How do I add all of the x coordinates together in a list of points type Pt?
Example:
[Pt 1 2, Pt 3 4] => 1 + 3 => 4
Here is the data-type and function declaration that I am using:
data Point = Pt Double Double
x :: [Point] -> Point
This is what I have tried.
x :: [Point] -> Point
x [Pt x y] = Pt(x+x)
Probably the easiest way to do this, is by first making a function that can extract the x-coordinate of a point. For example with xPt:
xPt :: Point -> Double
xPt (Pt x _) = x
then we can make use of sum :: (Foldable f, Num a) => f a -> a and map :: (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b] to map a list of points to a list of x-coordinates:
xSum :: [Point] -> Double
xSum = sum . map xPt
You can use a list comprehension for this:
xSum :: [Point] -> Double
xSum pts = sum [x | Pt x _ <- pts]
Related
I m a newbie to Haskell. I am pretty good with Imperative languages but not with functional. Haskell is my first as a functional language.
I am trying to figure out, how to get the index of the smallest element in the list where the minimum element is defined by me.
Let me explain by examples.
For example :
Function signature
minList :: x -> [x]
let x = 2
let list = [2,3,5,4,6,5,2,1,7,9,2]
minList x list --output 1 <- is index
This should return 1. Because the at list[1] is 3. It returns 1 because 3 is the smallest element after x (=2).
let x = 1
let list = [3,5,4,6,5,2,1,7,9,2]
minList x list -- output 9 <- is index
It should return 9 because at list[9] is 2 and 2 is the smallest element after 1. x = 1 which is defined by me.
What I have tried so far.
minListIndex :: (Ord a, Num a) => a -> [a] -> a
minListIndex x [] = 0
minListIndex x (y:ys)
| x > y = length ys
| otherwise = m
where m = minListIndex x ys
When I load the file I get this error
• Couldn't match expected type ‘a’ with actual type ‘Int’
‘a’ is a rigid type variable bound by
the type signature for:
minListIndex :: forall a. (Ord a, Num a) => a -> [a] -> a
at myFile.hs:36:17
• In the expression: 1 + length ys
In an equation for ‘minListIndex’:
minListIndex x (y : ys)
| x > y = 1 + length ys
| otherwise = 1 + m
where
m = minListIndex x ys
• Relevant bindings include
m :: a (bound at myFile.hs:41:19)
ys :: [a] (bound at myFile.hs:38:19)
y :: a (bound at myFile.hs:38:17)
x :: a (bound at myFile.hs:38:14)
minListIndex :: a -> [a] -> a (bound at myFile.hs:37:1)
When I modify the function like this
minListIndex :: (Ord a, Num a) => a -> [a] -> a
minListIndex x [] = 0
minListIndex x (y:ys)
| x > y = 2 -- <- modified...
| otherwise = 3 -- <- modifiedd
where m = minListIndex x ys
I load the file again then it compiles and runs but ofc the output is not desired.
What is the problem with
| x > y = length ys
| otherwise = m
?
In short: Basically, I want to find the index of the smallest element but higher than the x which is defined by me in parameter/function signature.
Thanks for the help in advance!
minListIndex :: (Ord a, Num a) => a -> [a] -> a
The problem is that you are trying to return result of generic type a but it is actually index in a list.
Suppose you are trying to evaluate your function for a list of doubles. In this case compiler should instantiate function's type to Double -> [Double] -> Double which is nonsense.
Actually compiler notices that you are returning something that is derived from list's length and warns you that it is not possible to match generic type a with concrete Int.
length ys returns Int, so you can try this instead:
minListIndex :: Ord a => a -> [a] -> Int
Regarding your original problem, seems that you can't solve it with plain recursion. Consider defining helper recursive function with accumulator. In your case it can be a pair (min_value_so_far, its_index).
First off, I'd separate the index type from the list element type altogether. There's no apparent reason for them to be the same. I will use the BangPatterns extension to avoid a space leak without too much notation; enable that by adding {-# language BangPatterns #-} to the very top of the file. I will also import Data.Word to get access to the Word64 type.
There are two stages: first, find the index of the given element (if it's present) and the rest of the list beyond that point. Then, find the index of the minimum of the tail.
-- Find the 0-based index of the first occurrence
-- of the given element in the list, and
-- the rest of the list after that element.
findGiven :: Eq a => a -> [a] -> Maybe (Word64, [a])
findGiven given = go 0 where
go !_k [] = Nothing --not found
go !k (x:xs)
| given == xs = Just (k, xs)
| otherwise = go (k+1) xs
-- Find the minimum (and its index) of the elements of the
-- list greater than the given one.
findMinWithIndexOver :: Ord a => a -> [a] -> Maybe (Word64, a)
findMinWithIndexOver given = go 0 Nothing where
go !_k acc [] = acc
go !k acc (x : xs)
| x <= given = go (k + 1) acc xs
| otherwise
= case acc of
Nothing -> go (k + 1) (Just (k, x)) xs
Just (ix_min, curr_min)
| x < ix_min = go (k + 1) (Just (k, x)) xs
| otherwise = go (k + 1) acc xs
You can now put these functions together to construct the one you seek. If you want a general Num result rather than a Word64 one, you can use fromIntegral at the very end. Why use Word64? Unlike Int or Word, it's (practically) guaranteed not to overflow in any reasonable amount of time. It's likely substantially faster than using something like Integer or Natural directly.
