I need to make a function "powers" that takes a number n and returns the infinite list of that number to the power of every number e.g.
powers 2 = 2,4,8,16,32......
I need to do this using very specific subset of the language where my only available built in functions are: div, mod, even, odd, head, tail, not, null, length, reverse, elem, map, filter, foldr, sum, product, take, drop, takewhile, dropWhile, zipWith and from.
the subset also has no ^ operator.
there are some further important constraints:
the code must not exceed 1 line of more than 80 characters
no "helper functions" allowed, i.e i cannot write another function to use within this definition.
So far my thinking is along these lines:
powers = \n -> map (\x -> "some function to get n to the power of x") (from 1)
but i cant figure out how to get the function to do this without a helper function.
for example if i was to use a function inflist that returned an infinite list of the number x then i could just do the following.
powers = \n -> map (\x -> product(take x (inflist n))) (from 1)
but i cant do this or anything like it because i couldn't use that function.
Sorry if the notation is a different to normal haskell, its a very strict core haskell subset that uses this notation.
This is a recursion question.
powers n = n : map (* n) (powers n)
(Are you allowed to use :?)
This was fun and funner when the insight came.
Generate successively longer repetitions of 2 in lists with
[ [ 2 | y <- [1..x]] | x <- [1..]]
Then take the product of each list.
map product [ [ 2 | y <- [1..x]] | x <- [1..]]
Be sure to use take x before an invocation
I struggled with a mod and multiple mod functions to limit lists.
If iterate were allowed.
take 24 $ iterate (2*) 2
would generate the list.
Edit 4/4/2018
An infinite recursive function, may be what you are looking for to fill out your function. It might be:
pow l = l ++ pow [(last l * 2)]
To produce a list it is absolutely necessary to assemble a list and it is necessary to use the last element of the list to calculate the next in sequence. This must also be run with take. Also the command following starts the list with 1. It can be started with any number such as 64 or 63. I tried passing the last value as a parameter but then the function would not generate a list. There is a choice, use ':' instead of '++' but it will produce each element in a list. To produce a list of values instead of a list of lists used 'concat $ ' before 'take' to clean it up.
take 10 $ pow [1]
Related
I have this developed function that shows the powers of 2 from the range you choose:
import Data.Bits(Bits, (.&.))
isPower2 :: (Bits i, Integral i) => i -> Bool
isPower2 n = n .&. (n-1) == 0
This works well but i need to filter only the powers of 2 from odds numbers of the range choosed, for example :
filter isPower2 [0 .. 1000]
[0,1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512]
This input and output above shows all the powers between 0 and 1000 but what i need is only the powers from odds, so my output that i need is:
[2,8,32,128,512]
Is there a way to filter this function pointing only to odds numbers? Thanks.
I'd recommend first writing a function that checks whether a power of two is odd power of two.
power2isOddPower2 :: (Bits i, Integral i) => i -> Bool
Maybe first think how to do this for the concrete case Word8, then generalize it to arbitrary positive integers.
Then you can combine this to a predicate that checks whether an arbitrary number is an odd power of two, and use that for the filtering:
filter (\n -> isPower2 n && power2isOddPower2 n) [0 .. 1000]
That's a clever algorithm for checking whether a number is a power of 2. But unfortunately, it's not well suited to this kind of further analysis. So I'm going to propose a slightly different technique. Let's split the problem into pieces. Haskell has a power function called (^) (actually, it has three that are subtly different, but for our purposes the simplest one will do just fine). So let's start by getting all of the powers of two. Yes, all of them.
> map (2 ^) [0..]
[1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512,1024,2048,4096,8192,16384,32768,...]
That's an infinite list, which Haskell has no problem with. If you run it in GHCi, you'll need to hit Ctrl+C to stop it from outputting forever.
Now we want to take the ones smaller than some limit.
> takeWhile (< 1000) $ map (2 ^) [0..]
