Related
If I create a infinite list like this:
let t xs = xs ++ [sum(xs)]
let xs = [1,2] : map (t) xs
take 10 xs
I will get this result:
[
[1,2],
[1,2,3],
[1,2,3,6],
[1,2,3,6,12],
[1,2,3,6,12,24],
[1,2,3,6,12,24,48],
[1,2,3,6,12,24,48,96],
[1,2,3,6,12,24,48,96,192],
[1,2,3,6,12,24,48,96,192,384],
[1,2,3,6,12,24,48,96,192,384,768]
]
This is pretty close to what I am trying to do.
This current code uses the last value to define the next. But, instead of a list of lists, I would like to know some way to make an infinite list that uses all the previous values to define the new one.
So the output would be only
[1,2,3,6,12,24,48,96,192,384,768,1536,...]
I have the definition of the first element [1].
I have the rule of getting a new element, sum all the previous elements.
But, I could not put this in the Haskell grammar to create the infinite list.
Using my current code, I could take the list that I need, using the command:
xs !! 10
> [1,2,3,6,12,24,48,96,192,384,768,1536]
But, it seems to me, that it is possible doing this in some more efficient way.
Some Notes
I understand that, for this particular example, that was intentionally oversimplified, we could create a function that uses only the last value to define the next.
But, I am searching if it is possible to read all the previous values into an infinite list definition.
I am sorry if the example that I used created some confusion.
Here another example, that is not possible to fix using reading only the last value:
isMultipleByList :: Integer -> [Integer] -> Bool
isMultipleByList _ [] = False
isMultipleByList v (x:xs) = if (mod v x == 0)
then True
else (isMultipleByList v xs)
nextNotMultipleLoop :: Integer -> Integer -> [Integer] -> Integer
nextNotMultipleLoop step v xs = if not (isMultipleByList v xs)
then v
else nextNotMultipleLoop step (v + step) xs
nextNotMultiple :: [Integer] -> Integer
nextNotMultiple xs = if xs == [2]
then nextNotMultipleLoop 1 (maximum xs) xs
else nextNotMultipleLoop 2 (maximum xs) xs
addNextNotMultiple xs = xs ++ [nextNotMultiple xs]
infinitePrimeList = [2] : map (addNextNotMultiple) infinitePrimeList
take 10 infinitePrimeList
[
[2,3],
[2,3,5],
[2,3,5,7],
[2,3,5,7,11],
[2,3,5,7,11,13],
[2,3,5,7,11,13,17],
[2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19],
[2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23],
[2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23,29],
[2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23,29,31]
]
infinitePrimeList !! 10
[2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23,29,31,37]
You can think so:
You want to create a list (call them a) which starts on [1,2]:
a = [1,2] ++ ???
... and have this property: each next element in a is a sum of all previous elements in a. So you can write
scanl1 (+) a
and get a new list, in which any element with index n is sum of n first elements of list a. So, it is [1, 3, 6 ...]. All you need is take all elements without first:
tail (scanl1 (+) a)
So, you can define a as:
a = [1,2] ++ tail (scanl1 (+) a)
This way of thought you can apply with other similar problems of definition list through its elements.
If we already had the final result, calculating the list of previous elements for a given element would be easy, a simple application of the inits function.
Let's assume we already have the final result xs, and use it to compute xs itself:
import Data.List (inits)
main :: IO ()
main = do
let is = drop 2 $ inits xs
xs = 1 : 2 : map sum is
print $ take 10 xs
This produces the list
[1,2,3,6,12,24,48,96,192,384]
(Note: this is less efficient than SergeyKuz1001's solution, because the sum is re-calculated each time.)
unfoldr has a quite nice flexibility to adapt to various "create-a-list-from-initial-conditions"-problems so I think it is worth mentioning.
A little less elegant for this specific case, but shows how unfoldr can be used.
import Data.List
nextVal as = Just (s,as++[s])
where s = sum as
initList = [1,2]
myList =initList ++ ( unfoldr nextVal initList)
main = putStrLn . show . (take 12) $ myList
Yielding
[1,2,3,6,12,24,48,96,192,384,768,1536]
in the end.
As pointed out in the comment, one should think a little when using unfoldr. The way I've written it above, the code mimicks the code in the original question. However, this means that the accumulator is updated with as++[s], thus constructing a new list at every iteration. A quick run at https://repl.it/languages/haskell suggests it becomes quite memory intensive and slow. (4.5 seconds to access the 2000nd element in myList
Simply swapping the acumulator update to a:as produced a 7-fold speed increase. Since the same list can be reused as accumulator in every step it goes faster. However, the accumulator list is now in reverse, so one needs to think a little bit. In the case of predicate function sum this makes no differece, but if the order of the list matters, one must think a little bit extra.
