In Haskell I'm trying to create a function with the typing Int -> [a] -> [[a]], that generates a list such as: [[0, 0], [0, 1], [1, 0], [1, 1]] where each element in the smaller lists can take the value of either 1 or 0. Each of the smaller lists has the same size, which in this case is 2. If the size of the smaller lists was 3, I would expect to get the output [[0,0,0], [0,0,1], [0,1,0], [1,0,0], [1,1,0], [0,1,1], [1,0,1], [1,1,1]]
I've looked in to the permutations function, but this does not achieve exactly what I want. I believe there is also a variate function, but I cannot access this library.
Rather than the exact function (which would also be useful), what would be the process to generate such a list?
As oisdk mentions in a comment, a more general version of this exact function is already defined, with the name Control.Monad.replicateM:
Prelude> import Control.Monad (replicateM)
Prelude Control.Monad> replicateM 3 [0,1]
[[0,0,0],[0,0,1],[0,1,0],[0,1,1],[1,0,0],[1,0,1],[1,1,0],[1,1,1]]
We can use the list monad for this:
example :: [[Int]]
example = do
x <- [0,1]
y <- [0,1]
pure [x,y]
ghci> example
[[0,0],[0,1],[1,0],[1,1]]
Play with this. Then you should be able to combine it with recursion on n to create the function you need.
I'm not sure I understood the specification, but from the examples, one possible definition is
lists :: Int -> [[Int]]
lists 0 = [[]]
lists n = map (0:) xss ++ map (1:) xss
where xss = lists (n-1)
-- λ> lists 2
-- [[0,0],[0,1],[1,0],[1,1]]
-- λ> lists 3
-- [[0,0,0],[0,0,1],[0,1,0],[0,1,1],[1,0,0],[1,0,1],[1,1,0],[1,1,1]]
Another definition, using comprehension instead of map, is
lists :: Int -> [[Int]]
lists 0 = [[]]
lists n = [x:xs | x <- [0,1], xs <- lists (n-1)]
-- λ> lists 2
-- [[0,0],[0,1],[1,0],[1,1]]
-- λ> lists 3
-- [[0,0,0],[0,0,1],[0,1,0],[0,1,1],[1,0,0],[1,0,1],[1,1,0],[1,1,1]]
You can use the sequence function.
Like this:
λ>
λ> :t sequence
sequence :: (Traversable t, Monad m) => t (m a) -> m (t a)
λ>
λ> let { allLists :: Int -> [a] -> [[a]] ; allLists n xs = sequence $ replicate n xs ; }
λ>
λ> allLists 3 [0,1]
[[0,0,0],[0,0,1],[0,1,0],[0,1,1],[1,0,0],[1,0,1],[1,1,0],[1,1,1]]
λ>
Related
My Problem is that I want to create a infinite list of all combinations of a given list. So for example:
infiniteListComb [1,2] = [[],[1],[2], [1,1],[1,2],[2,1],[2,2], [1,1,1], ...].
other example:
infiniteListComb [1,2,3] = [[], [1], [2], [3], [1,1], [1,2], [1,3], [2,1],[2,2],[2,3],[3,1],[3,2],[3,3],[1,1,1], ...].
Reminds me of power sets, but with lists with same elements in it.
What I tried:
I am new in Haskell. I tried the following:
infiniteListComb: [x] -> [[x]]
infiniteListComb [] = []
infiniteListComb [(x:xs), ys] = x : infiniteListComb [xs,ys]
But that did not work because it only sumed up my list again. Has anyone another idea?
Others already provided a few basic solutions. I'll add one exploiting the Omega monad.
The Omega monad automatically handles all the interleaving among infinitely many choices. That is, it makes it so that infiniteListComb "ab" does not return ["", "a", "aa", "aaa", ...] without ever using b. Roughly, each choice is scheduled in a fair way.
import Control.Applicative
import Control.Monad.Omega
infiniteListComb :: [a] -> [[a]]
infiniteListComb xs = runOmega go
where
go = -- a combination is
pure [] -- either empty
<|> -- or
(:) <$> -- a non empty list whose head is
each xs -- an element of xs
<*> -- and whose tail is
go -- a combination
Test:
> take 10 $ infiniteListComb [1,2]
[[],[1],[1,1],[2],[1,1,1],[2,1],[1,2],[2,1,1],[1,1,1,1],[2,2]]
The main downside of Omega is that we have no real control about the order in which we get the answers. We only know that all the possible combinations are there.