[1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512]
takeWhile is a function which, as the name implies, stops once the condition is false. It's like filter, but once it encounters one false value, it stops completely (filter will never terminate on infinite lists, because it insists on checking every value).
So now we have a way to get the list you have in the OP. But we started with the powers ([0..]). So if we want to filter some powers, we can add a filter to the right-hand side
> takeWhile (< 1000) . map (2 ^) . filter (\x -> x `mod` 2 == 1) $ [0..]
[2,8,32,128,512]
Of course, we would want to split this into a few helper functions (isOdd, for instance, is pretty easy to factor out into a where clause), as it's getting a bit long on its own. But that's the basic idea.
I was introduced to the use of fold in defining function. I have an idea how that works but im not sure why one should do it. To me, it feels like just simplifying name of data type and data value ... Would be great if you can show me examples where it is significant to use fold.
data List a = Empty | (:-:) a (List a)
--Define elements
List a :: *
[] :: List a
(:) :: a -> List a -> List a
foldrList :: (a -> b -> b) -> b -> List a -> b
foldrList f e Empty = e
foldrList f e (x:-:xs) = f x (foldrList f e xs)
The idea of folding is a powerful one. The fold functions (foldr and foldl in the Haskell base library) come from a family of functions called Higher-Order Functions (for those who don't know - these are functions which take functions as parameters or return functions as their output).
This allows for greater code clarity as the intention of the program is more clearly expressed. A function written using fold functions strongly indicates that there is an intention to iterate over the list and apply a function repeatedly to obtain an output. Using the standard recursive method is fine for simple programs but when complexity increases it can become difficult to understand quickly what is happening.
Greater code re-use can be achieved with folding due to the nature of passing in a function as the parameter. If a program has some behaviour that is affected by the passing of a Boolean or enumeration value then this behaviour can be abstracted away into a separate function. The separate function can then be used as an argument to fold. This achieves greater flexibility and simplicity (as there are 2 simpler functions versus 1 more complex function).
Higher-Order Functions are also essential for Monads.
Credit to the comments for this question as well for being varied and informative.
Higher-order functions like foldr, foldl, map, zipWith, &c. capture common patterns of recursion so you can avoid writing manually recursive definitions. This makes your code higher-level and more readable: instead of having to step through the code and infer what a recursive function is doing, the programmer can reason about compositions of higher-level components.
For a somewhat extreme example, consider a manually recursive calculation of standard deviation:
standardDeviation numbers = step1 numbers
where
-- Calculate length and sum to obtain mean
step1 = loop 0 0
where
loop count sum (x : xs) = loop (count + 1) (sum + x) xs
loop count sum [] = step2 sum count numbers
-- Calculate squared differences with mean
step2 sum count = loop []
where
loop diffs (x : xs) = loop ((x - (sum / count)) ^ 2 : diffs) xs
loop diffs [] = step3 count diffs
-- Calculate final total and return square root
step3 count = loop 0
where
loop total (x : xs) = loop (total + x) xs
loop total [] = sqrt (total / count)
(To be fair, I went a little overboard by also inlining the summation, but this is roughly how it may typically be done in an imperative language—manually looping.)
Now consider a version using a composition of calls to standard functions, some of which are higher-order:
standardDeviation numbers -- The standard deviation
= sqrt -- is the square root
. mean -- of the mean
. map (^ 2) -- of the squares
. map (subtract -- of the differences
(mean numbers)) -- with the mean
$ numbers -- of the input numbers
where -- where
mean xs -- the mean
= sum xs -- is the sum
/ fromIntegral (length xs) -- over the length.
This more declarative code is also, I hope, much more readable—and without the heavy commenting, could be written neatly in two lines. It’s also much more obviously correct than the low-level recursive version.
Furthermore, sum, map, and length can all be implemented in terms of folds, as well as many other standard functions like product, and, or, concat, and so on. Folding is an extremely common operation on not only lists, but all kinds of containers (see the Foldable typeclass), because it captures the pattern of computing something incrementally from all elements of a container.