You could define it like this:
xs = 1:2:iterate (*2) 3
For example:
Prelude> take 12 xs
[1,2,3,6,12,24,48,96,192,384,768,1536]
So here's my take. I tried not to create O(n) extra lists.
explode ∷ Integral i ⇒ (i ->[a] -> a) -> [a] -> [a]
explode fn init = as where
as = init ++ [fn i as | i <- [l, l+1..]]
l = genericLength init
This convenience function does create additional lists (by take). Hopefully they can be optimised away by the compiler.
explode' f = explode (\x as -> f $ take x as)
Usage examples:
myList = explode' sum [1,2]
sum' 0 xs = 0
sum' n (x:xs) = x + sum' (n-1) xs
myList2 = explode sum' [1,2]
In my tests there's little performance difference between the two functions. explode' is often slightly better.
The solution from #LudvigH is very nice and clear. But, it was not faster.
I am still working on the benchmark to compare the other options.
For now, this is the best solution that I could find:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- # infinite sum of the previous using fuse
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
recursiveSum xs = [nextValue] ++ (recursiveSum (nextList)) where
nextValue = sum(xs)
nextList = xs ++ [nextValue]
initialSumValues = [1]
infiniteSumFuse = initialSumValues ++ recursiveSum initialSumValues
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- # infinite prime list using fuse
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- calculate the current value based in the current list
-- call the same function with the new combined value
recursivePrimeList xs = [nextValue] ++ (recursivePrimeList (nextList)) where
nextValue = nextNonMultiple(xs)
nextList = xs ++ [nextValue]
initialPrimes = [2]
infiniteFusePrimeList = initialPrimes ++ recursivePrimeList initialPrimes
This approach is fast and makes good use of many cores.
Maybe there is some faster solution, but I decided to post this to share my current progress on this subject so far.
In general, define
xs = x1 : zipWith f xs (inits xs)
Then it's xs == x1 : f x1 [] : f x2 [x1] : f x3 [x1, x2] : ...., and so on.
Here's one example of using inits in the context of computing the infinite list of primes, which pairs them up as
ps = 2 : f p1 [p1] : f p2 [p1,p2] : f p3 [p1,p2,p3] : ...
(in the definition of primes5 there).
I need a function to double every other number in a list. This does the trick:
doubleEveryOther :: [Integer] -> [Integer]
doubleEveryOther [] = []
doubleEveryOther (x:[]) = [x]
doubleEveryOther (x:(y:zs)) = x : 2 * y : doubleEveryOther zs
However, the catch is that I need to double every other number starting from the right - so if the length of the list is even, the first one will be doubled, etc.
I understand that in Haskell it's tricky to operate on lists backwards, so my plan was to reverse the list, apply my function, then output the reverse again. I have a reverseList function:
reverseList :: [Integer] -> [Integer]
reverseList [] = []
reverseList xs = last xs : reverseList (init xs)
But I'm not quite sure how to implant it inside my original function. I got to something like this:
doubleEveryOther :: [Integer] -> [Integer]
doubleEveryOther [] = []
doubleEveryOther (x:[]) = [x]
doubleEveryOther (x:(y:zs)) =
| rev_list = reverseList (x:(y:zs))
| rev_list = [2 * x, y] ++ doubleEveryOther zs
I'm not exactly sure of the syntax of a function that includes intermediate values like this.
In case it's relevant, this is for Exercise 2 in CIS 194 HW 1.
This is a very simple combination of the two functions you've already created:
doubleEveryOtherFromRight = reverseList . doubleEveryOther . reverseList
Note that your reverseList is actually already defined in the standard Prelude as reverse. so you didn't need to define it yourself.
I'm aware that the above solution isn't very efficient, because both uses of reverse need to pass through the entire list. I'll leave it to others to suggest more efficient versions, but hopefully this illustrates the power of function composition to build more complex computations out of simpler ones.
As Lorenzo points out, you can make one pass to determine if the list has an odd or even length, then a second pass to actually construct the new list. It might be simpler, though, to separate the two tasks.
doubleFromRight ls = zipWith ($) (cycle fs) ls -- [f0 ls0, f1 ls1, f2 ls2, ...]
where fs = if odd (length ls)
then [(*2), id]
else [id, (*2)]
So how does this work? First, we observe that to create the final result, we need to apply one of two function (id or (*2)) to each element of ls. zipWith can do that if we have a list of appropriate functions. The interesting part of its definition is basically
zipWith f (x:xs) (y:ys) = f x y : zipWith f xs ys
When f is ($), we're just applying a function from one list to the corresponding element in the other list.