It is not clear for me what do you want exactly. Based on examples I guess it is: find the index of the smallest element higher than x which appears after x. In that case, This solution is plain Prelude. No imports
minList :: Ord a => a -> [a] -> Int
minList x l = snd . minimum . filter (\a -> x < fst a) . dropWhile (\a -> x /= fst a) $ zip l [0..]
The logic is:
create the list of pairs, [(elem, index)] using zip l [0..]
drop elements until you find the input x using dropWhile (\a -> x /= fst a)
discards elements less than x using filter (\a -> x < fst a)
find the minimum of the resulting list. Tuples are ordered using lexicographic order so it fits your problem
take the index using snd
Your function can be constructed out of ready-made parts as
import Data.Maybe (listToMaybe)
import Data.List (sortBy)
import Data.Ord (comparing)
foo :: (Ord a, Enum b) => a -> [a] -> Maybe b
foo x = fmap fst . listToMaybe . take 1
. dropWhile ((<= x) . snd)
. sortBy (comparing snd)
. dropWhile ((/= x) . snd)
. zip [toEnum 0..]
This Maybe finds the index of the next smallest element in the list above the given element, situated after the given element, in the input list. As you've requested.
You can use any Enum type of your choosing as the index.
Now you can implement this higher-level executable specs as direct recursion, using an efficient Map data structure to hold your sorted elements above x seen so far to find the next smallest, etc.
Correctness first, efficiency later!
Efficiency update: dropping after the sort drops them sorted, so there's a wasted effort there; indeed it should be replaced with the filtering (as seen in the answer by Luis Morillo) before the sort. And if our element type is in Integral (so it is a properly discrete type, unlike just an Enum, thanks to #dfeuer for pointing this out!), there's one more opportunity for an opportunistic optimization: if we hit on a succ minimal element by pure chance, there's no further chance of improvement, and so we should bail out at that point right there:
bar :: (Integral a, Enum b) => a -> [a] -> Maybe b
bar x = fmap fst . either Just (listToMaybe . take 1
. sortBy (comparing snd))
. findOrFilter ((== succ x).snd) ((> x).snd)
. dropWhile ((/= x) . snd)
. zip [toEnum 0..]
findOrFilter :: (a -> Bool) -> (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> Either a [a]
findOrFilter t p = go
where go [] = Right []
go (x:xs) | t x = Left x
| otherwise = fmap ([x | p x] ++) $ go xs
Testing:
> foo 5 [2,3,5,4,6,5,2,1,7,9,2] :: Maybe Int
Just 4
> foo 2 [2,3,5,4,6,5,2,1,7,9,2] :: Maybe Int
Just 1
> foo 1 [3,5,4,6,5,2,1,7,9,2] :: Maybe Int
Just 9
Using Haskell:
Let's say I have list: [1,3,4,2,3]
And I want to modify all 3's in the list. I know that I can apply this to select the 3's in this case:
map (\x -> if p x then f x else x) xs
However, the functions being applied to the threes is dependent on their index within the list.
So for example if the index was added to the desired number the output of the function I'm going for would be: [1,4,4,2,7].
You can use zipWith :: (a -> b -> c) -> [a] -> [b] -> [c] for this:
zipWith (\i x -> if p x then f i x else x) [0..] xs
where f thus takes i (the index) and x (the element) both into account.
For example:
zipWith (\i x -> if x == 3 then (i+x) else x) [0..] xs
Which generates the desired output:
Prelude> let xs = [1,3,4,2,3]
Prelude> zipWith (\i x -> if x == 3 then (i+x) else x) [0..] xs
[1,4,4,2,7]
You can encapsulate this logic into a separate function, for instance imap :: (Enum n, Num n) => (n -> a -> b) -> [a] -> b:
imap :: (Enum n, Num n) => (n -> a -> b) -> [a] -> b
imap = flip zipWith [0..]
This will work with any type that is an instance of Num and Enum (so Integer, Int, Float,...).
While zipWith is probably the right way, just for a variety you may go recursive as follows;
tpi :: [Int] -> [Int]
tpi = runner 0
where runner _ [] = []
runner n (x:xs) | x == 3 = (n + x) : runner (n+1) xs
| otherwise = x : runner (n+1) xs
My task is to remove the duplicates from a list. To do that I have to first sort the list.
I have written the function that sorts the list and the one that remove the
duplicates(once they are sorted) but I don't know how to combine them.