A final reason to use folds instead of manual recursion is performance: thanks to laziness and optimisations that GHC knows how to perform when you use fold-based functions, the compiler may fuse a series of folds (maps, &c.) together into a single loop at runtime.
I'm trying to solve the following exercise (I'm learning Haskell):
Define x^n using a list comprehension.
And I'm struggling to find a solution.
Using recursion or fold, the solution is not complicated (for instance, foldr (*) 1 [x | c <- [1..n]]). However, using only list comprehension it gets difficult (at least for me).
In order to solve the problem, I'm trying to create a list of x^n elements and then get the length. Generating a list of x*n elements is easy, but I fail to generate a list of x^n elements.
ppower x n = length [1 | p <- [1..x], c <- [1..n]]
returns a list of x*n elements giving a wrong result. Any ideas on this will be appreciated.
A naturally-occurring exponential comes from sequence:
length (sequence [[1..x] | _ <- [1..n]])
If you haven't seen sequence yet, it's quite a general function but
when used with lists it works like:
sequence [xs1, ... , xsk] = [[x1, ... xk] | x1 <- xs1, ... , xk <- xsk]
But this is really cheating since sequence is defined recursively.
If you want to use nothing but length and list comprehensions I think
it might be impossible. The rest of this answer will be sketchy and I half
expect someone to prove me wrong. However:
We'll try to prove that such an expression can only compute values up
to some finite power of x or n, and therefore can't compute values
as big as x^n for arbitrary x and n.
Specifically we show by induction on the structure of expressions that
any expression expr has an upper bound ub(expr, m) = m^k where m
is the maximum of the free variables it uses, and k is a known finite
power which we could calculate from the structure of the expression expr.
(When we look at the whole expression, m will be max x n.)
Our upper bounds on list expressions will be bounds on both the length of the list and also bounds on any of
its elements (and lengths of its elements, etc.).
For example if we have [x..y] and we know that x <= m and y <= m, we
know that all the elements are <= m and the length is also <= m.
So we have ub([x..y], m) = m^1.
The tricky case is the list comprehension:
[eleft | x1 <- e1, ... , xk <- ek]
The result will have length equal to length e1 * ... * length ek, so
an upper bound for it would be the product of the upper bounds for
e1 to ek, or if m^i is the maximum of these then an upper bound
would be (m^i)^k = m^(i*k).
To get a bound on the elements, suppose expression eleft has ub(eleft, m') = m'^j. It can use x1
... xk. If m^i is an upper bound for these, as above, we need to
take m' = m^i and so ub(eleft, m) = (m^i)^j = m^(i*j)
As a conservative upper bound for the whole list comprehension e we
could take ub(e, m) = m^(i*j*k).
I should really also work through cases for pattern matching
(shouldn't be a problem because the parts matched are smaller than
what we already had), let definitions and functions (but we banned
recursion, so we can just fully expand these before we start), and
list literals like [x,37,x,x,n] (we can throw their lengths
into m as initially-available values).
If infinite lists like [x..] or [x,y..] are allowed they would need some
thinking about. We can construct head and filter, which means we can get
from an infinite list to its first element matching a predicate, and that looks suspiciously like a way to get recursive functions. I don't
think it's a problem since 1. they are only arithmetic sequences and
2. we'll have to construct any numbers we want to use in the
predicate. But I'm not certain here.
As #n.m suggested, I asked Richard Bird (author of the book "Introduction to functional programming", first edition, the book where I got the exercise) for an answer/guidance in solving this exercise. He kindly replied and here I post the answer he gave me:
Since a list comprehension returns a list not a number, x^n cannot be
defined as an instance of a list comprehension. Your solution x^n =
product [x | c <- [1..n]] is the correct one.
So, I guess I'll stick to the solution I posted (and discarded for using recursion):
foldr (*) 1 [x | c <- [1..n]]
He didn't say anything about creating a list of x^n elements with lists comprehensions (no recursion) though as #David Fletcher and #n.m point out in their comments, it might be impossible.