We iteratively add the input list xs to a list, starting with the empty list, to get the ever growing lists of repeated xs lists, and we put each such list of 0, 1, 2, ... xs lists through sequence, concatting the resulting lists:
infiniteListComb :: [a] -> [[a]]
infiniteListComb xs = sequence =<< iterate (xs :) []
-- = concatMap sequence (iterate (xs :) [])
e.g.
> take 4 (iterate ([1,2,3] :) [])
[[],[[1,2,3]],[[1,2,3],[1,2,3]],[[1,2,3],[1,2,3],[1,2,3]]]
> sequence [[1,2,3],[1,2,3]]
[[1,1],[1,2],[1,3],[2,1],[2,2],[2,3],[3,1],[3,2],[3,3]]
> take 14 $ sequence =<< iterate ([1,2,3] :) []
[[],[1],[2],[3],[1,1],[1,2],[1,3],[2,1],[2,2],[2,3],[3,1],[3,2],[3,3],[1,1,1]]
The essence of Monad is flatMap (splicing map).
sequence is the real magician here. It is equivalent to
sequence [xs, ys, ..., zs] =
[ [x,y,...,z] | x <- xs, y <- ys, ..., z <- zs ]
or in our case
sequence [xs, xs, ..., xs] =
[ [x,y,...,z] | x <- xs, y <- xs, ..., z <- xs ]
Coincidentally, sequence . replicate n is also known as replicateM n. But we spare the repeated counting from 0 to the growing n, growing them by 1 at a time instead.
We can inline and fuse together all the definitions used here, including
concat [a,b,c...] = a ++ concat [b,c...]
to arrive at a recursive solution.
Another approach, drawing on answer by chi,
combs xs = ys where
ys = [[]] ++ weave [ map (x:) ys | x <- xs ]
weave ((x:xs):r) = x : weave (r ++ [xs])
There are many ways to implement weave.
Since list Applicative/Monad works via a cartesian-product like system, there's a short solution with replicateM:
import Control.Monad
infiniteListComb :: [x] -> [[x]]
infiniteListComb l = [0..] >>= \n -> replicateM n l
I'm playing around with Haskell, mostly trying to learn some new techniques to solve problems. Without any real application in mind I came to think about an interesting thing I can't find a satisfying solution to. Maybe someone has any better ideas?
The problem:
Let's say we want to generate a list of Ints using a starting value and a list of Ints, representing the pattern of numbers to be added in the specified order. So the first value is given, then second value should be the starting value plus the first value in the list, the third that value plus the second value of the pattern, and so on. When the pattern ends, it should start over.
For example: Say we have a starting value v and a pattern [x,y], we'd like the list [v,v+x,v+x+y,v+2x+y,v+2x+2y, ...]. In other words, with a two-valued pattern, next value is created by alternatingly adding x and y to the number last calculated.
If the pattern is short enough (2-3 values?), one could generate separate lists:
[v,v,v,...]
[0,x,x,2x,2x,3x, ...]
[0,0,y,y,2y,2y,...]
and then zip them together with addition. However, as soon as the pattern is longer this gets pretty tedious. My best attempt at a solution would be something like this:
generateLstByPattern :: Int -> [Int] -> [Int]
generateLstByPattern v pattern = v : (recGen v pattern)
where
recGen :: Int -> [Int] -> [Int]
recGen lastN (x:[]) = (lastN + x) : (recGen (lastN + x) pattern)
recGen lastN (x:xs) = (lastN + x) : (recGen (lastN + x) xs)
It works as intended - but I have a feeling there is a bit more elegant Haskell solution somewhere (there almost always is!). What do you think? Maybe a cool list-comprehension? A higher-order function I've forgotten about?
