I'm having trouble with an assignment from my Haskell class. I have already solved a partial problem of this task: I have to write a function that takes an Int and creates an infinite list with the multiples of that Int.
function :: Int -> [Int]
function d = [d*x | x <- [1..]]
Console:
ghci> take 10 (function 3)
gives
[3,6,9,12,15,18,21,24,27,30]
In the second task I have to extend the function so that it accepts a list of numbers and uses each value of that list as a factor (d previously). For example:
ghci> take 10 (function [3, 5])
should give
[3,5,6,9,10,12,15,18,20,21]
Already tried a list comprehension like
function d = [y*x | y <- [1..], x <- d]
but the function returns the list in an unsorted form:
[3,5,6,10,9,15,12,20,15,25]
We got the tip that we should use the modulo function of Haskell, but I have no real idea how to proceed exactly. Do you have a good tip for me?
If you think of d being a factor not as
y = x * d
but instead
y `mod` d == 0,
then you can source the list comprehension from the list [1..] and add a predicate function, for example:
function ds
| null ds = [1..]
| otherwise = [ x | x <- [1..], qualifies x ]
where
qualifies x = any (==0) $ (flip mod) <$> ds <*> [x]
A more expressive version which is perhaps easier to grasp in the beginning:
function' ds
| null ds = [1..]
| otherwise = [ x | x <- [1..], divByAnyIn ds x ]
where
divByAnyIn ds x =
case ds of
(d:ds') -> if x `mod` d == 0 then True
else divByAnyIn ds' x
_ -> False
I have a one liner.
import Data.List (nub)
f xs = nub [x|x<-[1..], d<-xs, x `mod` d == 0]
take 10 $ f [3,5] -- [3,5,6,9,10,12,15,18,20,21]
runtime should be O(n² + n*d) from the resulting list. The nub runs in O(n²). Would be nice to get rid of it.
g xs = [x |x<-[1..], let ys = map (mod x) xs in 0 `elem` ys]
This performs pretty ok. It should run in O (n*d). I also have this version which I thought performs at least as well as g, but apparently it performs better than f and worse than g.
h xs = [x |x<-[1..], or [x `mod` d == 0 |d<-xs] ]
I am not sure why that is, or is lazy as far as I can tell and I don`t see any reason why it should run slower. It especially does not scale as well when you increase the length of the input list.
i xs = foldr1 combine [[x, x+x ..] |x<- sort xs]
where
combine l [] = l
combine [] r = r
combine l#(x:xs) r#(y:ys)
| x < y = (x: combine xs r)
| x > y = (y: combine l ys)
| otherwise = (x: combine xs ys)
Not a one liner anymore, but the fastest I could come up with. I am not a hundred percent sure why it makes such a big difference on runtime if you right or left fold and if you sort the input list in advance. But it should not make a difference on the result since:
commutative a b = combine [a] [b] == combine [b] [a]
I find it completely insane to think about this Problem in terms of folding a recursive function over a list of endless lists of multiples of input coefficients.
On my System it is still about a factor of 10 slower than another solution presented here using Data.List.Ordered.
The answer here just shows the idea, it is not a optimized solution, there may exists many way to implement it.
Firstly, calculate all the value of each factors from the inputted list:
map (\d->[d*x|x<-[1..]]) xs
For example: xs = [3, 5] gives
[[3, 6, 9, ...], [5, 10, 15, ...]]
then, find the minimum value of 1st element of each list as:
findMinValueIndex::[(Int, [Int])]->Int
findMinValueIndex xss = minimum $
map fst $
filter (\p-> (head $ snd p) == minValue) xss
where minValue = minimum $ map (head . snd) xss
Once we found the list hold the minimum value, return it and remove the minimum value from list as:
sortMulti xss =
let idx = findMinValueIndex $ zip [0..] xss
in head (xss!!idx):sortMulti (updateList idx (tail $ xss!!idx) xss
So, for example, after find the first value (i.e. 3) of the result, the lists for find next value is:
[[6, 9, ...], [5, 10, 15, ...]]
repeat above steps we can construct the desired list. Finally, remove the duplicated values. Here is the completed coding:
import Data.Sequence (update, fromList)
import Data.Foldable (toList)
function :: [Int] -> [Int]
function xs = removeDup $ sortMulti $ map (\d->[d*x|x<-[1..]]) xs
where sortMulti xss =
let idx = findMinValueIndex $ zip [0..] xss
in head (xss!!idx):sortMulti (updateList idx (tail $ xss!!idx) xss)
removeDup::[Int]->[Int]
removeDup [] = []
removeDup [a] = [a]
removeDup (x:xs) | x == head xs = removeDup xs
| otherwise = x:removeDup xs
findMinValueIndex::[(Int, [Int])]->Int
findMinValueIndex xss = minimum $
map fst $
filter (\p-> (head $ snd p) == minValue) xss
where minValue = minimum $ map (head . snd) xss
updateList::Int->[Int]->[[Int]]->[[Int]]
updateList n xs xss = toList $ update n xs $ fromList xss
There is a pretty nice recursive solution
function' :: Int -> [Int]
function' d = [d * x | x <- [1..]]
