I'm writing a program to solve the result of primitive recursive functions:
1 --Basic functions------------------------------
2
3 --Zero function
4 z :: Int -> Int
5 z = \_ -> 0
6
7 --Successor function
8 s :: Int -> Int
9 s = \x -> (x + 1)
10
11 --Identity/Projection function generator
12 idnm :: Int -> Int -> ([Int] -> Int)
13 idnm n m = \(x:xs) -> ((x:xs) !! (m-1))
14
15 --Constructors--------------------------------
16
17 --Composition constructor
18 cn :: ([Int] -> Int) -> [([Int] -> Int)] -> ([Int] -> Int)
19 cn f [] = \(x:xs) -> f
20 cn f (g:gs) = \(x:xs) -> (cn (f (g (x:xs))) gs)
these functions and constructors are defined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_recursive_function
The issue is with my attempt to create the compositon constructor, cn. When it gets to the base case, f is no longer a partial application, but a result of the function. Yet the function expects a function as the first argument. How can I deal with this problem?
Thanks.
Given f,
f :: [a] -> b
and g_k,
g_k :: [a] -> a
we want to produce h,
h :: [a] -> b
so the composition should be like
compo :: ([a] -> b) -> [[a] -> a] -> [a] -> b
compo f gs xs = f (map ($ xs) gs)
Example: http://codepad.org/aGIKi8dF
Edit: It can also be written in applicative style (eliminating that $) as
compo f gs xs = f (gs <*> pure xs)
Related
I'm currently doing a course in Haskell, and I have a lot of difficulty understanding the types of functions, particularly when there's function application or lambda expressions. Say for instance the following:
f = (\x -> \y -> \z -> [x (y z), y z])
or
g = \x -> \y -> \z -> x.y.z
I can sort of make some assumptions about the fact that x and y are functions, but I don't have a concrete method for figuring out the types of these functions.
Similarly for the following:
h = foldr (&&)
I try to guess and then check via :t in the interpreter, but I'm usually off by quite a bit.
Is there any particular method I can use to find the types of such functions?
You start by assigning type variables to the inputs and the result
f = (\x -> \y -> \z -> [x (y z), y z])
and conclude
f :: a -> b -> c -> d -- (A0)
-- or even (f is not needed)
\x -> \y -> \z -> [x (y z), y z] :: a -> b -> c -> d
that is
x :: a -- (1)
y :: b -- (2)
z :: c -- (3)
[x (y z), y z] :: d -- (4)
You can continue with (4) and conclude
that the type d is a list of d1s, i.e. d ~ [d1] (5)
f :: a -> b -> c -> [d1] -- (A1)
and that the values of the list are of type d1, i.e.
x (y z) :: d1 -- (6)
y z :: d1 -- (7)
From (6) you learn that
x :: e -> d1 -- (8)
y z :: e -- (9)
(1) and (8) unify, i.e. a ~ (e -> d1) and
f :: (e -> d1) -> b -> c -> [d1] -- (A2)
You play this game until you get bored and use GHCi to arrive at
f :: (d1 -> d1) -> (f -> d1) -> f -> [d1] -- (A3)
-- and renaming
f :: (a -> a) -> (b -> a) -> b -> [a] -- (A4)
If you want to learn more and read a paper you can start with Principal type-schemes for functional programs.
Prelude> :t h
h :: Foldable t => Bool -> t Bool -> Bool
Prelude> :t foldr
foldr :: Foldable t => (a -> b -> b) -> b -> t a -> b
Prelude> :t (&&)
(&&) :: Bool -> Bool -> Bool
Prelude>
By "plugging in" (&&) you have removed (a -> b -> b)
so you need to provide the rest to the function
b -> t a -> b
That is restricted by (&&) to be a bool as second param to it, and the second parameter is the t a which is also restricted to being a bool. since a and b needs to be the same type as in the (a->b->b) function.
So I'm learning about Haskell at the moment, and I came across this question:
The type of a function f is supposed to be a->[a]->a. The
following definitions of f are incorrect because their types are all
different from a->[a]->a:
i. f x xs = xs
ii. f x xs = x+1
iii. f x xs = x ++ xs
iv. f x (y:ys) = y
My answers as I see it are:
i) f :: a -> a -> a
This is because x or xs can be of any value and is not a list as it does not contain the ':' operator.
ii) f :: Int -> a -> Int
This is because the + operator is used on x, meaning x is of type Int.
iii) f :: Eq a => a -> a -> a
The ++ operators are used, therefore in order to concatenate they must be of the same type..?
iv) f :: a -> [a] -> a
f returns an element from the list.