We want to zip ls with an infinite alternating list of id and (*2). The question is, which function should that list start with? It should always end with (*2), so the starting item is determined by the length of ls. An odd-length requires us to start with (*2); an even one, id.
Most of the other solutions show you how to either use the building blocks you already have or building blocks available in the standard library to build your function. I think it's also instructive to see how you might build it from scratch, so in this answer I discuss one idea for that.
Here's the plan: we're going to walk all the way to the end of the list, then walk back to the front. We'll build our new list during our walk back from the end. The way we'll build it as we walk back is by alternating between (multiplicative) factors of 1 and 2, multiplying our current element by our current factor and then swapping factors for the next step. At the end we'll return both the final factor and the new list. So:
doubleFromRight_ :: Num a => [a] -> (a, [a])
doubleFromRight_ [] = (1, [])
doubleFromRight_ (x:xs) =
-- not at the end yet, keep walking
let (factor, xs') = doubleFromRight_ xs
-- on our way back to the front now
in (3-factor, factor*x:xs')
If you like, you can write a small wrapper that throws away the factor at the end.
doubleFromRight :: Num a => [a] -> [a]
doubleFromRight = snd . doubleFromRight_
In ghci:
> doubleFromRight [1..5]
[1,4,3,8,5]
> doubleFromRight [1..6]
[2,2,6,4,10,6]
Modern practice would be to hide the helper function doubleFromRight_ inside a where block in doubleFromRight; and since the slightly modified name doesn't actually tell you anything new, we'll use the community standard name internally. Those two changes might land you here:
doubleFromRight :: Num a => [a] -> [a]
doubleFromRight = snd . go where
go [] = (1, [])
go (x:xs) = let (factor, xs') = go xs in (3-factor, factor*x:xs')
An advanced Haskeller might then notice that go fits into the shape of a fold and write this:
doubleFromRight :: Num a => [a] -> [a]
doubleFromRight = snd . foldr (\x (factor, xs) -> (3-factor, factor*x:xs)) (1,[])
But I think it's perfectly fine in this case to stop one step earlier with the explicit recursion; it may even be more readable in this case!
If we really want to avoid calculating the length, we can define
doubleFromRight :: Num a => [a] -> [a]
doubleFromRight xs = zipWith ($)
(foldl' (\a _ -> drop 1 a) (cycle [(2*), id]) xs)
xs
This pairs up the input list with the cycled infinite list of functions, [(*2), id, (*2), id, .... ]. then it skips along them both. when the first list is finished, the second is in the appropriate state to be - again - applied, pairwise, - on the second! This time, for real.
So in effect it does measure the length (of course), it just doesn't count in integers but in the list elements so to speak.
If the length of the list is even, the first element will be doubled, otherwise the second, as you've specified in the question:
> doubleFromRight [1..4]
[2,2,6,4]
> doubleFromRight [1..5]
[1,4,3,8,5]
The foldl' function processes the list left-to-right. Its type is
foldl' :: (b -> a -> b) -> b -> [a] -> b
-- reducer_func acc xs result
Whenever you have to work on consecutive terms in a list, zip with a list comprehension is an easy way to go. It takes two lists and returns a list of tuples, so you can either zip the list with its tail or make it indexed. What i mean is
doubleFromRight :: [Int] -> [Int]
doubleFromRight ls = [if (odd i == oddness) then 2*x else x | (i,x) <- zip [1..] ls]
where
oddness = odd . length $ ls
This way you count every element, starting from 1 and if the index has the same parity as the last element in the list (both odd or both even), then you double the element, else you leave it as is.
I am not 100% sure this is more efficient, though, if anyone could point it out in the comments that would be great
How can I improve the the following rolling sum implementation?
type Buffer = State BufferState (Maybe Double)
type BufferState = ( [Double] , Int, Int )
-- circular buffer
buff :: Double -> Buffer
buff newVal = do
( list, ptr, len) <- get
-- if the list is not full yet just accumulate the new value
if length list < len
then do
put ( newVal : list , ptr, len)
return Nothing
else do
let nptr = (ptr - 1) `mod` len
(as,(v:bs)) = splitAt ptr list
nlist = as ++ (newVal : bs)
put (nlist, nptr, len)
return $ Just v
-- create intial state for circular buffer
initBuff l = ( [] , l-1 , l)
-- use the circular buffer to calculate a rolling sum
rollSum :: Double -> State (Double,BufferState) (Maybe Double)
rollSum newVal = do
(acc,bState) <- get
let (lv , bState' ) = runState (buff newVal) bState
acc' = acc + newVal
-- subtract the old value if the circular buffer is full
case lv of
Just x -> put ( acc' - x , bState') >> (return $ Just (acc' - x))
Nothing -> put ( acc' , bState') >> return Nothing
test :: (Double,BufferState) -> [Double] -> [Maybe Double] -> [Maybe Double]
test state [] acc = acc
test state (x:xs) acc =
let (a,s) = runState (rollSum x) state
in test s xs (a:acc)
main :: IO()
main = print $ test (0,initBuff 3) [1,1,1,2,2,0] []
Buffer uses the State monad to implement a circular buffer. rollSum uses the State monad again to keep track of the rolling sum value and the state of the circular buffer.
