Split a tuple into n parts - haskell

I am trying to create a function that receives a range of doubles (Double, Double) and an n (Int), where I divide this interval into n equal parts. I know that if it was a list, I did a Split in the list, but being in tuples and getting Doubles, I'm not sure what to do.
Thank you for any help

This is similar to #mschmidt's answer, but I think a list comprehension is probably clearest:
intervals :: Int -> (Double,Double) -> [(Double,Double)]
intervals n (a,b) =
let n' = fromIntegral n
d = (b - a) / n'
in [(a + i*d, a + (i+1)*d) | i <- [0..n'-1]]
giving:
> intervals 4 (1,10)
[(1.0,3.25),(3.25,5.5),(5.5,7.75),(7.75,10.0)]
>
If the duplicate calculation of the endpoint offends you, you could write:
intervals' :: Int -> (Double,Double) -> [(Double,Double)]
intervals' n (a,b) =
let n' = fromIntegral n
d = (b - a) / n'
x = [a + i*d | i <- [0..n']]
in zip x (tail x)
Note that zip x (tail x) is a pretty standard way to get tuples of consecutive pairs of a list:
> let x = [1,2,3,4] in zip x (tail x)
[(1,2),(2,3),(3,4)]
>

A rough sketch, probably not the most elegant solution:
Take the two input doubles (I call them l and u) and compute the width of the input range/interval.
You want to compute n output ranges of equal width w. Compute this w by dividing the input width by n.
Build a list of length n containing the values l+0*w, l+1*w, l+2*w, ...
Build the list of output tuples by combining the first two items in the list into a tuple. Drop one element of the list. Continue until only one element remains.
Try to catch all possible errors

Related

Convert a list of digits to a number HASKELL

I want to make a function in haskell that given a list of single digits, i make the full number. I was thinking in using intensive lists and patrons, as the code it follows:
funcion5 (x:xs) = [y*(10^w) | y <- (x:xs) w]
The idea is, to go over the list and multiplie each digit to 10 pow to the position of the number. Finally i only have to sum all digits and I have the number as this:
sum (funcion5 (x:xs))
Can anyone help me, please? Thanks
This may simply be done by folding with foldl1 :: Foldable t => (a -> a -> a) -> t a -> a as follows;
Prelude> foldl1 (\x y -> 10*x+y) [1,2,3]
123
You can use a "fold" pattern for this. We thus write this in terms of foldl :: (a -> b -> a) -> a -> [b] -> a:
function5 :: Num n => [n] -> n
function5 = foldl f 0
where f a x = ...
So here f takes two parameters a (the thus far generated number), and x the next digit.
In a positional notation system, one can obtain the value by "scanning" left-to-right and each time multiplying the thus far obtained value with the radix, and adding the next digit. So this is the logic you need to "encode" in f: taking the thus far obtained value, and the next digit, and producing the next value.
multiplos_10 = [10^x | x <- [0..]]
aux (x:xs) = sum ([a*b | (a,b) <- zip (x:xs) multiplos_10])
a_numero (x:xs) = aux (reverse(x:xs))

How can I create non-repeating palindromic numbers?

So I'm trying to do something and it's almost there I think but I can't solve the last part of it. I have to make a code where someone gives a number (let's make it 22) an I need to find all the palindromic numbers there is when I multiply two numbers smaller than 22:
Find all the palindromic numbers of a*b but a < n && b < n. but they can't repeat themselves.
I got this
calc :: Int -> [Int]
calc n = [a*b|a<-[1..n-1], b<-[a..n-1], a*b>10, reverse(show(a*b))==show(a*b)]
If we do calc 22 the result should be
[11,22,33,44,55,66,77,88,99,171,121,252,272,323]
but I'm getting
[11,22,33,44,55,66,77,88,99,171,121,252,252,272,323]
because 14x18 = 12x21 = 252.
Where did I go wrong?
Well, you have to make sure that every number is unique. There exist multiple representations for all numbers with at least three prime factors (x * y * z = (x * y) * z = x * (y * z)). So one way we could tacke this would be prime factor analysis and reasoning about them. But that's probably an overkill.
Instead, we can use a function that makes sure that every number in our sorted list is unique:
unique :: Eq a => [a] -> [a]
unique (x:y:xs) = if x == y then unique (y:xs) else x : unique (y:xs)
unique xs = xs
(Alternatively, use unique = map head . group)
Now you can use sort from Data.List and you end up with your actual calUniuqe:
calcUnique :: Int -> [Int]
calcUnique = unique . sort . calc
However, we can make calc a lot easier to read if we move the palindrome check into its own function:
isPalindrome :: Int -> Bool
isPalindrome n = n > 10 && reverse n' == n'
where n' = show n
calc :: Int -> [Int]
calc n = [a * b | a <- [1..n-1], b <- [a..n-1], isPalindrome (a * b)]

How can I produce a fixed length of numbers that sum up a given number in Haskell

