9,25,5]
--[[81,3,9],[25,5]]
Here the test ist successful for 81 'mod' 3 and 81 'mod' 9, but not for 81 'mod' 25, which starts a new group. Again, 25 'mod' 5 is successful.
But in our case all elements "fit" in the current group as long as they are not 0, so we don't even have to look at the first element. And if a 0 is found, a new group is started.
const (/=0) means just \_ y -> y /= 0, so regardless what the first argument is, it just tests that the second element isn't 0. To see why, look at the definition:
const :: a -> b -> a
const a _ = a
Now our lambda can be written as
\x y -> const (/= 0) x y
As from the const call only the first of the two arguments "survives", we have
\x y -> (/= 0) y
... or...
\_ y -> y /= 0
Even if you're unable to install to install the split package and use Data.List.Split as Matvey suggests, you can still use the general approach:
Split the weird list with 0 separators into a more conventional list of lists.
Sum each list.
So
yourFunction = map sum . split
Now we have to write split.
split :: [Int] -> [[Int]]
In general, when we want to pull a list apart to synthesise something new, we need to use a fold.
split = foldr cons nil where
nil here should be whatever you want split [] to be.
nil = --TODO: exercise for you; clue: NOT []
cons meanwhile combines one of your numbers, with the answer from the previous step of the fold. Obviously, you'll need to do different things depending on whether or not the number is 0.
cons 0 xss = --TODO
cons x (xs : xss) = --TODO; why will this pattern match never fail?
I am new to Haskell and I have the following problem. I have to create a list of numbers [f1, f2, f3...] where fi x = x ^ i. Then I have to create a function that applies the fi to a list of numbers. For example if I have a list lis = [4,5,6,7..] the output would be [4^1, 5^2,6^3, 7^4...]. This is what I have written so far :
powers x= [x^y |y<-[1,2,3,4]]
list = [1,2,3,4]
match :: (x -> xs) -> [x] -> [xs]
match f [] = []
match f (x:xs) = (f x) : ( match f xs )
So if I put the list = [1,2,3] the output is [1,1,1,1][2,4,8,16],[3,9,27,81] instead of [1,4,27]
Can you please tell me what is wrong and point me to the right direction?
The first issue is that powers is of type Int -> [Int]. What you really want, I think, is something of type [Int -> Int] -- a list of Int -> Int functions instead of a function that takes an Int and returns a list of Int. If you define powers like so:
powers = [(^y) | y <- [1..4]]
you can use zipWith to apply each power to its corresponding element in the list, like so:
zipWith ($) powers [1,2,3] -- returns [1,4,27]
The ($) applies its left (first) argument to its right (second) argument.
Note that using powers as defined here will limit the length of the returned list to 4. If you want to be able to use arbitrary length lists, you want to make powers an infinite list, like so:
powers = [(^y) | y <- [1..]]
Of course, as dave4420 points out, a simpler technique is to simply use
zipWith (^) [1,2,3] [1..] -- returns [1,4,27]
Your match is the standard function map by another name. You need to use zipWith instead (which you can think of as mapping over two lists side-by-side).
Is this homework?
You are currently creating a list for every input value.
What you need to do is recursively compute the appropriate
power for each input value, like this:
match f [] = []
match f (x:xs) y = (f x y) : (match f xs y+1)
Then, you can call this as match pow [1, 2, 3] 1.
This is equivalent to using zipWith and providing the desired function (pow), your input list ([1, 2, 3]) and the exponent list (a lazy one to infinity list) as arguments.