how can i get the most frequent value in a list example:
[1,3,4,5,6,6] -> output 6
[1,3,1,5] -> output 1
Im trying to get it by my own functions but i cant achieve it can you guys help me?
my code:
del x [] = []
del x (y:ys) = if x /= y
then y:del x y
else del x ys
obj x []= []
obj x (y:ys) = if x== y then y:obj x y else(obj x ys)
tam [] = 0
tam (x:y) = 1+tam y
fun (n1:[]) (n:[]) [] =n1
fun (n1:[]) (n:[]) (x:s) =if (tam(obj x (x:s)))>n then fun (x:[]) ((tam(obj x (x:s))):[]) (del x (x:s)) else(fun (n1:[]) (n:[]) (del x (x:s)))
rep (x:s) = fun (x:[]) ((tam(obj x (x:s))):[]) (del x (x:s))
Expanding on Satvik's last suggestion, you can use (&&&) :: (b -> c) -> (b -> c') -> (b -> (c, c')) from Control.Arrow (Note that I substituted a = (->) in that type signature for simplicity) to cleanly perform a decorate-sort-undecorate transform.
mostCommon list = fst . maximumBy (compare `on` snd) $ elemCount
where elemCount = map (head &&& length) . group . sort $ list
The head &&& length function has type [b] -> (b, Int). It converts a list into a tuple of its first element and its length, so when it is combined with group . sort you get a list of each distinct value in the list along with the number of times it occurred.
Also, you should think about what happens when you call mostCommon []. Clearly there is no sensible value, since there is no element at all. As it stands, all the solutions proposed (including mine) just fail on an empty list, which is not good Haskell. The normal thing to do would be to return a Maybe a, where Nothing indicates an error (in this case, an empty list) and Just a represents a "real" return value. e.g.
mostCommon :: Ord a => [a] -> Maybe a
mostCommon [] = Nothing
mostCommon list = Just ... -- your implementation here
This is much nicer, as partial functions (functions that are undefined for some input values) are horrible from a code-safety point of view. You can manipulate Maybe values using pattern matching (matching on Nothing and Just x) and the functions in Data.Maybe (preferable fromMaybe and maybe rather than fromJust).
In case you would like to get some ideas from code that does what you wish to achieve, here is an example:
import Data.List (nub, maximumBy)
import Data.Function (on)
mostCommonElem list = fst $ maximumBy (compare `on` snd) elemCounts where
elemCounts = nub [(element, count) | element <- list, let count = length (filter (==element) list)]
Here are few suggestions
del can be implemented using filter rather than writing your own recursion. In your definition there was a mistake, you needed to give ys and not y while deleting.
del x = filter (/=x)
obj is similar to del with different filter function. Similarly here in your definition you need to give ys and not y in obj.
obj x = filter (==x)
tam is just length function
-- tam = length
You don't need to keep a list for n1 and n. I have also made your code more readable, although I have not made any changes to your algorithm.
fun n1 n [] =n1
fun n1 n xs#(x:s) | length (obj x xs) > n = fun x (length $ obj x xs) (del x xs)
| otherwise = fun n1 n $ del x xs
rep xs#(x:s) = fun x (length $ obj x xs) (del x xs)
Another way, not very optimal but much more readable is
import Data.List
import Data.Ord
rep :: Ord a => [a] -> a
rep = head . head . sortBy (flip $ comparing length) . group . sort
I will try to explain in short what this code is doing. You need to find the most frequent element of the list so the first idea that should come to mind is to find frequency of all the elements. Now group is a function which combines adjacent similar elements.
> group [1,2,2,3,3,3,1,2,4]
[[1],[2,2],[3,3,3],[1],[2],[4]]
So I have used sort to bring elements which are same adjacent to each other
> sort [1,2,2,3,3,3,1,2,4]
[1,1,2,2,2,3,3,3,4]
> group . sort $ [1,2,2,3,3,3,1,2,4]
[[1,1],[2,2,2],[3,3,3],[4]]
Finding element with the maximum frequency just reduces to finding the sublist with largest number of elements. Here comes the function sortBy with which you can sort based on given comparing function. So basically I have sorted on length of the sublists (The flip is just to make the sorting descending rather than ascending).
> sortBy (flip $ comparing length) . group . sort $ [1,2,2,3,3,3,1,2,4]
[[2,2,2],[3,3,3],[1,1],[4]]
Now you can just take head two times to get the element with the largest frequency.
Let's assume you already have argmax function. You can write
your own or even better, you can reuse list-extras package. I strongly suggest you
to take a look at the package anyway.