I'm new to haskell world and wanted to know, given any positive integer and number of digits between 1-9 how can I find the combination of numbers that sum into the positive integer using the provided number of digits in Haskell. For example,
4 using two digits can be represented as a list of [[2,2],[3,1]] using three digits as a list of [[1,1,2]],
5 using two digits can be represented as a list of [[2,3],[4,1]] using three digits as a list of [[1,1,3],[2,2,1]]
Assuming that you want to avoid a brute-force approach, this can be regarded as a typical dynamic-programming problem:
import Data.Array
partitions :: Int -> Int -> [[Int]]
partitions m n = table ! (m, n, 9)
where
table = listArray ((1, 1, 1), (m, n, 9)) l
l = [f i j k | i <- [1 .. m], j <- [1 .. n], k <- [1 .. 9]]
f i 1 k = if i > k `min` 9 then [] else [[i]]
f i j k = [d : ds | d <- [1 .. k `min` pred i], ds <- table ! (i - d, j - 1, d)]
The idea is to construct a three-dimensional lazy array table in which a cell with index (i, j, k) contains all partitions ds of the positive integer i into lists of j digits drawn from [1 .. k] such that sum ds == i.
For example:
> partitions 4 2
[[2,2],[3,1]]
> partitions 4 3
[[2,1,1]]
> partitions 5 2
[[3,2],[4,1]]
> partitions 5 3
[[2,2,1],[3,1,1]]
If you really don't want to think about the problem, and you really should because dynamic programming is good brain food, then you can ask the computer to be smart on your behalf. For example, you could use a tool called an SMT solver to which the sbv package gives you easy access.
Encoding Partitioning in SBV
A great advantage of solvers is you merely need to express the problem and not the solution. In this case lets declare some number of integers (identified by len) which are values 1..9 that sum to a known result (sumVal):
intPartitions :: Int -> Int -> IO AllSatResult
intPartitions sumVal len = allSat $ do
xs <- mapM exists [show i | i <- [1..len]] :: Symbolic [SWord32]
mapM (constrain . (.< 10)) xs
mapM (constrain . (.> 0)) xs
return $ sum xs .== fromIntegral sumVal
Calling this function is rather simple we just have to import the right libraries and print out what are called the satisfying "models" for our problem:
import Data.SBV
import Data.List (nub,sort)
main = do
res <- intPartitions 5 3
print (nub (map sort (extractModels res :: [[Word32]])))
Notice I sorted and eliminated duplicate solutions because you didn't seem to care that [1,1,3], [3,1,1] etc were all solutions - you just want one permutation of the resulting assignments.
For these hard-coded values we have a result of:
[[1,1,3],[1,2,2]]
Well a simple brute force does the trick:
import Data.List
import Control.Monad
sums :: Int -> Int -> [[Int]]
sums number count = nub . map sort . filter ((==number) . sum) $ replicateM count [1..number+1-count]
Note that this is very inefficient. The usage of nub . map sort only shortens the result by removing doubled elements.
This is usually solved by using dynamic programming to avoid recomputing common sub-problems. But this is not the most important problem here: you need to start by coming up with the recursive algorithm! You will have plenty of time to think about producing an efficient solution once you've solved that problem. Hence this answer in two steps. The whole gist without comments is available here.
I start off by giving names to types because I'd get confused with all the Ints floating around and I consider types to be documentation. You might be more clever than I am and not need all this extra stuff.
type Target = Int
type Digits = Int
type MaxInt = Int
Now, the bruteforce solution: We're given the number of Digits left to partition a number, the Target number and the MaxInt we may use in this partition.
partitionMaxBrute :: Digits -> Target -> MaxInt -> [[Int]]
partitionMaxBrute d t m
If we have no digits left and the target is zero, we're happy!
| d == 0 && t == 0 = [[]]
If the product of Digits by MaxInt is smaller than Target or if the MaxInt itself is smaller than zero, there is no way we may succeed accumulating Digits non-zero numbers! :(
| d * m < t || m <= 0 = []
If MaxInt is bigger than our Target then we better decrease MaxInt if we want to have a solution. It does not make sense to decrease it to anything bigger than Target + 1 - Digits.
| t < m = partitionMaxBrute d t (t + 1 - d)
Finally, we may either lower MaxInt (we are not using that number) or substract MaxInt from Target and keep going (we are using MaxInt at least once):
| otherwise = partitionMaxBrute d t (m - 1)
++ fmap (m :) (partitionMaxBrute (d - 1) (t - m) m)
Given that solution, we can get our brute force partition: it's the one where the MaxInt we start with is Target + 1 - Digits which makes sense given that we are expecting a list of Digits non-zero numbers.
partitionBrute :: Digits -> Target -> [[Int]]
partitionBrute d t = partitionMaxBrute d t (t + 1 - d)
Now comes the time of memoization: dynamic programming is taking advantage of the fact that the smaller problems we solve are discovered through a lot of different paths and we do not need to recompute the answer over and over again. Easy caching is made possible by the memoize package. We simply write the same function with its recursive calls abstracted:
partitionMax :: (Digits -> Target -> MaxInt -> [[Int]]) ->
Digits -> Target -> MaxInt -> [[Int]]
partitionMax rec d t m
| d == 0 && t == 0 = [[]]
| d * m < t || m <= 0 = []
| t < m = rec d t (t + 1 - d)
| otherwise = rec d t (m - 1)
++ fmap (m :) (rec (d - 1) (t - m) m)
And make sure that we cache the values:
partition :: Digits -> Target -> [[Int]]
partition d t = memoPM d t (t + 1 - d)
where memoPM = memoize3 $ partitionMax memoPM
You can produce all partitions directly:
type Count = Int
type Max = Int
type Target = Int
partitions :: Count -> Max -> Target -> [[Int]]
partitions 0 m 0 = [[]]
partitions k m n = do
let m' = min m (n - k + 1)
d <- takeWhile (\d -> n <= k * d) [m', m' - 1 .. 1]
map (d:) $ partitions (k - 1) d (n - d)
It's easy to check, that there are no redundant cases. We just need to replace do with redundant $ do, where redundant is
redundant [] = [[]]
redundant xs = xs
If partitions (k - 1) d (n - d) returned [], then redundant would make [[]] from it, and then map (d:) $ partitions (k - 1) d (n - d) would be equal to [d]. But output doesn't change with the redundant function, so all partitions are generated directly.
The code is pretty simple and fast, since you want to produce partitions, rather than count them.