Separate the concerns. First look a just a list to process once. Get that working, test it. Hint: “going through the list elements with some accumulator” is in general a good fit for a fold.
Then all that's left to is to repeat the list of inputs and feed it into the pass-once function. Conveniently, there's a standard function for that purpose. Just make sure your once-processor is lazy enough to handle the infinite list input.
What you describe is
foo :: Num a => a -> [a] -> [a]
foo v pattern = scanl (+) v (cycle pattern)
which would normally be written even as just
foo :: Num a => a -> [a] -> [a]
foo v = scanl (+) v . cycle
scanl (+) v xs is the standard way to calculate the partial sums of (v:xs), and cycle is the standard way to repeat a given list cyclically. This is what you describe.
This works for a pattern list of any positive length, as you wanted.
Your way of generating it is inventive, but it's almost too clever for its own good (i.e. it seems overly complicated). It can be expressed with some list comprehensions, as
foo v pat =
let -- the lists, as you describe them:
lists = repeat v :
[ replicate i 0 ++
[ y | x <- [p, p+p ..]
, y <- map (const x) pat ]
| (p,i) <- zip pat [1..] ]
in
-- OK, so what do we do with that? How do we zipWith
-- over an arbitrary amount of lists?
-- with a fold!
foldr (zipWith (+)) (repeat 0) lists
map (const x) pat is a "clever" way of writing replicate (length pat) x. It can be further shortened to x <$ pat since (<$) x xs == map (const x) xs by definition. It might seem obfuscated, until you've become accustomed to it, and then it seems clear and obvious. :)
Surprised noone's mentioned the silly way yet.
mylist x xs = x : zipWith (+) (mylist x xs) (cycle xs)
(If you squint a bit you can see the connection to scanl answer).
When it is about generating series my first approach would be iterate or unfoldr. iterate is for simple series and unfoldr is for those who carry kind of state but without using any State monad.
In this particular case I think unfoldr is ideal.
series :: Int -> [Int] -> [Int]
series s [x,y] = unfoldr (\(f,s) -> Just (f*x + s*y, (s+1,f))) (s,0)
λ> take 10 $ series 1 [1,1]
[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10]
λ> take 10 $ series 3 [1,1]
[3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12]
λ> take 10 $ series 0 [1,2]
[0,1,3,4,6,7,9,10,12,13]
It is probably better to implement the lists separately, for example the list with x can be implement with:
xseq :: (Enum a, Num a) => a -> [a]
xseq x = 0 : ([x, x+x ..] >>= replicate 2)
Whereas the sequence for y can be implemented as:
yseq :: (Enum a, Num a) => a -> [a]
yseq y = [0,y ..] >>= replicate 2
Then you can use zipWith :: (a -> b -> c) -> [a] -> [b] -> [c] to add the two lists together and add v to it:
mylist :: (Enum a, Num a) => a -> a -> a -> [a]
mylist v x y = zipWith ((+) . (v +)) (xseq x) (yseq y)
So for v = 1, x = 2, and y = 3, we obtain:
Prelude> take 10 (mylist 1 2 3)
[1,3,6,8,11,13,16,18,21,23]
An alternative is to see as pattern that we each time first add x and then y. We thus can make an infinite list [(x+), (y+)], and use scanl :: (b -> a -> b) -> b -> [a] -> [b] to each time apply one of the functions and yield the intermediate result:
mylist :: Num a => a -> a -> a -> [a]
mylist v x y = scanl (flip ($)) v (cycle [(x+), (y+)])
this yields the same result:
Prelude> take 10 $ mylist 1 2 3
[1,3,6,8,11,13,16,18,21,23]
Now the only thing left to do is to generalize this to a list. So for example if the list of additions is given, then you can impelement this as:
mylist :: Num a => [a] -> [a]
mylist v xs = scanl (flip ($)) v (cycle (map (+) xs))
or for a list of functions:
mylist :: Num a => [a -> a] -> [a]
mylist v xs = scanl (flip ($)) v (cycle (xs))
I'm interested in writing an efficient Haskell function triangularize :: [a] -> [[a]] that takes a (perhaps infinite) list and "triangularizes" it into a list of lists. For example, triangularize [1..19] should return
[[1, 3, 6, 10, 15]
,[2, 5, 9, 14]
,[4, 8, 13, 19]
,[7, 12, 18]
,[11, 17]
,[16]]
By efficient, I mean that I want it to run in O(n) time where n is the length of the list.