How could I make this more elegant?
I'd like to implement other functions like rolling average or a difference, what could I do to make this easy?
Thanks!
EDIT
I forgot to mention I am using a circular buffer as I intend to use this code on-line and process updates as they arrive - hence the need to record state. Something like
newRollingSum = update rollingSum newValue
I haven't managed to decipher all of your code, but here is the plan I would take for solving this problem. First, an English description of the plan:
We need windows into the list of length n starting at each index.
Make windows of arbitrary length.
Truncate long windows to length n.
Drop the last n-1 of these, which will be too short.
For each window, add up the entries.
This was the first idea I had; for windows of length three it's an okay approach because step 2 is cheap on such a short list. For longer windows, you may want an alternate approach, which I will discuss below; but this approach has the benefit that it generalizes smoothly to functions other than sum. The code might look like this:
import Data.List
rollingSums n xs
= map sum -- add up the entries
. zipWith (flip const) (drop (n-1) xs) -- drop the last n-1
. map (take n) -- truncate long windows
. tails -- make arbitrarily long windows
$ xs
If you're familiar with the "equational reasoning" approach to optimization, you might spot a first place we can improve the performance of this function: by swapping the first map and zipWith, we can produce a function with the same behavior but with a map f . map g subterm, which can be replaced by map (f . g) to get slightly less allocation.
Unfortunately, for large n, this adds n numbers together in the inner loop; we would prefer to simply add the value at the "front" of the window and subtract the one at the "back". So we need to get trickier. Here's a new idea: we'll traverse the list twice in parallel, n positions apart. Then we'll use a simple function for getting the rolling sum (of unbounded window length) of prefixes of a list, namely, scanl (+), to convert this traversal into the actual sums we're interested in.
rollingSumsEfficient n xs = scanl (+) firstSum deltas where
firstSum = sum (take n xs)
deltas = zipWith (-) (drop n xs) xs -- front - back
There's one twist, which is that scanl never returns an empty list. So if it's important that you be able to handle short lists, you'll want another equation that checks for these. Don't use length, as that forces the entire input list into memory before starting the computation -- a potentially lethal performance mistake. Instead add a line like this above the previous definition:
rollingSumsEfficient n xs | null (drop (n-1) xs) = []
We can try these two out in ghci. You'll notice that they do not quite have the same behavior as yours:
*Main> rollingSums 3 [10^n | n <- [0..5]]
[111,1110,11100,111000]
*Main> rollingSumsEfficient 3 [10^n | n <- [0..5]]
[111,1110,11100,111000]
On the other hand, the implementations are considerably more concise and are fully lazy in the sense that they work on infinite lists:
*Main> take 5 . rollingSums 10 $ [1..]
[55,65,75,85,95]
*Main> take 5 . rollingSumsEfficient 10 $ [1..]
[55,65,75,85,95]
Efficient implementation for rolling sum in haskell-
rollingSums :: Num a => Int -> [a] -> Maybe [a]
rollingSums n xs | n <= 0 = Nothing
| otherwise = Just $ if length as == n then go (sum as) xs bs else []
where
(as, bs) = splitAt n xs
go s xs [] = [s]
go s xs (y:ys) = s : go (s + y - head xs) (tail xs) ys
Asuming that - sum((i+1)...(i+1+n)) = sum(i..(i+n)) - arr[i] + arr[i+n+1]
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.
im searching for a solution for my Haskell class.
I have a list of numbers and i need to return SUM for every part of list. Parts are divided by 0. I need to use FOLDL function.
Example:
initial list: [1,2,3,0,3,4,0,5,2,1]
sublist [[1,2,3],[3,4],[5,2,1]]
result [6,7,7]
I have a function for finding 0 in initial list:
findPos list = [index+1 | (index, e) <- zip [0..] list, e == 0]
(returns [4,6] for initial list from example)
and function for making SUM with FOLDL:
sumList list = foldl (+) 0 list
But I completely failed to put it together :/
---- MY SOLUTION
In the end I found something completely different that you guys suggested.