How can I filter a random Haskell list so that each element is no more than distance n apart from the next?

I'm writing a program in Haskell that generates random triads of ints in order to play them as chords using Euterpea. Here's what my list of lists looks like (obviously, it's infinite, but I'll take 10 $ chop 3 $ randInts, where chop is just a function that splits a list up into (ordered) groupings of three and randPitch simply generates ints over the interval 24 - 84):
[[27,33,48],[53,59,82],[31,49,62],[50,60,63],[51,56,79],[57,59,60],[52,63,69],[52,77,79],[32,32,37],[39,77,84]]
To learn a bit about music theory, I'm applying various filters to these triads. The one that's giving me trouble (at least to implement in Haskell, which is a new language for me) is what Dmitri Tymoczko would call "conjunct melodic notation"--i.e., melodies (in this case the top 'note' or pitch of the 3-tuple) should only move short distances.
What I want to do is write a function that recursively filters the endless list of triads such that what results is a list of triads whose top note only moves by <= n between each chord: essentially, a kind of random walk where you are only allowed to move n semitones for any one step. Here are the functions I have so far:
jumpSize :: (Num a, Ord a) => [[a]] -> [[a]]
jumpSize (_:[]) = []
jumpSize (x:y:[]) = (abs (maximum x - maximum y) : x) : []
jumpSize (x:y:zs) = (abs (maximum x - maximum y) : x) : jumpSize (y:zs)
This will prepend the distance from triad x to y at the beginning of list x. So take 5 $ jumpSize $ chop 3 $ randPitch gives me:
[[34,27,33,48],[20,53,59,82],[1,31,49,62],[16,50,60,63],[19,51,56,79]]
I tried to write a recursive function that filters out all the chords with jumps of great than n, recalculates the new jumpSizes and then applies itself again. However, I'm having trouble because this function is either crashing GHCi or giving me all sorts of problems. Structurally, I would like to still produce the chords by filtering over the random array, but I think I'm missing something about how to best do this in a functional language. Maybe I need to supply an initial generator chord? Thanks!
jumpRecur :: (Num a, Ord a) => a -> [[a]] -> [[a]]
jumpRecur n (xs)
| [x | x <- xs, head x > n] == [] = xs
| otherwise = jumpRecur n $ jumpSize $ filter (\x -> head x <= n) xs
Here's a sample output:
*Main> jumpRecur 5 $ jumpSize $ chop 3 $ take 1000 $ randPitch
[[2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,70,70,76],[1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,55,74,74],[1,1,1,1,1,1,1,5,26,28,73], [3,3,3,3,3,3,0,1,26,69,74],[5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,33,43,77],[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,47,67,82],[2,2,2,2,2,2,4,4,37,66,82],[3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,59,69,84],[4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,59,79,81],[4,4,5,5,5,5,5,5,28,69,77],[5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,54,68,73],[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,32,73,78],[5,5,5,5,5,5,1,4,52,62,78],[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,58,71,73],[3,3,3,3,3,3,4,4,25,64,73],[1,1,1,1,1,3,3,3,35,42,76],[4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,35,39,77]]
It's probably good Haskell idiom to generalize the filter, as follows:
jumpBy :: (a -> a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [a]
jumpBy ok (x:y:zs) | ok x y = x:jumpBy ok (y:zs) -- accept y & step
| otherwise = jumpBy ok (x:zs) -- reject y & retry
jumpBy _ xs = xs
If you are sure all input will be infinite lists, you don't really need that last line which handles the ends of finite lists, but it's good practice to handle all cases.
Then, use your general filter with your specific test:
jumpSize = jumpBy (\x y -> abs(maximum x - maximum y) < n)

Dovetail iteration over infinite lists in Haskell

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.

Resources