The last one is definitely wrong, because it can't be of type a -> [a] -> a. Are there any others I did wrong, and why? I'm hoping I can fully understand types and how to find out the types of functions.
i) f :: a -> a -> a
f x xs = xs
This is because x or xs can be of any value and is not a list as it does not contain the ':' operator.
True, but it also does not have to be of the same type!
So, it's actually f :: a -> b -> b.
ii) f :: Int -> a -> Int
f x xs = x+1
This is because the + operator is used on x, meaning x is of type Int.
Correct. (Actually, in Haskell we get Num b => b -> a -> b which generalized the Int to any numeric type, but it's not that important.)
iii) f :: Eq a => a -> a -> a
f x xs = x ++ xs
The ++ operators are used, therefore in order to concatenate they must be of the same type..?
True, but they must be lists. Also, Eq is only needed if you use == or something which compares values.
Here, f :: [a] -> [a] -> [a].
iv) f :: a -> [a] -> a
f x (y:ys) = y
f returns an element from the list.
The type of x does not have to be the same. We get f :: b -> [a] -> a.
i. f x xs = xs
(...)
i) f :: a -> a -> a
Although this can be a type signature, you make it too restrictive. The function takes two parameters x and xs. Initially we can reason that x and xs can have different types, so we say that x :: a, and xs :: b. Since the function returns xs, the return type is b as well, so the type is:
f :: a -> b -> b
f x xs = xs
ii. f x xs = x+1
(...)
ii) f :: Int -> a -> Int
Again you make the function too restrictive. Let us again assume that x :: a and xs :: b have different types. We see that we return x + 1 (or in more canonical form (+) x 1. Since (+) has signature (+) :: Num c => c -> c -> c (we here use c since a is already used), and 1 has signature 1 :: Num d => d, we thus see that we call (+) with x and 1, as a result we know that a ~ c (a and c are the same type), and c ~ d, so as a result we obtain the signature:
f :: Num c => c -> b -> c
f x xs = x+1
iii. f x xs = x ++ xs
(...)
iii) f :: Eq a => a -> a -> a
This is wrong: we here see that f has two parameters, x :: a and xs :: b. We see that we return (++) x xs. Since (++) has signature (++) :: [c] -> [c] -> [c], we thus know that a ~ [c] and b ~ [c], so the type is:
f :: [c] -> [c] -> [c]
f x xs = x ++ xs
iv. f x (y:ys) = y
(...)
iv) f :: a -> [a] -> a
This is again too restrictive. Here we see again two parameters: x and (y:ys). We first generate a type a for x :: a, and (y:ys) :: b, since the pattern of the second parameter is (y:ys), this is a list constructor with as parameters (:) :: c -> [c] -> [c]. As a result we can derive that y :: c, and ys :: [c], furthermore the pattern (y:ys) has type [c]. Since the function returns y, we know that the return type is c, so:
f :: a -> [c] -> c
f x (y:ys) = y
Note: you can let Haskell derive the type of the function itself. In GHCi you can use the :t command to query the type of an expression. For example:
Prelude> f x (y:ys) = y
Prelude> :t f
f :: t1 -> [t] -> t
I am implementing a function combine :: [[a]] -> [[b]] -> (a -> b -> c) -> [[c]] which given two 2D lists, applies a given function f :: a -> b -> c to the entries of the 2D list. In other words:
[[a, b, c], [[r, s, t], [[f a r, f b s, f c t],
combine [d, e, g], [u, v, w], f = [f d u, f e v, f g w],
[h, i, j]] [x, y, z]] [f h x, f i y, f j z]]
Now I suspect that combine = zipWith . zipWith, because I have tried it out and it is giving me the intended results, e.g.
(zipWith . zipWith) (\x y -> x+y) [[1,2,3],[4,5,6]] [[7,8,9],[10,11,12]]
gives the expected result [[8,10,12],[14,16,18]], but I cannot understand why this works, because I don't understand how the type of zipWith . zipWith turns out to be (a -> b -> c) -> [[a]] -> [[b]] -> [[c]].
Is (.) here still carrying out the usual function composition? If so, can you explain how this applies to zipWith?
To infer the type of an expression such as zipWith . zipWith, you can simulate the unification in your head the following way.
The first zipWith has type (a -> b -> c) -> ([a] -> [b] -> [c]), the second (s -> t -> u) -> ([s] -> [t] -> [u]) and (.) has type (m -> n) -> (o -> m) -> (o -> n).