Took me whole day to make it :/
groups :: [Int] -> [Int]
groups list = [sum x | x <- makelist list]
makelist :: [Int] -> [[Int]]
makelist xs = reverse (foldl (\acc x -> zero x acc) [[]] xs)
zero :: Int -> [[Int]] -> [[Int]]
zero x acc | x == 0 = addnewtolist acc
| otherwise = addtolist x acc
addtolist :: Int -> [[Int]] -> [[Int]]
addtolist i listlist = (i : (head listlist)) : (drop 1 listlist)
addnewtolist :: [[Int]] -> [[Int]]
addnewtolist listlist = [] : listlist
I'm going to give you some hints, rather than a complete solution, since this sounds like it may be a homework assignment.
I like the breakdown of steps you've suggested. For the first step (going from a list of numbers with zero markers to a list of lists), I suggest doing an explicit recursion; try this for a template:
splits [] = {- ... -}
splits (0:xs) = {- ... -}
splits (x:xs) = {- ... -}
You can also abuse groupBy if you're careful.
For the second step, it looks like you're almost there; the last step you need is to take a look at the map :: (a -> b) -> ([a] -> [b]) function, which takes a normal function and runs it on each element of a list.
As a bonus exercise, you might want to think about how you might do the whole thing in one shot as a single fold. It's possible -- and even not too difficult, if you track through what the types of the various arguments to foldr/foldl would have to be!
Additions since the question changed:
Since it looks like you've worked out a solution, I now feel comfortable giving some spoilers. =)
I suggested two possible implementations; one that goes step-by-step, as you suggested, and another that goes all at once. The step-by-step one could look like this:
splits [] = []
splits (0:xs) = [] : splits xs
splits (x:xs) = case splits xs of
[] -> [[x]]
(ys:yss) -> ((x:ys):yss)
groups' = map sum . splits
Or like this:
splits' = groupBy (\x y -> y /= 0)
groups'' = map sum . splits'
The all-at-once version might look like this:
accumulate 0 xs = 0:xs
accumulate n (x:xs) = (n+x):xs
groups''' = foldr accumulate [0]
To check that you understand these, here are a few exercises you might like to try:
What do splits and splits' do with [1,2,3,0,4,5]? [1,2,0,3,4,0]? [0]? []? Check your predictions in ghci.
Predict what each of the four versions of groups (including yours) output for inputs like [] or [1,2,0,3,4,0], and then test your prediction in ghci.
Modify groups''' to exhibit the behavior of one of the other implementations.
Modify groups''' to use foldl instead of foldr.
Now that you've completed the problem on your own, I am showing you a slightly less verbose version. Foldr seems better in my opinion to this problem*, but because you asked for foldl I will show you my solution using both functions.
Also, your example appears to be incorrect, the sum of [5,2,1] is 8, not 7.
The foldr version.
makelist' l = foldr (\x (n:ns) -> if x == 0 then 0:(n:ns) else (x + n):ns) [0] l
In this version, we traverse the list, if the current element (x) is a 0, we add a new element to the accumulator list (n:ns). Otherwise, we add the value of the current element to the value of the front element of the accumulator, and replace the front value of the accumulator with this value.
Step by step:
acc = [0], x = 1. Result is [0+1]
acc = [1], x = 2. Result is [1+2]
acc = [3], x = 5. Result is [3+5]
acc = [8], x = 0. Result is 0:[8]
acc = [0,8], x = 4. Result is [0+4,8]
acc = [4,8], x = 3. Result is [4+3,8]
acc = [7,8], x = 0. Result is 0:[7,8]
acc = [0,7,8], x = 3. Result is [0+3,7,8]
acc = [3,7,8], x = 2. Result is [3+2,7,8]
acc = [5,7,8], x = 1. Result is [5+1,7,8] = [6,7,8]
There you have it!
And the foldl version. Works similarly as above, but produces a reversed list, hence the use of reverse at the beginning of this function to unreverse the list.
makelist l = reverse $ foldl (\(n:ns) x -> if x == 0 then 0:(n:ns) else (x + n):ns) [0] l
*Folding the list from the right allows the cons (:) function to be used naturally, using my method with a left fold produces a reversed list. (There is likely a simpler way to do the left fold version that I did not think of that eliminates this triviality.)
As you already solved it, another version:
subListSums list = reverse $ foldl subSum [0] list where
subSum xs 0 = 0 : xs
subSum (x:xs) n = (x+n) : xs
(Assuming that you have only non-negative numbers in the list)