Related
I am trying to build a function that converts a Decimal(Int) into a Binary number.
Unfortunately other than in java it is not possible to divide an int by two in haskell.
I am very new to functional programming so the problem could be something trivial.
So far I could not find another solution to this problem but
here is my first try :
fromDecimal :: Int -> [Int]
fromDecimal 0 = [0]
fromDecimal n = if (mod n 2 == 0) then
do
0:fromDecimal(n/2)
else
do
1:fromDecimal(n/2)
I got an java implementation here which I did before :
public void fromDecimal(int decimal){
for (int i=0;i<values.length;i++){
if(decimal % 2 = 0)
values[i]=true ;
decimal = decimal/ 2;
else {values[i]= false;
} }
}
Hopefully this is going to help to find a solution!
There are some problems with your solution. First of all, I advise not to use do at all, until you understand what do does. Here we do not need do at all.
Unfortunately other than in java it is not possible to divide an int by two in haskell.
It actually is, but the / operator (which is in fact the (/) function), has type (/) :: Fractional a => a -> a -> a. An Int is not Fractional. You can perform integer division with div :: Integral a => a -> a -> a.
So then the code looks like:
fromDecimal :: Int -> [Int]
fromDecimal 0 = [0]
fromDecimal n = if (mod n 2 == 0) then 0:fromDecimal (div n 2) else 1:fromDecimal (div n 2)
But we can definitely make this more elegant. mod n 2 can only result in two outcomes: 0 and 1, and these are exactly the ones that we use at the left side of the (:) operator.
So we do not need to use an if-then-else at all:
fromDecimal :: Int -> [Int]
fromDecimal 0 = [0]
fromDecimal n = mod n 2 : fromDecimal (div n 2)
Likely this is still not exactly what you want: here we write the binary value such that the last element, is the most significant one. This function will add a tailing zero, which does not make a semantical difference (due to that order), but it is not elegant either.
We can define an function go that omits this zero, if the given value is not zero, like:
fromDecimal :: Int -> [Int]
fromDecimal 0 = [0]
fromDecimal n = go n
where go 0 = []
go k = mod k 2 : go (div k 2)
If we however want to write the most significant bit first (so in the same order as we write decimal numbers), then we have to reverse the outcome. We can do this by making use of an accumulator:
fromDecimal :: Int -> [Int]
fromDecimal 0 = [0]
fromDecimal n = go n []
where go 0 r = r
go k rs = go (div k 2) (mod k 2:rs)
You cannot / integers in Haskell – division is not defined in terms of integral numbers! For integral division use div function, but in your case more suitable would be divMod that comes with mod gratis.
Also, you are going to get reversed output, so you can reverse manually it after that, or use more memory-efficient version with accumulator:
decToBin :: Int -> [Int]
decToBin = go [] where
go acc 0 = acc
go acc n = let (d, m) = n `divMod` 2 in go (m : acc) d
go will give you an empty list for 0. You may add it manually if the list is empty:
decToBin = (\l -> if null l then [0] else l) . go [] where ...
Think through how your algorithm will work. It starts from 2⁰, so it will generate bits backward from how we ordinarily think of them, i.e., least-significant bit first. Your algorithm can represent non-negative binary integers only.
fromDecimal :: Int -> [Int]
fromDecimal d | d < 0 = error "Must be non-negative"
| d == 0 = [0]
| otherwise = reverse (go d)
where go 0 = []
go d = d `rem` 2 : go (d `div` 2)
In Haskell, when we generate a list in reverse, go ahead and do so but then reverse the result at the end. The reason for this is consing up a list (gluing new items at the head with :) has a constant cost and the reverse at the end has a linear cost — but appending with ++ has a quadratic cost.
Common Haskell style is to have a private inner loop named go that the outer function applies when it’s happy with its arguments. The base case is to terminate with the empty list when d reaches zero. Otherwise, we take the current remainder modulo 2 and then proceed with d halved and truncated.
Without the special case for zero, fromDecimal 0 would be the empty list rather than [0].
The binary numbers are usually strings and not really used in calculations.
Strings are also less complicated.
The pattern of binary numbers is like any other. It repeats but at a faster clip.
Only a small set is necessary to generate up to 256 (0-255) binary numbers.
The pattern can systematically be expanded for more.
The starting pattern is 4, 0-3
bd = ["00","01","10","11"]
The function to combine them into larger numbers is
d2b n = head.drop n $ [ d++e++f++g | d <- bd, e <- bd, f <- bd, g <- bd]
d2b 125
"01111101"
If it's not obvious how to expand, then
bd = ["000","001","010","011","100","101","110","111"]
Will give you up to 4096 binary digits (0-4095). All else stays the same.