Note that this is quite easy to do in a language like Python, because appending to the end of a list (array) is a constant time operation. A very imperative Python function which accomplishes this is:
def triangularize(elements):
row_index = 0
column_index = 0
diagonal_array = []
for a in elements:
if row_index == len(diagonal_array):
diagonal_array.append([a])
else:
diagonal_array[row_index].append(a)
if row_index == 0:
(row_index, column_index) = (column_index + 1, 0)
else:
row_index -= 1
column_index += 1
return diagonal_array
This came up because I have been using Haskell to write some "tabl" sequences in the On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences (OEIS), and I want to be able to transform an ordinary (1-dimensional) sequence into a (2-dimensional) sequence of sequences in exactly this way.
Perhaps there's some clever (or not-so-clever) way to foldr over the input list, but I haven't been able to sort it out.
Make increasing size chunks:
chunks :: [a] -> [[a]]
chunks = go 0 where
go n [] = []
go n as = b : go (n+1) e where (b,e) = splitAt n as
Then just transpose twice:
diagonalize :: [a] -> [[a]]
diagonalize = transpose . transpose . chunks
Try it in ghci:
> diagonalize [1..19]
[[1,3,6,10,15],[2,5,9,14],[4,8,13,19],[7,12,18],[11,17],[16]]
This appears to be directly related to the set theory argument proving that the set of integer pairs are in one-to-one correspondence with the set of integers (denumerable). The argument involves a so-called Cantor pairing function.
So, out of curiosity, let's see if we can get a diagonalize function that way.
Define the infinite list of Cantor pairs recursively in Haskell:
auxCantorPairList :: (Integer, Integer) -> [(Integer, Integer)]
auxCantorPairList (x,y) =
let nextPair = if (x > 0) then (x-1,y+1) else (x+y+1, 0)
in (x,y) : auxCantorPairList nextPair
cantorPairList :: [(Integer, Integer)]
cantorPairList = auxCantorPairList (0,0)
And try that inside ghci:
λ> take 15 cantorPairList
[(0,0),(1,0),(0,1),(2,0),(1,1),(0,2),(3,0),(2,1),(1,2),(0,3),(4,0),(3,1),(2,2),(1,3),(0,4)]
λ>
We can number the pairs, and for example extract the numbers for those pairs which have a zero x coordinate:
λ>
λ> xs = [1..]
λ> take 5 $ map fst $ filter (\(n,(x,y)) -> (x==0)) $ zip xs cantorPairList
[1,3,6,10,15]
λ>
We recognize this is the top row from the OP's result in the text of the question.
Similarly for the next two rows:
λ>
λ> makeRow xs row = map fst $ filter (\(n,(x,y)) -> (x==row)) $ zip xs cantorPairList
λ> take 5 $ makeRow xs 1
[2,5,9,14,20]
λ>
λ> take 5 $ makeRow xs 2
[4,8,13,19,26]
λ>
From there, we can write our first draft of a diagonalize function:
λ>
λ> printAsLines xs = mapM_ (putStrLn . show) xs
λ> diagonalize xs = takeWhile (not . null) $ map (makeRow xs) [0..]
λ>
λ> printAsLines $ diagonalize [1..19]
[1,3,6,10,15]
[2,5,9,14]
[4,8,13,19]
[7,12,18]
[11,17]
[16]
λ>
EDIT: performance update
For a list of 1 million items, the runtime is 18 sec, and 145 seconds for 4 millions items. As mentioned by Redu, this seems like O(n√n) complexity.
Distributing the pairs among the various target sublists is inefficient, as most filter operations fail.
To improve performance, we can use a Data.Map structure for the target sublists.