Then, it's quite easy:
import Data.List.Extras.Argmax ( argmax )
-- >> mostFrequent [3,1,2,3,2,3]
-- 3
mostFrequent xs = argmax f xs
where f x = length $ filter (==x) xs
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 imagined the following code:
compress :: [[a]] -> [(Int,a)]
compress [[]] = []
compress [(x:xs)] = (1 + length (takeWhile x xs), x) : compress [(dropWhile x xs)]
I want to count each element in a list of lists. There are identical elements in each list, for example:
[[1,1,1], [2,2]].
I can only achieve the following output:
[(1,[1,1,1]), (1,[2,2])]
, but what I really need is this:
[(3,1), (2,2)].
I can't get deep enough to count the element in each list and probably made it more complicated with takeWhile dropWhile, hence each list has the same element in it.
What you want is to
Filter out empty lists
Apply length and head to the remaining lists
Collect the results in the final output.
Control.Arrow provides a useful operator &&& which, when specialized to functions, looks like
f &&& g = \x -> (f x, g x)
With that, you can simply write
compress = map (length &&& head) . filter (not . null)
Using a list comprehension, it's just
compress xs = [(length x, y) | x#(y:_) <- xs]
The pattern match implicitly filters out the empty lists while extracting the first element without a call to head.
This seems to be a better fit for a folding job since conditionally you will drop some of the sublists (ie when length is 0). One approach could be
Prelude> let comp = foldr (\s r -> if null s then r else (length s, head s):r) []
Prelude> comp [[1,1,1],[2,2,2],[],[5,5,5,5,5,5]]
[(3,1),(3,2),(6,5)]
I went through a post for this problem but I do not understand it. Could someone please explain it?
Q: Find every n-th element of the list in the form of a list start from the n-th element itself.
everyNth :: Int -> [t] -> [t]
everyNth elt = map snd . filter (\(lst,y) -> (mod lst elt) == 0) . zip [1..]
Also, please explain how pattern matching can be used for this problem. That is using
[]->[]
It's easy to use pattern matching to 'select every nth element' for particular cases of n:
every2nd (first:second:rest) = second : every2nd rest
every2nd _ = []
-- >>> every2nd [1..12]
-- [2,4,6,8,10,12]
every3rd (first:second:third:rest) = third : every3rd rest
every3rd _ = []
-- >>> every3rd [1..13]
-- [3,6,9,12]
every4th (first:second:third:fourth:rest) = fourth : every4th rest
every4th _ = []
-- >>> every4th [1..12]
-- [4,8,12]
For the general case, though, we're out of luck, at least with that particular approach. Patterns like those above will need some definite length to be definite patterns. The composed function you mention starts from the thought that we do know how to find every nth member of [1..], namely if it's a multiple of n
multiple n m = m `mod` n == 0
-- >>> filter (multiple 3) [1..12]
-- [3,6,9,12]
So the solution you are trying to understand zips [1..] with the list
index xs = zip [1..] xs
-- >>> index [1..5]
-- [(1,1),(2,2),(3,3),(4,4),(5,5)]
-- >>> index "hello"
-- [(1,'h'),(2,'e'),(3,'l'),(4,'l'),(5,'o')]
Then it filters out just those pairs whose first element is a multiple of n
every_nth_with_index n xs = filter (\(m,a) -> multiple n m) (index xs)
-- >>> every_nth_with_index 3 [1..12]
-- [(3,3),(6,6),(9,9),(12,12)]
-- >>> every_nth_with_index 3 "stackoverflow.com"
-- [(3,'a'),(6,'o'),(9,'r'),(12,'o'),(15,'c')]
Then it gets rid of the ancillary construction, leaving us with just the second element of each pair:
every_nth n xs = map snd (every_nth_with_index n xs)
-- >>> every_nth 3 [1..12]
-- [3,6,9,12]
-- >>> every_nth 3 "stackoverflow.com"
-- "aoroc"
Retracinging our steps we see that this is the same as
everyNth elt = map snd . filter (\(lst,y) -> (mod lst elt) == 0) . zip [1..]