If it's not obvious, the db2 function uses 4 pairs of binary numbers so 4 of the set. (2^8) - 1 or (2^12) - 1 is how many you get.
By the way, list comprehension are sugar coated do structures.
Generate the above patterns with
[ a++b | a <- ["0","1"], b <- ["0","1"] ]
["00","01","10","11"]
and
[ a++b++c | a <- ["0","1"], b <- ["0","1"], c <- ["0","1"] ]
["000","001","010","011","100","101","110","111"]
More generally, one pattern and one function may serve the purpose
b2 = ["0","1"]
b4 = [ a++b++c++d | a <- b2, b <- b2, c <- b2, d <- b2]
b4
["0000","0001","0010","0011","0100","0101","0110","0111","1000","1001","1010","1011","1100","1101","1110","1111"]
bb n = head.drop n $ [ a++b++c++d | a <- b4, b <- b4, c <- b4, d <- b4]
bb 32768
"1000000000000000"
bb 65535
"1111111111111111"
To calculate binary from decimal directly in Haskell using subtraction
cvtd n (x:xs) | x>n = 0:(cvtd n xs)
| n>x = 1:(cvtd (n-x) xs)
| True = 1:[0|f<-xs]
Use any number of bits you want, for example 10 bits.
cvtd 639 [2^e|e<-[9,8..0]]
[1,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1]
import Data.List
dec2bin x =
reverse $ binstr $ unfoldr ndiv x
where
binstr = map (\x -> "01" !! x)
exch (a,b) = (b,a)
ndiv n =
case n of
0 -> Nothing
_ -> Just $ exch $ divMod n 2
I am having trouble with the following exercise:
I must make a function named addDigit, which takes two Int's, the second one being between 0 and 9, and return an Int that is the first Int followed by the second one.
Example:
input: addDigit (-123) 4
output: -1234
what I have tried is the following :
addDigit :: Int -> Int -> Int
addDigit x y = x ++ y
I get it doesn't work because the ++ keyword only works with strings, chars and lists (i think), and this is supposed to be solved in a simple way without changing the Int's to Strings or any sort of other variables, but i have no clue at all on how to do it.
You are trying to solve the problem graphically (thinking of the integers as strings), you want to treat it as a numerical problem. For positive values, appending a digit is accomplished by the following function.
addDigitPositive a b = 10 * a + b
This will unfortunately not work if a < 0. Under those circumstances we would have to subtract b. We can incorporate this functionality easily with function guards.
addDigit a b | a < 0 = a * 10 - b
| otherwise = a * 10 + b
Or you could solve it graphically, by converting the numbers to strings using show and then concatenating them with (++):
addDigit :: Int -> Int -> String
addDigit x y = (show x) ++ (show y)
Now, if you still want an Int as the output, you can convert the string to an Int using read:
addDigit :: Int -> Int -> Int
addDigit x y = read ((show x) ++ (show y))
As you can see, there is more than one way to skin a cat.
I hope this helps.
I have some natural number c. I want to find all pairs of natural numbers a and b, where a < b, such as a * b = c.
I have a solution:
solve c = do solveHelper [1..c] c where
solveHelper xs c = do
x <- xs
(division, modulo ) <- return (c `divMod` x)
True <- return (modulo == 0)
True <- return (x <= division)
return (x, division)
Example:
*Main> solve 10
[(1,10),(2,5)]
Is there a way to accelerate my code, or a better algorithm I should use?
You can do much, much better. The basic idea is this: first, factorize the number; then enumerate the partitions of the factorization. The product of each partition is a solution. There are fast factorization algorithms out there, but even the naive one is quite an improvement on your code; so:
factorize :: Integer -> [Integer]
factorize n
| n < 1 = error "no. =("
| otherwise = go 2 n
where
go p n | p * p > n = [n]
go p n = case quotRem n p of
(q, 0) -> p:go p q
_ -> go (p+1) n
I will use the very nice multiset-comb package to compute partitions of the set of factors. It doesn't support the usual Foldable/Traversable stuff out of the box, so we have to roll our own product operation -- but in fact this can be a bit more efficient than using the product that the standard interface would give us anyway.