{-# LANGUAGE ExplicitForAll #-}
{-# LANGUAGE ScopedTypeVariables #-}
import qualified Data.List as L
import qualified Data.Map as M
type MIL a = M.Map Integer [a]
buildCantorMap :: forall a. [a] -> MIL a
buildCantorMap xs =
let ts = zip xs cantorPairList -- triplets (a,(x,y))
m0 = (M.fromList [])::MIL a
redOp m (n,(x,y)) = let afn as = case as of
Nothing -> Just [n]
Just jas -> Just (n:jas)
in M.alter afn x m
m1r = L.foldl' redOp m0 ts
in
fmap reverse m1r
diagonalize :: [a] -> [[a]]
diagonalize xs = let cm = buildCantorMap xs
in map snd $ M.toAscList cm
With that second version, performance appears to be much better: 568 msec for the 1 million items list, 2669 msec for the 4 millions item list. So it is close to the O(n*Log(n)) complexity we could have hoped for.
It might be a good idea to craete a comb filter.
So what does comb filter do..? It's like splitAt but instead of splitting at a single index it sort of zips the given infinite list with the given comb to separate the items coressponding to True and False in the comb. Such that;
comb :: [Bool] -- yields [True,False,True,False,False,True,False,False,False,True...]
comb = iterate (False:) [True] >>= id
combWith :: [Bool] -> [a] -> ([a],[a])
combWith _ [] = ([],[])
combWith (c:cs) (x:xs) = let (f,s) = combWith cs xs
in if c then (x:f,s) else (f,x:s)
λ> combWith comb [1..19]
([1,3,6,10,15],[2,4,5,7,8,9,11,12,13,14,16,17,18,19])
Now all we need to do is to comb our infinite list and take the fst as the first row and carry on combing the snd with the same comb.
Lets do it;
diags :: [a] -> [[a]]
diags [] = []
diags xs = let (h,t) = combWith comb xs
in h : diags t
λ> diags [1..19]
[ [1,3,6,10,15]
, [2,5,9,14]
, [4,8,13,19]
, [7,12,18]
, [11,17]
, [16]
]
also seems to be lazy too :)
λ> take 5 . map (take 5) $ diags [1..]
[ [1,3,6,10,15]
, [2,5,9,14,20]
, [4,8,13,19,26]
, [7,12,18,25,33]
, [11,17,24,32,41]
]
I think the complexity could be like O(n√n) but i can not make sure. Any ideas..?
I have [[Integer]] -> [Integer] and want to take the first element of the first sub-list, the second element of the second sub-list and .. the n-th element of the n-th sub-list and so on.
I am trying to achieve this using list comprehensions. However, I first drop an incrementing number of elements and the take the head of the remaining. But there again I don't know how to use drop (inc z) where z = 0 with inc c = c + 1 as an already defined function, in presumably this:
getNext :: [[Integer]] -> [Integer]
getNext xs = [y | drop (inc z) (y:ys) <- xs, (y:_) <- xs]
where z = 0
I know that the code above is not working, but again I had only so far come up to this and hit a wall.
You can do it like this:
getNext :: [[a]] -> [a]
getNext xs = [ head $ drop y x | (x,y) <- zip xs [0..]]
Although note that this function is partial because of head.
As the other answers suggest, you can use a zip function and zip with the list of indices.
The Glasgow Haskell Compiler (GHC) however offers the Parallel List Comp extension:
{-# LANGUAGE ParallelListComp #-}
diagonal :: [[a]] -> [a]
diagonal ls = [l !! i | l <- ls | i <- [0..]]
The (!!) operator gets the i-th element from a list.
Furthermore it is always advisable to use the most generic function signature; so [[a]] -> [a] instead of [[Integer]] -> [Integer]. This can be useful if you later decide to take the diagonal of a matrix of Double's, String, lists, custom types,...
You can zip the actual list of list of integers and another list which runs from 0 to infinity and get the corresponding elements, like this
picker :: [[Integer]] -> [Integer]
picker xs = [(x !! y) | (x, y) <- (zip xs [0..])]
main = print $ picker [[1, 2, 3], [4, 5, 6], [7, 8, 9]]
-- [1,5,9]
The expression [0..] will create an infinite list, lazily, starting from 0 and we zip it with xs. So, on every iteration, the result of zip would be used like this
[1, 2, 3] !! 0
[4, 5, 6] !! 1
[7, 8, 9] !! 2
We get element at index 0, which is 1, on the first iteration and 5 and 9 on the following iterations.