May be you can do as follows;
pow :: Int -> Int -> Int
pow 0 _ = 1
pow 1 x = x
pow n x = length [1 | y <- [1..x], z <- [1..pow (n-1) x]]
so pow 3 2 would return 8
I am new to Haskell and am trying to learn the basics. I am having a hard time understanding how to manipulate the contents of a list.
Assume I have the following list and I would like to create a function to subtract 1 from every element in the list, where I can simply pass x to the function, how would this be done?
Prelude>let x = 1:2:3:4:5:[]
Something like:
Prelude>subtractOne(x)
(You can write 1:2:3:4:5:[] more simply as [1,2,3,4,5] or even [1..5].)
Comprehensions
You'd like to use list comprehensions, so here it is:
subtractOne xs = [ x-1 | x <- xs ]
Here I'm using xs to stand for the list I'm subtracting one from.
The first thing to notice is x <- xs which you can read as "x is taken from xs". This means we're going to take each of the numbers in xs in turn, and each time we'll call the number x.
x-1 is the value we're calculating and returning for each x.
For more examples, here's one that adds one to each element [x+1|x<-xs] or squares each element [x*x|x<-xs].
More than one list
Let's take list comprehension a little further, to write a function that finds the squares then the cubes of the numbers we give it, so
> squaresAndCubes [1..5]
[1,4,9,16,25,1,8,27,64,125]
We need
squaresAndCubes xs = [x^p | p <- [2,3], x <- xs]
This means we take the powers p to be 2 then 3, and for each power we take all the xs from xs, and calculate x to the power p (x^p).
What happens if we do that the other way around?
squaresAndCubesTogether xs = = [x^p | x <- xs, p <- [2,3]]
We get
> squaresAndCubesTogether [1..5]
[1,1,4,8,9,27,16,64,25,125]
Which takes each x and then gives you the two powers of it straight after each other.
Conclusion - the order of the <- bits tells you the order of the output.
Filtering
What if we wanted to only allow some answers?
Which numbers between 2 and 100 can be written as x^y?
> [x^y|x<-[2..100],y<-[2..100],x^y<100]
[4,8,16,32,64,9,27,81,16,64,25,36,49,64,81]
Here we allowed all x and all y as long as x^y<100.
Since we're doing exactly the same to each element, I'd write this in practice using map:
takeOne xs = map (subtract 1) xs
or shorter as
takeOne = map (subtract 1)
(I have to call it subtract 1 because - 1 would be parsed as negative 1.)
You can do this with the map function:
subtractOne = map (subtract 1)
The alternative solution with List Comprehensions is a little more verbose:
subtractOne xs = [ x - 1 | x <- xs ]
You may also want to add type annotations for clarity.
You can do this quite easily with the map function, but I suspect you want to roll something yourself as a learning exercise. One way to do this in Haskell is to use recursion. This means you need to break the function into two cases. The first case is usually the base case for the simplest kind of input. For a list, this is an empty list []. The result of subtracting one from all the elements of the empty list is clearly an empty list. In Haskell:
subtractOne [] = []
Now we need to consider the slightly more complex recursive case. For any list other than an empty list, we can look at the head and tail of the input list. We will subtract one from the head and then apply subtractOne to the rest of the list. Then we need to concatenate the results together to form a new list. In code, this looks like this:
subtractOne (x:xs) = (x - 1) : subtractOne xs
As I mentioned earlier, you can also do this with map. In fact, it is only one line and the preferred Haskellism. On the other hand, I think it is a very good idea to write your own functions which use explicit recursion in order to understand how it works. Eventually, you may even want to write your own map function for further practice.
map (subtract 1) x will work.
subtractOne = map (subtract 1)
The map function allows you to apply a function to each element of a list.