import Math.Combinatorics.Multiset
productMS :: Multiset Integer -> Integer
productMS (MS cs) = product [n^p | (n, p) <- cs]
divisors :: Integer -> [(Integer, Integer)]
divisors n =
[ (a, b)
| (aMS, bMS) <- splits (fromList (factorize n))
, let a = productMS aMS; b = productMS bMS
, a <= b
]
For unfair timings, we can compare in ghci:
*Main> :set +s
*Main> length $ solve (product [1..10])
135
(3.55 secs, 2,884,836,952 bytes)
*Main> length $ divisors (product [1..10])
135
(0.00 secs, 4,612,104 bytes)
*Main> length $ solve (product [1..15])
^CInterrupted. [after several minutes, I gave up]
*Main> length $ divisors (product [1..15])
2016
(0.03 secs, 33,823,168 bytes)
Here solve is your solution, divisors is mine. For a fair comparison, we should compile; I used this program:
main = print . last . solve . product $ [1..11]
(And similar with divisors in place of solve.) I compiled with -O2; yours used 1.367s total, mine 0.002s total.
There's one optimization you don't use: you don't have to try every value from 0 to c.
a < b and a * b = c, so a * a < c, meaning you only have to try numbers from 0 to sqrt c. Or, if you don't want to compute the square root of c, you can stop as soon as a * a >= c.
To do so, you can replace [1..c] by (takeWhile (\x -> x * x < c) [1..]).
I want to reverse an Integer in Haskell with recursion. I have a small issue.
Here is the code :
reverseInt :: Integer -> Integer
reverseInt n
| n>0 = (mod n 10)*10 + reverseInt(div n 10)
| otherwise = 0
Example 345
I use as input 345 and I want to output 543
In my program it will do....
reverseInt 345
345>0
mod 345 10 -> 5
reverseInt 34
34
34>0
mod 34 10 -> 4
reverseInt 3
3>0
mod 3 10 -> 3
reverseInt 0
0=0 (ends)
And at the end it returns the sum of them... 5+4+3 = 12.
So I want each time before it sums them, to multiple the sum * 10. So it will go...
5
5*10 + 4
54*10 + 3
543
Here's a relatively simple one:
reverseInt :: Int -> Int
reverseInt 0 = 0
reverseInt n = firstDigit + 10 * (reverseInt $ n - firstDigit * 10^place)
where
n' = fromIntegral n
place = (floor . logBase 10) n'
firstDigit = n `div` 10^place
Basically,
You take the logBase 10 of your input integer, to give you in what place it is (10s, 100s, 1000s...)
Because the previous calculation gives you a floating point number, of which we do not need the decimals, we use the floor function to truncate everything after the decimal.
We determine the first digit of the number by doing n 'div' 10^place. For example, if we had 543, we'd find place to be 2, so firstDigit = 543/100 = 5 (integer division)
We use this value, and add it to 10 * the reverse of the 'rest' of the integer, in this case, 43.
Edit: Perhaps an even more concise and understandable version might be:
reverseInt :: Int -> Int
reverseInt 0 = 0
reverseInt n = mod n 10 * 10^place + reverseInt (div n 10)
where
n' = fromIntegral n
place = (floor . logBase 10) n'
This time, instead of recursing through the first digit, we're recursing through the last one and using place to give it the right number of zeroes.
reverseInt :: Integer -> Integer
reverseInt n = snd $ rev n
where
rev x
| x>0 = let (a,b) = rev(div x 10)
in ((a*10), (mod x 10)*a + b)
| otherwise = (1,0)
Explanation left to reader :)
I don't know convenient way to found how many times you should multiply (mod n 10) on 10 in your 3rd line. I like solution with unfoldr more:
import Data.List
listify = unfoldr (\ x -> case x of
_ | x <= 0 -> Nothing
_ -> Just(mod x 10, div x 10) )
reverse_n n = foldl (\ acc x -> acc*10+x) 0 (listify n)
In listify function we generate list of numbers from integer in reverse order and after that we build result simple folding a list.
Or just convert it to a string, reverse it and convert it back to an integer:
reverseInt :: Integer -> Integer
reverseInt = read . reverse . show
More (not necessarily recursion based) answers for great good!
reverseInt 0 = 0
reverseInt x = foldl (\x y -> 10*x + y) 0 $ numToList x
where
numToList x = if x == 0 then [] else (x `rem` 10) : numToList (x `div` 10)
This is basically the concatenation of two functions : numToList (convert a given integer to a list 123 -> [1,2,3]) and listToNum (do the opposite).
The numToList function works by repeatedly getting the lowest unit of the number (using rem, Haskell's remainder function), and then chops it off (using div, Haskell's integer division function). Once the number is 0, the empty list is returned and the result concatenates into the final list. Keep in mind that this list is in reverse order!
The listToNum function (not seen) is quite a sexy piece of code:
foldl (\x y -> 10*x + y) 0 xs
This starts from the left and moves to the right, multiplying the current value at each step by 10 and then adding the next number to it.
