I defined a function that receives a data type and a list.
getAux :: (Ord a) => SparseArray a -> [Bool] -> (Value a)
getAux (Node x left right) index
| length(index) == 0 = x
| head(index) == False = getAux (left) (tail(index))
| head(index) == True = getAux (right) (tail(index))
I iterate through this function passing the tail of index
There are 3 possible returns: If the length of the list is less that or equal to 1 it returns x (the value stored in the node) If not it check the head of index and it calls getAux with the tail of index.
I tried to do a simple workaround to this issue by adding an extra element to the end of index when I call getAux. Instead of comparing if the length of index is equal to 0 I compare it with 1.
When I call the function I have:
getAux (Nodo x iz de) (num2bin(index) ++ [True])
The new getAux is:
getAux :: (Ord a) => SparseArray a -> [Bool] -> (Value a)
getAux (Node x left right) index
| length(index) == 1 = x
| head(index) == False = getAux (left) (tail(index))
| head(index) == True = getAux (right) (tail(index))
In both cases I get an error indicating that I can't do the head of an empty list
You call this with tail index, hence eventually you reach the empty list, hence that explains why for the latter, if length index == 1 fails, it will try to access head index and thus error.
But using length is not a good idea since it runs in O(n) with n the length of the list, and usually it is better to perform pattern matching on the list than to use head and tail, since then it is guaranteed that the list has a head and tail.
You can thus implement this as:
getAux :: SparseArray a -> [Bool] -> Value a
getAux (Node x _ _) [] = x
getAux (Node _ left right) (x:xs)
| x = getAux right xs
| otherwise = getAux left xs
By turining -Wincomplete-patterns [Haskell-docs] on for the compiler, it will warn you for patterns that the function does not cover. For example if your SparseArray has an extra data constructor, then these cases are not covered (yet).
Related
Working on a small assignment for class, having a lot of trouble with Haskell. I am trying to make a recursive method for finding if an integer is part of a list or not. I know the gist, but am unable to get it working correctly with the haskell syntax. Check if the current list is empty, if so then False, then check if integer is equal to the head of the current list, if so, then True, then call member again with the same value you are searching for, and the tail of the list. What can I do to get this functioning properly.
Currently this is what I have:
member ::Int -> [Int] -> Bool
member x y
if y [] then False
else if x == head y then True
else member x tail y
I have also tried using
member :: (Eq x) => x -> [x] -> Bool
as the beginning line, and also a much simplier :
let member x y = if null y then False
else if x == head y then True
else member x tail y
Any help would be appreciated.
with pattern matching you can write it more clearly
member :: (Eq a) => a -> [a] -> Bool
member x [] = False
member x (y:ys) | x==y = True
| otherwise = member x ys
element _ [] = False
element e (x:xs) = e == x || e `element` xs
-- OR
element e xs = if xs == [] then False
else if e == head xs then True
else e `element` tail xs
-- OR
element e xs = xs /= [] && (e == head xs || e `element` tail xs)
-- x `op` y = op x y
-- If you're feeling cheeky
element = elem
Your syntax appears very confused, but your logic makes sense, so here's a bucket list of things to remember:
Functions can be defined by multiple equations. Equations are checked top to bottom. That means using =.
Pattern matches are not equality tests. A pattern match breaks a value into its constituents if it matches and fails otherwise. An equality test x == y returns a Bool about the equality of x and y.
Pattern matching is used for flow control via...
a case statement, like
case xs of {
[] -> ...
x:xs' -> ...
}
Multiple equations, like
element _ [] = ...
element e (x:xs) = ...
Note that you can ignore a value in a pattern with _. With multiple equations of a function with multiple arguments, you're really pattern matching on all the arguments at once.