The notorious fold fan strikes again.
everyNth n xs = foldr go (`seq` []) xs n where
go x r 0 = x : r (n - 1)
go _ r k = r (k - 1)
This is very similar to chepner's approach but it integrates the dropping into the recursion. Rewritten without the fold, it's pure pattern matching:
everyNth n = go n where
go k [] = k `seq` []
go 0 (x : xs) = x : go (n - 1) xs
go k (_ : xs) = go (k - 1) xs
With a little cheating, you can define everyNth using pattern matching. Really, we're abstracting out the part that makes pattern matching difficult, as pointed out in Michael's answer.
everyNth n lst = e (shorten lst)
where shorten = drop (n-1) -- here's the cheat
e [] = []
e (first:rest) = first : e (shorten rest)
If you have never seen Haskell before then this takes a bit of explaining.
everyNth :: Int -> [t] -> [t]
everyNth elt = map snd . filter (\(lst,y) -> (mod lst elt) == 0) . zip [1..]
First, note that the type has two arguments, but the definition has only one. This is because the value returned by everyNth is in fact another function. elt is the Int, and the expression in the second line creates a new function that does the job.
Second, note the "." operators. This is an operator that joins two functions together. It is defined like this:
(f . g) x = f (g x)
Here is an equivalent version of the definition with the second argument made explicit:
everyNth elt xs = map snd (filter (\(lst y) -> (mod lst elt) == 0) (zip xs))
When you see a bunch of functions in a chain linked by "." operators you need to read it from right to left. In my second version pay attention to the bracket nesting. zip [1..] xs is the inner-most expression, so it gets evaluated first. It turns a list like ["foo", "bar"] into [(1, "foo"),(2, "bar")]. Then this is filtered to find entries where the number is a multiple of elt. Finally the map snd strips the numbers back out to return just the required entries.
How do I manually split [1,2,4,5,6,7] into [[1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7]]? Manually means without using break.
Then, how do I split a list into sublists according to a predicate? Like so
f even [[1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7]] == [[1],[2,3],[4,5],[6,7]]
PS: this is not homework, and I've tried for hours to figure it out on my own.
To answer your first question, this is rather an element-wise transformation than a split. The appropriate function to do this is
map :: (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b]
Now, you need a function (a -> b) where b is [a], as you want to transform an element into a singleton list containing the same type. Here it is:
mkList :: a -> [a]
mkList a = [a]
so
map mkList [1,2,3,4,5,6,7] == [[1],[2],...]
As for your second question: If you are not allowed (homework?) to use break, are you then allowed to use takeWhile and dropWhile which form both halves of the result of break.
Anyway, for a solution without them ("manually"), just use simple recursion with an accumulator:
f p [] = []
f p (x:xs) = go [x] xs
where go acc [] = [acc]
go acc (y:ys) | p y = acc : go [y] ys
| otherwise = go (acc++[y]) ys
This will traverse your entire list tail recursively, always remembering what the current sublist is, and when you reach an element where p applies, outputting the current sublist and starting a new one.
Note that go first receives [x] instead of [] to provide for the case where the first element already satisfies p x and we don't want an empty first sublist to be output.
Also, this operates on the original list ([1..7]) instead of [[1],[2]...]. But you can use it on the transformed one as well:
> map concat $ f (odd . head) [[1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7]]
[[1,2],[3,4],[5,6],[7]]
For the first, you can use a list comprehension:
>>> [[x] | x <- [1,2,3,4,5,6]]
[[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]]
For the second problem, you can use the Data.List.Split module provided by the split package:
import Data.List.Split
f :: (a -> Bool) -> [[a]] -> [[a]]
f predicate = split (keepDelimsL $ whenElt predicate) . concat
This first concats the list, because the functions from split work on lists and not list of lists. The resulting single list is the split again using functions from the split package.
First:
map (: [])
Second:
f p xs =
let rs = foldr (\[x] ~(a:r) -> if (p x) then ([]:(x:a):r) else ((x:a):r))
[[]] xs
in case rs of ([]:r) -> r ; _ -> rs
foldr's operation is easy enough to visualize:
foldr g z [a,b,c, ...,x] = g a (g b (g c (.... (g x z) ....)))
So when writing the combining function, it is expecting two arguments, 1st of which is "current element" of a list, and 2nd is "result of processing the rest". Here,
g [x] ~(a:r) | p x = ([]:(x:a):r)
| otherwise = ((x:a):r)
So visualizing it working from the right, it just adds into the most recent sublist, and opens up a new sublist if it must. But since lists are actually accessed from the left, we keep it lazy with the lazy pattern, ~(a:r). Now it works even on infinite lists:
Prelude> take 9 $ f odd $ map (:[]) [1..]
[[1,2],[3,4],[5,6],[7,8],[9,10],[11,12],[13,14],[15,16],[17,18]]
The pattern for the 1st argument reflects the peculiar structure of your expected input lists.