I know the answer has already been given, but it's always nice to see alternative solutions :)
The first function is recursive to convert the integer to a list. It was originally reversing but the re-conversion function reversed easier so I took it out of the first. The functions can be run separately. The first outputs a tuple pair. The second takes a tuple pair. The second is not recursive nor did it need to be.
di 0 ls = (ls,sum ls); di n ls = di nn $ d:ls where (nn,d) = divMod n 10
di 3456789 []
([3,4,5,6,7,8,9],42)
rec (ls,n) = (sum [y*(10^x)|(x,y) <- zip [0..] ls ],n)
Run both as
rec $ di 3456789 []
(9876543,42)
Here is my first Haskell program. What parts would you write in a better way?
-- Multiplication table
-- Returns n*n multiplication table in base b
import Text.Printf
import Data.List
import Data.Char
-- Returns n*n multiplication table in base b
mulTable :: Int -> Int -> String
mulTable n b = foldl (++) (verticalHeader n b w) (map (line n b w) [0..n])
where
lo = 2* (logBase (fromIntegral b) (fromIntegral n))
w = 1+fromInteger (floor lo)
verticalHeader :: Int -> Int -> Int -> String
verticalHeader n b w = (foldl (++) tableHeader columnHeaders)
++ "\n"
++ minusSignLine
++ "\n"
where
tableHeader = replicate (w+2) ' '
columnHeaders = map (horizontalHeader b w) [0..n]
minusSignLine = concat ( replicate ((w+1)* (n+2)) "-" )
horizontalHeader :: Int -> Int -> Int -> String
horizontalHeader b w i = format i b w
line :: Int -> Int -> Int -> Int -> String
line n b w y = (foldl (++) ((format y b w) ++ "|" )
(map (element b w y) [0..n])) ++ "\n"
element :: Int -> Int -> Int -> Int -> String
element b w y x = format (y * x) b w
toBase :: Int -> Int -> [Int]
toBase b v = toBase' [] v where
toBase' a 0 = a
toBase' a v = toBase' (r:a) q where (q,r) = v `divMod` b
toAlphaDigits :: [Int] -> String
toAlphaDigits = map convert where
convert n | n < 10 = chr (n + ord '0')
| otherwise = chr (n + ord 'a' - 10)
format :: Int -> Int -> Int -> String
format v b w = concat spaces ++ digits ++ " "
where
digits = if v == 0
then "0"
else toAlphaDigits ( toBase b v )
l = length digits
spaceCount = if (l > w) then 0 else (w-l)
spaces = replicate spaceCount " "
Here are some suggestions:
To make the tabularity of the computation more obvious, I would pass the list [0..n] to the line function rather than passing n.
I would further split out the computation of the horizontal and vertical axes so that they are passed as arguments to mulTable rather than computed there.
Haskell is higher-order, and almost none of the computation has to do with multiplication. So I would change the name of mulTable to binopTable and pass the actual multiplication in as a parameter.
Finally, the formatting of individual numbers is repetitious. Why not pass \x -> format x b w as a parameter, eliminating the need for b and w?
The net effect of the changes I am suggesting is that you build a general higher-order function for creating tables for binary operators. Its type becomes something like
binopTable :: (i -> String) -> (i -> i -> i) -> [i] -> [i] -> String
and you wind up with a much more reusable function—for example, Boolean truth tables should be a piece of cake.
Higher-order and reusable is the Haskell Way.
You don't use anything from import Text.Printf.
Stylistically, you use more parentheses than necessary. Haskellers tend to find code more readable when it's cleaned of extraneous stuff like that. Instead of something like h x = f (g x), write h = f . g.
Nothing here really requires Int; (Integral a) => a ought to do.
foldl (++) x xs == concat $ x : xs: I trust the built-in concat to work better than your implementation.
Also, you should prefer foldr when the function is lazy in its second argument, as (++) is – because Haskell is lazy, this reduces stack space (and also works on infinite lists).
Also, unwords and unlines are shortcuts for intercalate " " and concat . map (++ "\n") respectively, i.e. "join with spaces" and "join with newlines (plus trailing newline)"; you can replace a couple things by those.
Unless you use big numbers, w = length $ takeWhile (<= n) $ iterate (* b) 1 is probably faster. Or, in the case of a lazy programmer, let w = length $ toBase b n.
concat ( (replicate ((w+1)* (n+2)) "-" ) == replicate ((w+1) * (n+2)) '-' – not sure how you missed this one, you got it right just a couple lines up.