Example:
input: [4;5;2;2;1;3;3]
output: [1;2;3;4;5]
let rec setify = function
| [] -> []
| x :: l -> insert x (setify l)
and insert elem = function
| [] -> [elem]
| x :: l -> if elem < x then elem :: x :: l
else x :: insert elem l;;
let rec rem =function
|[] -> []
| x :: []-> x :: []
| x :: y :: rest -> if x = y then rem (y :: rest)
else x :: rem (y :: rest) ;;
You want to make the function that takes a list, creates the sorted list, and deduplicates that. In other words, you want:
let task list =
let sorted_list = setify list in
rem sorted_list
It is possible to do this in arbitrarily more complicated ways, but the above is one straightforward, one-action-per-line version. Since the phrasing of the title of your question invites it, here is one of the more sophisticated ways:
(* it's possible to write a generic combinator of functions, that takes two functions f and g *)
let combine f g =
(* and returns a function *)
fun x ->
(* that maps x to f(g(x)) *)
f (g x)
(* this function is typed as:
val combine : ('a -> 'b) -> ('c -> 'a) -> 'c -> 'b = <fun>
*)
(* the task can then be expressed as the combination of setify and rem: *)
let task = combine rem setify
Don't use this style unless something is actually gained from it. Most of
the times it only makes programs less readable and slower with no corresponding benefit. *)
Is there anyway that I can extend a list of list in Haskell?
I'm trying to write a function that generates [1,2,2,3,3,3,4,4,4,4.....] which is basically a 1 one, 2 twos, 3 threes etc.
My Attempt:
nnss :: [Integer]
nnss = [nPrint x x | x <- [1,2..]]
The problem with my attempt is that nPrint x x returns a list of integers, for example, nPrint 2 2 would return [2, 2]. Is there anyway I can "expand" the list from [1,2,3...] to [1,2,2,3,3,3...] ?
The function signature we're looking for is [[a]] -> [a] and if we check hoogle we see that concat is what we're looking for.
And in this case though, the list comprehension is unnecessary since we're just iterating over each item, so we really want to just do a map. So since combining map and concat is so common we can just write
concatMap (\x -> nPrint x x) [1..]
You can ignore this if you're new to haskell but since the list monad is defined with concatMap we could also write
[1..] >>= \x -> nPrint x x
You can also write it without using maps and list concatenations (just prepend in constant time):
nnss :: [Integer]
nnss = genRepeated 1 1
genRepeated :: Integer -> Integer -> [Integer]
genRepeated x 0 = genRepeated (x+1) (x+1)
genRepeated x y = x : genRepeated x (y-1)
Than
take 22 nnss == [1,2,2,3,3,3,4,4,4,4,5,5,5,5,5,6,6,6,6,6,6,7]
Other fast possibility is:
nnss :: [Integer]
nnss = flatten [take x $ repeat x | x <- [1..]]
flatten :: [[a]] -> [a]
flatten [] = []
flatten ([]:xs) = flatten xs
flatten ((x:xs):ys) = x : flatten (xs:ys)
Just add concat:
nnss :: [Integer]
nnss = concat [nPrint x x | x <- [1,2..]]
The function search below searches for two inputs which have the same output under some function. During the search it iterates over the input list xs twice, and this input list could be very large, e.g. [0..1000000000]. I'd rather use memory for storing the HashSet created by collision rather than storing the elements of xs, and my understanding is that even though xs could be lazily computed it would be kept around in case it was needed for the call to find.
Questions:
is this understanding correct?
if I keep it as a list is there a way I can have xs recomputed if it is passed to find?
is there an alternative data structure I can use for xs which allows me to control the space used? xs is just used to specify which inputs to check.
Note that there are no type restrictions on xs - it can be a collection of any type.
import Data.HashSet as Set
import Data.Hashable
import Data.List
search :: (Hashable b, Eq b) => (a->b) -> [a] -> Maybe (a,a)
search h xs =
do x0 <- collision h xs
let h0 = h x0
x1 <- find (\x -> (h x) == h0) xs
return (x0,x1)
collision :: (Hashable b, Eq b) => (a->b) -> [a] -> Maybe a
collision h xs = go Set.empty xs
where
go s [] = Nothing
go s (x:xs) =
if y `Set.member` s
then Just x
else go (Set.insert y s) xs
where y = h x
main = print $ search (\x -> x `mod` 21) ([10,20..2100] :: [Int])
I answered basically this question here: https://stackoverflow.com/a/6209279/371753
Here's the relevant code.
import Data.Stream.Branching(Stream(..))
import qualified Data.Stream.Branching as S
import Control.Arrow
import Control.Applicative
import Data.List
data UM s a = UM (s -> Maybe a) deriving Functor
type UStream s a = Stream (UM s) a
runUM s (UM f) = f s
liftUM x = UM $ const (Just x)
nullUM = UM $ const Nothing
buildUStream :: Int -> Int -> Stream (UM ()) Int
buildUStream start end = S.unfold (\x -> (x, go x)) start
where go x
| x < end = liftUM (x + 1)
| otherwise = nullUM
usToList x = unfoldr (\um -> (S.head &&& S.tail) <$> runUM () um) x
Long story short, instead of passing around a list, pass around a data type that describes how to generate a list. Now you can write functions directly over the stream, or you can use the usToList function to use the list functions you already have.