braid :: [Int] -> [Int] -> [Int]
braid [] bs = bs
braid as [] = as
braid aa#(a:as) bb#(b:bs)
| a < b = a:braid as bb
| a == b = a:braid as bs # avoid duplicates
| otherwise = b:braid aa bs
function :: [Int] -> [Int]
function ds = foldr braid [] (map function' ds)
braid function builds the desired list "on the fly" using only input's head and laziness
If you want to do it with the modulo function, you can define a simple one-liner
foo ds = filter (\x -> any (== 0) [mod x d | d <- ds]) [1..]
or, in the more readable form,
foo ds = filter p [1..]
where
p x = any id [ mod x d == 0 | d <- ds]
= any (== 0) [ mod x d | d <- ds]
= not $ null [ () | d <- ds, mod x d == 0]
= null [ () | d <- ds, mod x d /= 0]
= null [ () | d <- ds, rem x d > 0]
With this, we get
> take 20 $ foo [3,5]
[3,5,6,9,10,12,15,18,20,21,24,25,27,30,33,35,36,39,40,42]
But, it is inefficient: last $ take 20 $ foo [300,500] == 4200, so to produce those 20 numbers this code tests 4200. And it gets worse the bigger the numbers are.
We should produce n numbers in time roughly proportional to n, instead.
For this, first write each number's multiples in their own list:
[ [d*x | x <- [1..]] | d <- ds ] ==
[ [d, d+d ..] | d <- ds ]
Then, merge these ordered increasing lists of numbers in an ordered fashion to produce one ordered non-decreasing list of numbers. The package data-ordlist has many functions to deal with this kind of lists:
import qualified Data.List.Ordered as O
import Data.List (sort)
bar :: (Ord a, Num a, Enum a) => [a] -> [a]
bar ds = foldr O.merge [] [ [d, d+d ..] | d <- ds ]
= O.foldt' O.merge [] [ [d, d+d ..] | d <- ds ] -- more efficient,
= O.mergeAll [ [d, d+d ..] | d <- sort ds ] -- tree-shaped folding
If we want the produced list to not contain any duplicates, i.e. create an increasing list, we can change it to
baz ds = O.nub $ foldr O.merge [] [ [d, d+d ..] | d <- ds ]
= foldr O.union [] [ [d, d+d ..] | d <- ds ]
= O.foldt' O.union [] [ [d, d+d ..] | d <- ds ]
= O.unionAll [ [d, d+d ..] | d <- sort ds ]
= (O.unionAll . map (iterate =<< (+)) . sort) ds
Oh, and, unlike the quadratic Data.List.nub, Data.List.Ordered.nub is linear, spends O(1) time on each element of the input list.
Related
I want to rewrite (or upgrade! :) ) my two functions, hist and sort, using fold-functions. But since I am only in the beginning of my Haskell-way, I can't figure out how to do it.
First of all, I have defined Insertion, Table and imported Data.Char:
type Insertion = (Char, Int)
type Table = [Insertion]
import Data.Char
Then I have implemented the following code for hist:
hist :: String -> Table
hist[] = []
hist(x:xs) = sortBy x (hist xs) where
sortBy x [] = [(x,1)]
sortBy x ((y,z):yzs)
| x == y = (y,z+1) : yzs
| otherwise = (y,z) : sortBy x yzs
And this one for sort:
sort :: Ord a => [a] -> [a]
sort [] = []
sort (x:xs) = paste x (sort xs)
paste :: Ord a => a -> [a] -> [a]
paste y [] = [y]
paste y (x:xs)
| x < y = x : paste y xs
| otherwise = y : x : xs
What can I do next? How can I use the fold-functions to implement them?
foldr f z on a list replaces the "cons" of the list (:) with f and the empty list [] with z.
This thus means that for a list like [1,4,2,5], we thus obtain f 1 (f 4 (f 2 (f 5 z))), since [1,4,2,5] is short for 1 : 4 : 2 : 5 : [] or more canonical (:) 1 ((:) 4 ((:) 2 ((:) 5 []))).
The sort function for example can be replaced with a fold function:
sort :: Ord a => [a] -> [a]
sort = foldr paste []
since sort [1,4,2,5] is equivalent to paste 1 (paste 4 (paste 2 (paste 5 []))). Here f thus takes as first parameter an element, and as second parameter the result of calling foldr f z on the rest of the list,
I leave hist as an exercise.