You do the same thing with concat spaces, too. However, wouldn't it be easier to actually use the Text.Printf import and write printf "%*s " w digits?
Norman Ramsey gave excellent high-level (design) suggestions; Below are some low-level ones:
First, consult with HLint. HLint is a friendly program that gives you rudimentary advice on how to improve your Haskell code!
In your case HLint gives 7 suggestions. (mostly about redundant brackets)
Modify your code according to HLint's suggestions until it likes what you feed it.
More HLint-like stuff:
concat (replicate i "-"). Why not replicate i '-'?
Consult with Hoogle whenever there is reason to believe that a function you need is already available in Haskell's libraries. Haskell comes with tons of useful functions so Hoogle should come in handy quite often.
Need to concatenate strings? Search for [String] -> String, and voila you found concat. Now go replace all those folds.
The previous search also suggested unlines. Actually, this even better suits your needs. It's magic!
Optional: pause and thank in your heart to Neil M for making Hoogle and HLint, and thank others for making other good stuff like Haskell, bridges, tennis balls, and sanitation.
Now, for every function that takes several arguments of the same type, make it clear which means what, by giving them descriptive names. This is better than comments, but you can still use both.
So
-- Returns n*n multiplication table in base b
mulTable :: Int -> Int -> String
mulTable n b =
becomes
mulTable :: Int -> Int -> String
mulTable size base =
To soften the extra characters blow of the previous suggestion: When a function is only used once, and is not very useful by itself, put it inside its caller's scope in its where clause, where it could use the callers' variables, saving you the need to pass everything to it.
So
line :: Int -> Int -> Int -> Int -> String
line n b w y =
concat
$ format y b w
: "|"
: map (element b w y) [0 .. n]
element :: Int -> Int -> Int -> Int -> String
element b w y x = format (y * x) b w
becomes
line :: Int -> Int -> Int -> Int -> String
line n b w y =
concat
$ format y b w
: "|"
: map element [0 .. n]
where
element x = format (y * x) b w
You can even move line into mulTable's where clause; imho, you should.
If you find a where clause nested inside another where clause troubling, then I suggest to change your indentation habits. My recommendation is to use consistent indentation of always 2 or always 4 spaces. Then you can easily see, everywhere, where the where in the other where is at. ok
Below's what it looks like (with a few other changes in style):
import Data.List
import Data.Char
mulTable :: Int -> Int -> String
mulTable size base =
unlines $
[ vertHeaders
, minusSignsLine
] ++ map line [0 .. size]
where
vertHeaders =
concat
$ replicate (cellWidth + 2) ' '
: map horizontalHeader [0 .. size]
horizontalHeader i = format i base cellWidth
minusSignsLine = replicate ((cellWidth + 1) * (size + 2)) '-'
cellWidth = length $ toBase base (size * size)
line y =
concat
$ format y base cellWidth
: "|"
: map element [0 .. size]
where
element x = format (y * x) base cellWidth
toBase :: Integral i => i -> i -> [i]
toBase base
= reverse
. map (`mod` base)
. takeWhile (> 0)
. iterate (`div` base)
toAlphaDigit :: Int -> Char
toAlphaDigit n
| n < 10 = chr (n + ord '0')
| otherwise = chr (n + ord 'a' - 10)
format :: Int -> Int -> Int -> String
format v b w =
spaces ++ digits ++ " "
where
digits
| v == 0 = "0"
| otherwise = map toAlphaDigit (toBase b v)
spaces = replicate (w - length digits) ' '
0) add a main function :-) at least rudimentary
import System.Environment (getArgs)
import Control.Monad (liftM)
main :: IO ()
main = do
args <- liftM (map read) $ getArgs
case args of
(n:b:_) -> putStrLn $ mulTable n b
_ -> putStrLn "usage: nntable n base"
1) run ghc or runhaskell with -Wall; run through hlint.
While hlint doesn't suggest anything special here (only some redundant brackets), ghc will tell you that you don't actually need Text.Printf here...
2) try running it with base = 1 or base = 0 or base = -1
If you want multiline comments use:
{- A multiline
comment -}
Also, never use foldl, use foldl' instead, in cases where you are dealing with large lists which must be folded. It is more memory efficient.
A brief comments saying what each function does, its arguments and return value, is always good. I had to read the code pretty carefully to fully make sense of it.
Some would say if you do that, explicit type signatures may not be required. That's an aesthetic question, I don't have a strong opinion on it.
One minor caveat: if you do remove the type signatures, you'll automatically get the polymorphic Integral support ephemient mentioned, but you will still need one around toAlphaDigits because of the infamous "monomorphism restriction."