How can I flatten a nested list like this:
[1, 2, 3, 4] == flatten [[[1,2],[3]],[[4]]]
Yes, it’s concat from the Standard Prelude, given by
concat :: [[a]] -> [a]
concat xss = foldr (++) [] xss
If you want to turn [[[a]]] into [a], you must use it twice:
Prelude> (concat . concat) [[[1,2],[3]],[[4]]]
[1,2,3,4]
Since nobody else has given this, it is possible to define a function which will flatten lists of an arbitrary depth by using MultiParamTypeClasses. I haven't actually found it useful, but hopefully it could be considered an interesting hack. I got the idea from Oleg's polyvariadic function implementation.
{-# LANGUAGE MultiParamTypeClasses, OverlappingInstances, FlexibleInstances #-}
module Flatten where
class Flatten i o where
flatten :: [i] -> [o]
instance Flatten a a where
flatten = id
instance Flatten i o => Flatten [i] o where
flatten = concatMap flatten
Now if you load it and run in ghci:
*Flatten> let g = [1..5]
*Flatten> flatten g :: [Integer]
[1,2,3,4,5]
*Flatten> let h = [[1,2,3],[4,5]]
*Flatten> flatten h :: [Integer]
[1,2,3,4,5]
*Flatten> let i = [[[1,2],[3]],[],[[4,5],[6]]]
*Flatten> :t i
i :: [[[Integer]]]
*Flatten> flatten i :: [Integer]
[1,2,3,4,5,6]
Note that it's usually necessary to provide the result type annotation, because otherwise ghc can't figure out where to stop recursively applying the flatten class method. If you use a function with a monomorphic type that's sufficient however.
*Flatten> :t sum
sum :: Num a => [a] -> a
*Flatten> sum $ flatten g
<interactive>:1:7:
No instance for (Flatten Integer a0)
arising from a use of `flatten'
Possible fix: add an instance declaration for (Flatten Integer a0)
In the second argument of `($)', namely `flatten g'
In the expression: sum $ flatten g
In an equation for `it': it = sum $ flatten g
*Flatten> let sumInt = sum :: [Integer] -> Integer
*Flatten> sumInt $ flatten g
15
*Flatten> sumInt $ flatten h
15
As others have pointed out, concat :: [[a]] -> [a] is the function you are looking for, and it can't flatten nested lists of arbitrary depth. You need to call it multiple times to flatten it down to the desired level.
The operation does generalize to other monads, though. It is then known as join, and has the type Monad m => m (m a) -> m a.
Prelude Control.Monad> join [[1, 2], [3, 4]]
[1,2,3,4]
Prelude Control.Monad> join (Just (Just 3))
Just 3
Prelude Control.Monad.Reader> join (+) 21
42
import Data.List
let flatten = intercalate []
flatten $ flatten [[[1,2],[3]],[[4]]]
[1,2,3,4]
As hammar pointed out, join is the "monadic" way to flatten a list. You can use the do-Notation as well to write easily flatten functions of several levels:
flatten xsss = do xss <- xsss
xs <- xss
x <- xs
return x
An arbitrarily nested list can be approximated by a Data.Tree, which can be flattened by the appropriately named function flatten.
I say approximated because Data.Tree allows a data item to be attached to every node, not just the leaves. However, you could create a Data.Tree (Maybe a), and attach Nothing to the body nodes, and flatten with catMaybes . flatten.
You can remove one level of nesting using concat, and consequently you can apply n levels of nesting by applying concat n times.
It is not possible to write a function which removes an arbitrary level of nestings, as it is not possible to express the type of a function, which takes an arbitrarily nested list and returns a flat list, using Haskell's type system (using the list datatype that is - you can write your own datatype for arbitrarily nested lists and write a flatten function for that).