I am trying to count the number of non-empty lists in a list of lists with recursive code.
My goal is to write something simple like:
prod :: Num a => [a] -> a
prod [] = 1
prod (x:xs) = x * prod xs
I already have the deifniton and an idea for the edge condition:
nonEmptyCount :: [[a]] -> Int
nonEmptyCount [[]] = 0
I have no idea how to continue, any tips?
I think your base case, can be simplified. As a base-case, we can take the empty list [], not a singleton list with an empty list. For the recursive case, we can consider (x:xs). Here we will need to make a distinction between x being an empty list, and x being a non-empty list. We can do that with pattern matching, or with guards:
nonEmptyCount :: [[a]] -> Int
nonEmptyCount [] = 0
nonEmptyCount (x:xs) = -- …
That being said, you do not need recursion at all. You can first filter your list, to omit empty lists, and then call length on that list:
nonEmptyCount :: [[a]] -> Int
nonEmptyCount = length . filter (…)
here you still need to fill in ….
Old fashion pattern matching should be:
import Data.List
nonEmptyCount :: [[a]] -> Int
nonEmptyCount [] = 0
nonEmptyCount (x:xs) = if null x then 1 + (nonEmptyCount xs) else nonEmptyCount xs
The following was posted in a comment, now deleted:
countNE = sum<$>(1<$)<<<(>>=(1`take`))
This most certainly will look intimidating to the non-initiated, but actually, it is equivalent to
= sum <$> (1 <$) <<< (>>= (1 `take`))
= sum <$> (1 <$) . (take 1 =<<)
= sum . fmap (const 1) . concatMap (take 1)
= sum . map (const 1) . concat . map (take 1)
which is further equivalent to
countNE xs = sum . map (const 1) . concat $ map (take 1) xs
= sum . map (const 1) $ concat [take 1 x | x <- xs]
= sum . map (const 1) $ [ r | x <- xs, r <- take 1 x]
= sum $ [const 1 r | (y:t) <- xs, r <- take 1 (y:t)] -- sneakiness!
= sum [const 1 r | (y:_) <- xs, r <- [y]]
= sum [const 1 y | (y:_) <- xs]
= sum [ 1 | (_:_) <- xs] -- replace each
-- non-empty list
-- in
-- xs
-- with 1, and
-- sum all the 1s up!
= (length . (take 1 =<<)) xs
= (length . filter (not . null)) xs
which should be much clearer, even if in a bit sneaky way. It isn't recursive in itself, yes, but both sum and the list-comprehension would be implemented recursively by a given Haskell implementation.
This reimplements length as sum . (1 <$), and filter p xs as [x | x <- xs, p x], and uses the equivalence not (null xs) === (length xs) >= 1.
See? Haskell is fun. Even if it doesn't yet feel like it, but it will be. :)
The point of this assignment is to understand list comprehensions.
Implementing Goldbach's conjecture for some natural number (otherwise the behavior does not matter) using several pre-defined functions and under the following restrictions:
no auxiliary functions
no use of where or let
only one defining equation on the left-hand side and the right-hand side must be a list comprehension
the order of the pairs in the resulting list is irrelevant
using functions from Prelude is allowed
-- This part is the "library"
dm :: Int -> [ Int ] -> [ Int ]
dm x xs = [ y | y <- xs , y `mod ` x /= 0]
da :: [ Int ] -> [ Int ]
da ( x : xs ) = x : da ( dm x xs )
primes :: [ Int ]
primes = da [2 ..]
-- Here is my code
goldbach :: Int -> [(Int,Int)]
-- This is my attempt 1
goldbach n = [(a, b) | n = a + b, a <- primes, b <- primes, a < n, b < n]
-- This is my attempt 2
goldbach n = [(a, b) | n = a + b, a <- takeWhile (<n) primes, b <- takeWhile (<n) primes]
Expected result: a list of all pairs summing up to the specified integer. But GHC complains that in the comprehension, n is not known. My gut tells me I need some Prelude function(s) to achieve what I need, but which one?
Update
parse error on input ‘=’
Perhaps you need a 'let' in a 'do' block?
e.g. 'let n = 5' instead of 'n = 5'
Disregarding the weird error you are talking about, I think that the problem you actually have is the following:
As mentioned by #chi and me, you can't use a and b in your final comprehension before you define a and b.
so you have to move it to the and.
Also: equality of integers is checked with (==) not (=) in haskell.
So you also need to change that.