I'm having a problem creating an function similar to the nub function.
I need this func to remove duplicated elements form a list.
An element is duplicated when 2 elements have the same email, and it should keep the newer one (is closer to the end of the list).
type Regist = [name,email,,...,date]
type ListRe = [Regist]
rmDup ListRe -> ListRe
rmDup [] = []
rmDup [a] = [a]
rmDup (h:t) | isDup h (head t) = rmDup t
| otherwise = h : rmDup t
isDup :: Regist -> Regist -> Bool
isDup (a:b:c:xs) (d:e:f:ts) = b==e
The problem is that the function doesn't delete duplicated elements unless they are together in the list.
Just use nubBy, and specify an equality function that compares things the way you want.
And I guess reverse the list a couple of times if you want to keep the last element instead of the first.
Slightly doctored version of your original code to make it run:
type Regist = [String]
type ListRe = [Regist]
rmDup :: ListRe -> ListRe
rmDup [] = []
rmDup (x:xs) = x : rmDup (filter (\y -> not(x == y)) xs)
Result:
*Main> rmDup [["a", "b"], ["a", "d"], ["a", "b"]]
[["a","b"],["a","d"]]
Anon is correct: nubBy is the function you are looking for, and can be found in Data.List.
That said, you want a function rem which accepts a list xs and a function f :: a -> a -> Bool (on which elements are compared for removal from xs). Since the definition is recursive, you need a base case and a recursive case.
In the base case xs = [] and rem f xs = [], since the result of removing all duplicate elements from [] is []:
rem :: Eq a => (a -> a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [a]
rem f [] = []
In the recursive case, xs = (a:as). Let as' be the list obtained by removing all elements a' such that f a a' = True from the list as. This is simply the function filter (\a' -> not $ f a a') applied to the list as. Them rem f (a:as) is the result of recursively calling rem f on as', that is, a : rem f as':
rem f (a:as) = a : rem f $ filter (\a' -> not $ f a a') as
Replace f be a function comparing your list elements for the appropriate equality (e-mail addresses).
While nubBy with two reverse's is probably the best among simple solutions (and probably exactly what Justin needs for his task), one should not forget that it isn't the ideal solution in terms of efficiency - after all nubBy is O(n^2) (in the "worst case" - when there are no duplicates). Two reverse's will also take their toll (in the form of memory allocation).
For more efficient implementation Data.Map (O(logN) on inserts) can be used as an intermediate "latest non duplicating element" holder (Set.insert replaces older element with newer if there is a collision):
import Data.List
import Data.Function
import qualified Data.Set as S
newtype Regis i e = Regis { toTuple :: (i,[e]) }
selector (Regis (_,(_:a:_))) = a
instance Eq e => Eq (Regis i e) where
(==) = (==) `on` selector
instance Ord e => Ord (Regis i e) where
compare = compare `on` selector
rmSet xs = map snd . sortBy (compare `on` fst) . map toTuple . S.toList $ set
where
set = foldl' (flip (S.insert . Regis)) S.empty (zip [1..] xs)
While nubBy implementation is definitely much simpler:
rmNub xs = reverse . nubBy ((==) `on` (!!1)) . reverse $ xs
on 10M elements list (with lots of duplication - nub should play nice here) there is 3 times difference in terms of running time and 700 times difference in memory usage. Compiled with GHC with -O2 :
input = take 10000000 $ map (take 10) $ permutations [1..]
test1 = rmNub input
test2 = rmSet input
Not sure about the nature of the author's data though (the real data might change the picture).
(Assuming you want to figure out an answer, not just call a library function that does this job for you.)
You get what you ask for. What if h is not equal to head t but is instead equal to the 3rd element of t? You need to write an algorithm that compares h with every element of t, not just the first element.
Why not putting everything in a Map from email to Regist (of course respecting your "keep the newest" rule), and then transform the values of the map back in the list? That's the most efficient way I can think of.
I used Alexei Polkhanov's answer and came to the following, so you can remove duplicates from lists with a type that extends Eq class.
removeDuplicates :: Eq a => [[a]] -> [[a]]
removeDuplicates [] = []
removeDuplicates (x:xs) = x : removeDuplicates (filter (\y -> not (x == y)) xs)
Examples:
*Verdieping> removeDuplicates [[1],[2],[1],[1,2],[1,2]]
[[1],[2],[1,2]]
*Verdieping> removeDuplicates [["a","b"],["a"],["a","b"],["c"],["c"]]
[["a","b"],["a"],["c"]]