So, I'm new here, and I would like to ask 2 questions about some code:
Duplicate each element in list by n times. For example, duplicate [1,2,3] should give [1,2,2,3,3,3]
duplicate1 xs = x*x ++ duplicate1 xs
What is wrong in here?
Take positive numbers from list and find the minimum positive subtraction. For example, [-2,-1,0,1,3] should give 1 because (1-0) is the lowest difference above 0.
For your first part, there are a few issues: you forgot the pattern in the first argument, you are trying to square the first element rather than replicate it, and there is no second case to end your recursion (it will crash). To help, here is a type signature:
replicate :: Int -> a -> [a]
For your second part, if it has been covered in your course, you could try a list comprehension to get all differences of the numbers, and then you can apply the minimum function. If you don't know list comprehensions, you can do something similar with concatMap.
Don't forget that you can check functions on http://www.haskell.org/hoogle/ (Hoogle) or similar search engines.
Tell me if you need a more thorough answer.
To your first question:
Use pattern matching. You can write something like duplicate (x:xs). This will deconstruct the first cell of the parameter list. If the list is empty, the next pattern is tried:
duplicate (x:xs) = ... -- list is not empty
duplicate [] = ... -- list is empty
the function replicate n x creates a list, that contains n items x. For instance replicate 3 'a' yields `['a','a','a'].
Use recursion. To understand, how recursion works, it is important to understand the concept of recursion first ;)
1)
dupe :: [Int] -> [Int]
dupe l = concat [replicate i i | i<-l]
Theres a few problems with yours, one being that you are squaring each term, not creating a new list. In addition, your pattern matching is off and you would create am infinite recursion. Note how you recurse on the exact same list as was input. I think you mean something along the lines of duplicate1 (x:xs) = (replicate x x) ++ duplicate1 xs and that would be fine, so long as you write a proper base case as well.
2)
This is pretty straight forward from your problem description, but probably not too efficient. First filters out negatives, thewn checks out all subtractions with non-negative results. Answer is the minumum of these
p2 l = let l2 = filter (\x -> x >= 0) l
in minimum [i-j | i<-l2, j<-l2, i >= j]
Problem here is that it will allow a number to be checkeed against itself, whichwiull lend to answers of always zero. Any ideas? I'd like to leave it to you, commenter has a point abou t spoon-feeding.
1) You can use the fact that list is a monad:
dup = (=<<) (\x -> replicate x x)
Or in do-notation:
dup xs = do x <- xs; replicate x x; return x
2) For getting only the positive numbers from a list, you can use filter:
filter (>= 0) [1,-1,0,-5,3]
-- [1,0,3]
To get all possible "pairings" you can use either monads or applicative functors:
import Control.Applicative
(,) <$> [1,2,3] <*> [1,2,3]
[(1,1),(1,2),(1,3),(2,1),(2,2),(2,3),(3,1),(3,2),(3,3)]
Of course instead of creating pairs you can generate directly differences when replacing (,) by (-). Now you need to filter again, discarding all zero or negative differences. Then you only need to find the minimum of the list, but I think you can guess the name of that function.
Here, this should do the trick:
dup [] = []
dup (x:xs) = (replicate x x) ++ (dup xs)
We define dup recursively: for empty list it is just an empty list, for a non empty list, it is a list in which the first x elements are equal to x (the head of the initial list), and the rest is the list generated by recursively applying the dup function. It is easy to prove the correctness of this solution by induction (do it as an exercise).
Now, lets analyze your initial solution:
duplicate1 xs = x*x ++ duplicate1 xs
The first mistake: you did not define the list pattern properly. According to your definition, the function has just one argument - xs. To achieve the desired effect, you should use the correct pattern for matching the list's head and tail (x:xs, see my previous example). Read up on pattern matching.
But that's not all. Second mistake: x*x is actually x squared, not a list of two values. Which brings us to the third mistake: ++ expects both of its operands to be lists of values of the same type. While in your code, you're trying to apply ++ to two values of types Int and [Int].
As for the second task, the solution has already been given.
HTH