This would be the complete code for your final approach:
goldbach n = [(a, b) | a <- takeWhile (<n) primes, b <- takeWhile (<n) primes, n == a + b]
A small test yields:
*Main> goldbach 5
[(2,3),(3,2)]
Update
If you want to achieve what you wrote in your comment, you can just add another condition to your comprehension
n `mod` 2 == 0
or even better: Define your funtion with a guard like this:
goldbach n
| n `mod` 2 == 0 = [(a, b) | a <- takeWhile (<n) primes, b <- takeWhile (<n) primes, n == a + b]
| otherwise = []
However, if I am not mistaken this has nothing to do with the actual Godbach conjecture.
I need a program that checks if the difference between all pairs of elements is in the interval from -2 up to 2 ( >= -2 && < 2). If it is, then return True, else return False. Foe example, [1,2,3] is True, but [1,3,4] is False.
I am using the all function. What is wrong with my if clause?
allfunc (x : xs)
= if all (...) xs
then allfunc xs
else [x] ++ allfunc xs
allfunc _
= []
Or I am doing something completely wrong?
For this, it's probably easier to use list comprehensions or do-notation.
pairsOf lst = do
x <- lst
y <- lst
return (x, y)
pairsOf returns the list of pairs of numbers in the input lst. For example, pairsOf [1,2,3] results in [(1,1),(1,2),(1,3),(2,1),(2,2),(2,3),(3,1),(3,2),(3,3)].
Now, you can define the difference between a pair in a one-liner \(x, y) -> x - y and map that over the list:
differences lst = map (\(x, y) -> x - y) (pairsOf lst)
Now you just have to make sure that each element in differences lst is between -2 and 2.
Of course, this is just one possible way to do it. There are many other ways as well.
The naive way to do what you describe is:
allfunc xs = all (<=2) [abs(a-b) | a <- xs, b <- xs ]
However, a more efficient method would be to compare the minimum and maximum of the list:
fastfunc [] = true
fastfunc xs = maximum xs - minimum xs <= 2
Why not simply...
allfunc xs = (maximum xs - minimum xs) <= 2
Or if you really want to investigate every pair, you can use monads:
import Control.Monad
allfunc xs = all ((<=2).abs) $ liftM2 (-) xs xs
liftA2 from Control.Applicative would do as well.
Well, the problem specification isn't very clear.
You say:
the diffence between all elements is in interval from -2 till 2 ( >= -2 && < 2)
But also:
Foe example, [1,2,3] is True, but [1,3,4] is False
How is it True for [1,2,3]?
Assuming you mean -2 <= diff <= 2, then I would use this:
allfunc :: (Ord a, Num a) => [a] -> Bool
allfunc theList = all (\x -> (x >= -2) && (x<2)) [x-y | x <- theList, y <- theList ]
allfunc [1,2,3] -- => True
allfunc [1,3,4] -- => False
Basically, yes you're doing something wrong. all is meant to take a predicate and a list of values to test. So it will return True if and only if all values yield true when applied to the given predicate function. I.e.:
allValuesEven = all even
allValuesOdd = all odd
Hi
Im new to Haskell and wish to write a simple code.
I want to write a function which creates a list of numbers.
Where it starts of with 1 and increase with 2n+1 and 3n+1
so for example output should be like
take 6 myList = [1,3,4,7,9,10]
I think i need to use recursion but not sure how to do
it in list format.
Any help will be appreciated. Thanks
Actually, I am not sure if I get your idea.
But Is this what you want?
generator list = list ++ generator next
where
next = (map (\n -> 2 * n + 1) list) ++ (map (\n -> 3 * n + 1) list)
Oh, you can use generator [1] to fire up. like this:
take 100 $ generator [1]
merge xs [] = xs
merge [] ys = ys
merge (x:xs) (y:ys) | x == y = x : merge xs ys
| x < y = x : merge xs (y:ys)
| otherwise = y : merge (x:xs) ys
print $ take 10 $ merge [1,3..] [1,4..]
--[1,3,4,5,7,9,10,11,13,15]
As luqui said, we could use info such as do duplicates matter and does order matter. If the answers are no and no then a simple concatMap works fine:
myList = 1 : concatMap (\n -> 2*n+1 : 3*n+1 : []) myList
Results in:
> take 20 myList
[1,3,4,7,10,9,13,15,22,21,31,19,28,27,40,31,46,45,67,43]
If the answers are yes and yes then I imagine it could be cleaner, but this is sufficient:
myList = abs
where
abs = merge as bs
as = 1 : map (\n -> 2*n+1) abs
bs = 1 : map (\n -> 3*n+1) abs
merge (x:xs) (y:ys)
| x == y = x : merge xs ys
| x < y = x : merge xs (y:ys)
| otherwise = y : merge (x:xs) ys
Results in:
> take 20 myList
[1,3,4,7,9,10,13,15,19,21,22,27,28,31,39,40,43,45,46,55]