Bools are used for flow control via if _ then _ else _:
if xs == [] then False
else True
which is really just
case x == y of {
True -> False
False -> True
}
and Bools can use the ordinary operators (&&) (infixr 3) and (||) (infixr 2)
The difference is especially nefarious on lists. instance Eq a => Eq [a], so in order to use == on lists, you need to know that the elements of the lists can be compared for equality, too. This is true even when you're just checking (== []). [] == [] actually causes an error, because the compiler cannot tell what type the elements are. Here it doesn't matter, but if you say, e.g. nonEmpty xs = xs /= [], you'll get nonEmpty :: Eq a => [a] -> Bool instead of nonEmpty :: [a] -> Bool, so nonEmpty [not] gives a type error when it should be True.
Function application has the highest precedence, and is left-associative:
element x xs reads as ((element x) xs)
element x tail xs reads as (((element x) tail) xs), which doesn't make sense here
f $ x = f x, but it's infixr 0, which means it basically reverses the rules and acts like a big set of parentheses around its right argument
element x $ tail xs reads as ((element x) (tail xs)), which works
Infix functions always have lower precedence than prefix application:
x `element` tail xs means ((element x) (tail xs)), too
let decls in expr is an expression. decls is only in scope inside expr, and the entire thing evaluates to whatever expr evaluates to. It makes no sense on the top level.
Haskell uses indentation to structure code, like Python. Reference
Very basic but I'm finding the problem frustrating. I'm trying to group consecutive elements of a list:
myList = [1,2,3,4,4,4,5]
becomes
myList = [[1],[2],[3],[4,4,4],[5]]
This is my attempt using foldr with an accumulator:
print $ foldr (\ el acc -> if el /= head (head acc) then el ++ (head acc) else acc) [['a']] myList
I don't understand why I'm getting the following error:
Couldn't match expected type ‘[a0]’ with actual type ‘Int’
In the expression: 'a'
In the expression: ['a']
In the second argument of ‘foldr’, namely ‘[['a']]’
Any advice would be great!
Writing a fold on lists requires us to answer just two cases: [] (the empty list, or "nil") and x:xs (an element followed by a list, or "cons").
What is the answer when the list is empty? Lets say the answer is also an empty list. Therefore:
nilCase = []
What is the answer when the list is not empty? It depends on what we have already accumulated. Lets say we have already accumulated a group. We know that groups are non-empty.
consCase x ((g11:_):gs)
If x == g11 then we add it to the group. Otherwise we begin a new group. Therefore:
consCase x ggs#(g1#(g11:_):gs)
| x == g11 = (x:g1):gs
| otherwise = [x]:ggs
What if we have not accumulated any groups yet? Then we just create a new group.
consCase x [] = [[x]]
We can consolidate the three cases down to two:
consCase x ggs
| g1#(g11:_):gs <- ggs, x == g11 = (x:g1):gs
| otherwise = [x]:ggs
Then the desired fold is simply:
foldr consCase nilCase
Using foldr, it should be:
group :: (Eq a) => [a] -> [[a]]
group = foldr (\x acc -> if head acc == [] || head (head acc) == x then (x:head acc) : tail acc else [x] : acc) [[]]
The type of your case case is [[Char]], you are attempting to build a value of type [[Int]]. Our base case should be an empty list, and we'll add list elements in each step.
Let's look at the anonymous function you're written next. Note that we'll fail due to type based on your current if within the accumulator (they must return values of the same type, and the same type as the accumulator. It'll be better, and cleaner, if we pattern match the accumulator and apply the function differently in each case:
func :: Eq a => [a] -> [[a]]
func = foldr f []
where f x [] = undefined
f x (b#(b1:_):bs)
| x == b1 = undefined
| otherwise = undefined
When we encounter the base case, we should just add the our element wrapped in a list:
f x [] = [[x]]
Next, we'll deal with the non-empty list. If x is equal to the next head of the head of the list, we should add it to that list. Otherwise, we shou
f x (b#(b1:_):bs)
| == b1 = (x:b):bs
| = [x]:b:bs
Putting this together, we have:
func :: Eq a => [a] -> [[a]]
func = foldr f []
where f x [] = [[x]]
f x (b#(b1:_):bs)
| x == b1 = (x:b):bs
| otherwise = [x]:b:bs
Having broken the problem down, it's much easier to rewrite this more compactly with a lambda function. Notice that the head [[]] is just [], so we can handle the empty list case and the equality case as one action. Thus, we can rewrite:
func :: (Eq a) => [a] -> [[a]]
func = foldr (\x (b:bs) -> if b == [] || x == head b then (x:b):bs else [x]:b:bs) [[]]
However, this solution ends up requiring the use of head since we must pattern match all versions of the accumulator.