For it to typecheck, you need:
m = (a -> b -> c)
n = ([a] -> [b] -> [c])
o = (s -> t -> u)
m = ([s] -> [t] -> [u]) => a = [s], b = [t], c = [u] because of the first constraint
Then the returned type is o -> n which is (s -> t -> u) -> ([a] -> [b] -> [c]) from the constraints and going one step further (s -> t -> u) -> ([[s]] -> [[t]] -> [[u]]).
Another way of seeing it is that lists with the zipping operation form an Applicative, and the composition (nesting) of Applicatives is still Applicative:
λ import Control.Applicative
λ import Data.Functor.Compose
λ let l1 = ZipList [ZipList [1,2,3], ZipList [4,5,6]]
λ let l2 = ZipList [ZipList [7,8,9], ZipList [10,11,12]]
λ getCompose $ (+) <$> Compose l1 <*> Compose l2
ZipList {getZipList = [ZipList {getZipList = [8,10,12]},
ZipList {getZipList = [14,16,18]}]}
The ZipList newtype is required because "bare" lists have a different Applicative instance, which forms all combinations instead of zipping.
Yes, . is the normal function composition operator:
Prelude> :type (.)
(.) :: (b -> c) -> (a -> b) -> a -> c
One way to look at it is that it takes an a value, first calls the a -> b function, and then uses the return value of that function to call the b -> c function. The result is a c value.
Another way to look at (zipWith . zipWith), then, is to perform an eta expansion:
Prelude> :type (zipWith . zipWith)
(zipWith . zipWith) :: (a -> b -> c) -> [[a]] -> [[b]] -> [[c]]
Prelude> :t (\x -> zipWith $ zipWith x)
(\x -> zipWith $ zipWith x)
:: (a -> b -> c) -> [[a]] -> [[b]] -> [[c]]
Prelude> :t (\x -> zipWith (zipWith x))
(\x -> zipWith (zipWith x))
:: (a -> b -> c) -> [[a]] -> [[b]] -> [[c]]
The type of zipWith itself:
Prelude> :type zipWith
zipWith :: (a -> b -> c) -> [a] -> [b] -> [c]
So, in the above lambda expression, x must be (a -> b -> c), and hence zipWith x must have the type [a] -> [b] -> [c].
The outer zipWith also needs a function (a1 -> b1 -> c1), which matches zipWith x if a1 is [a], b1 is [b], and c1 is [c].
So, by replacement, zipWith (zipWith x) must have the type [[a]] -> [[b]] -> [[c]], and therefore the type of the lambda expression is (a -> b -> c) -> [[a]] -> [[b]] -> [[c]].
I have the following Haskell method
unfold :: (a -> Bool) -> (a -> b) -> (a -> a) -> a -> [b]
unfold p h t x
| p x = []
| otherwise = (h x):(unfold p h t (t x))
How can i define the regular prelude map f x method using this given unfold method.
If you define:
map' :: (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b]
map' f = unfold null (f.head) tail
then
\> map' show [1..5]
["1","2","3","4","5"]
\> map' (+1) []
[]
21 --Primitive recursion constructor
22 pr :: ([Int] -> Int) -> ([Int] -> Int) -> ([Int] -> Int)
23 pr f g = \xs 0 -> f xs
24 pr f g = \xs (y+1) -> g xs y ((pr f g) xs y)
I want the function this function creates to act differently on different inputs, so that it can create a recursive function. As expected, the above code doesn't work. How do I do something like pattern matching, but for the function it creates?
pr f g = \xs y' -> case y' of 0 -> f xs
(y+1) -> g xs y ((pr f g) xs y)
or simply
pr f g xs 0 = f xs
pr f g xs (y+1) = g xs y ((pr f g) xs y)
(Remember that f a b = ... is basically a shortcut for f a = \b -> ... which is a shortcut for f = \a -> \b -> ....)
Note that n+1 patterns are deprecated and that the type you specified for pr does not match your (and mine) definition.
Specifically according to your type the function takes an [Int] -> Int (f), then a function that takes another [Int] -> Int (g), then a function that takes an [Int] (xs) and then returning an Int. However you call g with three arguments and the last function that you return takes two arguments, so presumably you want something like ([Int] -> Int) -> ([Int] -> Int -> Int -> Int) -> [Int] -> Int -> Int.
Another solution is to use the lenguaje extension LambdaCase:
{-# LANGUAGE LambdaCase #-}
pr f g = \xs -> \case
0 -> f xs
(y+1) -> g xs y ((pr f g) xs y)
In these case you have two use two \ because in a \case you can have only one argument.