I am new to ruby and working on a problem but I don't know how to figure it out.
I want to write a function that return true if each consecutive element is a power of the previous element, otherwise return false
for example: if I have a list [2;4;8;16] the function should return true
function should return false , [3; 7; 9;]
let consec_ele element = match element with
[] -> true
h::t ->
if h > t then false
else
if t/h = 0 && t mod h = 0 then true
;;
i just can't figure out how to make it work and that so recursively.
Well, you first need to formalise your problem :
if my list is empty, then true
if my list is not, then it starts with a number n
if n = 1, then I need to start again because a^0 = 1 for all a
if n > 0 then I call a new function check on the rest of the list, tl, acting like this :
if tl is empty, then true
else tl starts with n' then if n' = n * n then I call check recursively on the rest and I need to keep the fact that I'm now checking for n * n * n ...
If n <= 0 then false
In OCaml this would be
let consec_ele l =
let rec cer b = function
| [] -> true
| n :: tl ->
if n <= 0 then false
(* We can start again for the first 1 we see, but if our
* list is [1; 1; 1; ...; 1] then we need to stop
* That's why we have this boolean b which is true and once
* we see 1 as the head of our list we swap it to false
*)
else if n = 1 then b && cer false tl
else
let rec check p = function
| [] -> true
| n' :: tl -> n' = pow n p && check (p + 1) tl
in check 1 tl
in cer true l;;
(For the pow function, I let you write it ;-) Of course, this can be bad because you could have an overflow, maybe you'd prefer to see if n' ^ (1/p) = n (the pth root of n' (why don't we have LaTeX mathmode on stackoverflow ? :-())
Being able to pattern-match on the first two elements in a list makes this trivial. Obviously an empty list is true, and a list with one element is also true. Otherwise, if we consider the first two elements, if the second is a power of the first, the function is true, and we can discard the first and consider the rest of the list recursively. Otherwise, the result is clearly false.
let rec consec_ele =
function
| [] | [_] -> true
| a::(b::_ as tl) when is_power_of a b -> consec_ele tl
| _ -> false
As a note, your test case of [2;4;8;16] should actually return false as 8 is a multiple, but not a power of 4.
Consider the following definition of trees:
Data Tree a = Empty | Node a (Tree a) (Tree a)
Define the function smallerbigger :: Float -> Tree Float -> ([Float],[Float]) that given a number n and a tree, produces a pair of lists whose elements are smaller and bigger than n.
(the question initially stated that the tree is a search tree, which was done in error).
For a list, you could implement a similar algorithm as
smallerbigger :: Ord a => a -> [a] -> ([a], [a])
smallerbigger x xs = go x xs [] []
where
go y [] lt gt = (lt, gt)
go y (z:zs) lt gt
| z < y = go y zs (z:lt) gt
| z >= y = go y zs lt (z:gt)
The basic shape of the algorithm will remain the same for a Tree, but the biggest difference will be how you recurse. You'll need to recurse down both branches, then once you get the result from each branch concatenate them together along with the result from the current node.
If you get stuck implementing this for a tree, feel free to comment and let me know what problem you're experiencing and include a link to your code in a gist/pastebin/whatever.
Here little set of utilities leading to simple solution. Assuming you need lazy function.
Here your data defition with addition of only show ability for debug
data Tree a = Empty | Node a (Tree a) (Tree a) deriving Show
Next we need to a little utility for easy tree creating. Following code is building a very unbalanced tree that is very similar to original list.
fromList:: [a] -> Tree a
fromList [] = Empty
fromList (x:xs) = Node x Empty (fromList xs)
Simple and obvious representation of tree in list form. Order of elements is preserved.
asList:: Tree a -> [a]
asList Empty = []
asList (Node x left right) = asList left ++ x: asList right
Next we assume we'll need pair of lists that could be lazy regardless of our destination.
We are keeping ability to work with tree that has infinite structure somewhere in the middle, but not at the last or end element.
This definition to walk our tree in opposite direction in lazy manner.
reverseTree:: Tree a -> Tree a
reverseTree Empty = Empty
reverseTree (Node x left right) = Node x (reverseTree right) (reverseTree left)
Next we finally building our procedure. It could create two possible infinite list of elements smaller and bigger than first argument.
smallerbigger::Ord a => a-> Tree a -> ([a],[a])
smallerbigger p t = (takeWhile (<p) $ asList t, takeWhile (>p) $ asList $ reverseTree t)
main = let t = fromList [1..10]
in do
print t
print $ smallerbigger 7 t
But in other hand we may want to preserve order in second list, while we are sure that we never hit bottom building first list. So we could drop elements that are equal to target separator and just span out list at it.
smallerbigger p = span (<p) . filter(/=p) . asList
Thanks for all the help and suggestions.
I managed to find a different solution:
smallerbigger :: Ord a => a -> Tree a -> ([a], [a])
smallerbigger n (Node r e d) =
let (e1,e2) = smallerbigger n e
(d1,d2) = smallerbigger n d
in if r>n then ( e1++d1, r:(e2++d2))
else if r<n then (r:(e1++d1), e2++d2 )
else ( e1++d1, e2++d2 )
Where let's say:
datatype bin_tree = Empty |
Node of value * bin_tree * bin_tree
How would I go about filling a binary tree (not a binary search tree where left is smaller than root and right bigger). Just values from a list inserted at each node in a binary tree.
You use the value constructors you've declared.
If we assume for a moment that value is int instead, then we for instance have that the tree
1
/ \
2 4
/
3
is represented by:
Node (1,
Node (2,
Node (3, Empty, Empty),
Empty
),
Node (4, Empty, Empty)
)
Or, equivalently, on one line:
Node (1, Node (2, Node (3, Empty, Empty), Empty), Node (4, Empty, Empty))
It's not really possible to help you, without knowing more about how you wan't your tree constructed from a given list. However here is an example that creates a balanced tree. It takes the first element and uses it as the node value, and then it splits the rest of the list into two sub lists of equal size (if possible), by taking all "even" element in the "left" list and all "odd" elements in the "right" list:
datatype 'a bin_tree = Empty
| Node of 'a * 'a bin_tree * 'a bin_tree
fun list_split xs =
let
fun loop [] (left, right) = (rev left, rev right)
| loop (x::y::xs) (left, right) = loop xs (x :: left, y :: right)
| loop (x :: xs) (left, right) = loop xs (x :: left, right)
in
loop xs ([], [])
end
fun built_tree [] = Empty
| built_tree (x :: xs) =
let
val (left, right) = list_split xs
val left_tree = built_tree left
val right_tree = built_tree right
in
Node (x, left_tree, right_tree)
end
The result:
- built_tree [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9];
val it =
Node
(1,Node (2,Node (4,Node (8,Empty,Empty),Empty),Node (6,Empty,Empty)),
Node (3,Node (5,Node (9,Empty,Empty),Empty),Node (7,Empty,Empty)))
: int bin_tree
Here is an answer to the same question done in Java. This will probably help a good bit :).