I am trying to create a function that squares the numbers of an ML list and then adds those numbers up
fun sqsum(lst) = map (fn x => x*x) lst;
What I have there takes a list and returns a list of the square of each number but I can't figure out the adding part.
You could solve one sub-problem at a time and compose the result:
val sq = map (fn x => x*x)
val sum = foldl (fn (x, result) => x + result) 0
val sqsum = sum o sq
Or you could fuse the map and the foldl together:
val sqsum = foldl (fn (x, result) => x*x + result) 0
Or you could write this function with a recursive definition:
fun sqsum (x::xs) = x*x + sqsum xs
| sqsum [] = 0
And eventually improve it to be tail-recursive:
fun sqsum L =
let fun f (x::xs) result = f xs (x*x + result)
| f [] result = result
in f L 0 end
Even though higher-order list combinators like map and foldl are immensely useful and improve the readability of code once you get used to them, solving introductory exercises using manual recursion is very valuable to the learning process; after all, map and foldl are built this way.
Related
Hello every body im training some SMLs and im creating a code to get deviation of a int list . in the process of it , i need to get a Real list out of some numbers in a int list , which it doesnt let me get them. heres my code :
fun mean [] = 0.0
| mean (first::rest) =
let
fun sum [] = 0
| sum (x::xs) = x + sum xs
fun counter [] = 0
| counter (y::ys) = 1 + counter ys
in
Real.fromInt (sum (first::rest)) / Real.fromInt (counter (first::rest))
end;
fun deviation [] = 0.0
| deviation (first::rest) =
let
fun diff (x::xs) = (x - mean (x::xs)) :: diff xs;
in
diff (first , first::rest) + deviation rest
end;
the problem is here :
fun diff (x::xs) = (x - mean (x::xs) ) :: diff xs;
diff is a recursive function, but the base case is never defined. When you try to run diff on an empty list, you will get a pattern match error.
You also define diff to accept a list, but you call it with a tuple.
You define diff as returning a list, given that you are using ::, but then you use addition on the result of that function, which will not work.
Improving mean
You can simplify your sum and counter functions with folds.
fun mean [] = 0.0
| mean lst =
let
val sum = foldl op+ 0 lst
val counter = foldl (fn (_, c) => c + 1) 0 lst
in
Real.fromInt sum / Real.fromInt counter
end;
But this requires iterating the entire list twice, when both pieces of information can be ascertained at the same time.
fun sumLen(lst) =
foldl (fn (x, (sum, len)) => (sum+x, len+1)) (0, 0) lst
mean can now be implemented as:
fun mean(lst) =
let
val (sum, len) = sumLen(lst)
in
Real.fromInt sum / Real.fromInt len
end
Deviation
To get the differences from the mean for a list, you need only use map.
fun diffs(lst) =
let
val m = mean(lst)
in
map (fn x => Real.fromInt x - m) lst
end
Consider evaluating the following.
diffs [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]
The result is:
[~3.5, ~2.5, ~1.5, ~0.5, 0.5, 1.5, 2.5, 3.5]
From there you can use map and Math.pow to square those differences, foldl to sum them, divide by the length of the list, and then Math.sqrt to get the standard deviation.
This code is in Haskell. How can i do the same thing in OCAML?
perfect n = [x | x<-[1..n], sum(f x) == x]
f x = [i | i<-[1..x-1], x `mod` i ==0]
While Jeffrey's answer is correct, using appropriate libraries (in this case, sequence), you can get something that is similar in terseness and semantics to the Haskell style:
module S = Sequence
let sum = S.fold (+) 0
let f x = S.filter (fun i -> x mod i = 0) S.(1 -- (x-1))
let perfect n = S.filter (fun x -> sum (f x) = x) S.(1 -- n)
You're using many (really nice) features of Haskell that don't exist in OCaml.
For list comprehensions, you can use List.filter.
For the notation [x .. y] you can use this range function:
let range a b =
let rec go accum i =
if i > b then List.rev accum else go (i :: accum) (i + 1)
in
go [] a
For sum you can use this:
let sum = List.fold_left (+) 0
I'm writing a small program that takes coefficients of two polynomials and FOILs them together, however I can only seem to multiply elements at the same indices.
fun polyMult([],[]) = []
| polyMult(M, []) = []
| polyMult([], N) = []
| polyMult(M as x::xs, N as y::ys) =
(x * y) :: polyMult(M, ys);
I can successfully multiply the first element of M by every element of N, but then afterwards I want to be able to advance one element in M and then take that and multiply it by every element in N.
Is there any way I can advance the index in M and repeat the multiplication process? I.E
polyMult(tl(M) as x::xs, N as y::ys) =
(x * y) :: polyMult(M, ys);
Something along these lines
fun foldL F y nil = y
| foldL F y (x::xr) = foldL F (F(x,y)) xr;
fun polymult(M, nil) = nil
| polymult(nil, N) = nil
| polymult(m::mr, N) = foldL(fn(x,a) => x * a) m N::polymult(mr,N);
But you will need to figure out how to make it only accept real numbers and not integers as it does now ;)
I have a simple function (used for some problems of project Euler, in fact). It turns a list of digits into a decimal number.
fromDigits :: [Int] -> Integer
fromDigits [x] = toInteger x
fromDigits (x:xs) = (toInteger x) * 10 ^ length xs + fromDigits xs
I realized that the type [Int] is not ideal. fromDigits should be able to take other inputs like e.g. sequences, maybe even foldables ...
My first idea was to replace the above code with sort of a "fold with state". What is the correct (= minimal) Haskell-category for the above function?
First, folding is already about carrying some state around. Foldable is precisely what you're looking for, there is no need for State or other monads.
Second, it'd be more natural to have the base case defined on empty lists and then the case for non-empty lists. The way it is now, the function is undefined on empty lists (while it'd be perfectly valid). And notice that [x] is just a shorthand for x : [].
In the current form the function would be almost expressible using foldr. However within foldl the list or its parts aren't available, so you can't compute length xs. (Computing length xs at every step also makes the whole function unnecessarily O(n^2).) But this can be easily avoided, if you re-thing the procedure to consume the list the other way around. The new structure of the function could look like this:
fromDigits' :: [Int] -> Integer
fromDigits' = f 0
where
f s [] = s
f s (x:xs) = f (s + ...) xs
After that, try using foldl to express f and finally replace it with Foldable.foldl.
You should avoid the use of length and write your function using foldl (or foldl'):
fromDigits :: [Int] -> Integer
fromDigits ds = foldl (\s d -> s*10 + (fromIntegral d)) 0 ds
From this a generalization to any Foldable should be clear.
A better way to solve this is to build up a list of your powers of 10. This is quite simple using iterate:
powersOf :: Num a => a -> [a]
powersOf n = iterate (*n) 1
Then you just need to multiply these powers of 10 by their respective values in the list of digits. This is easily accomplished with zipWith (*), but you have to make sure it's in the right order first. This basically just means that you should re-order your digits so that they're in descending order of magnitude instead of ascending:
zipWith (*) (powersOf 10) $ reverse xs
But we want it to return an Integer, not Int, so let's through a map fromIntegral in there
zipWith (*) (powersOf 10) $ map fromIntegral $ reverse xs
And all that's left is to sum them up
fromDigits :: [Int] -> Integer
fromDigits xs = sum $ zipWith (*) (powersOf 10) $ map fromIntegral $ reverse xs
Or for the point-free fans
fromDigits = sum . zipWith (*) (powersOf 10) . map fromIntegral . reverse
Now, you can also use a fold, which is basically just a pure for loop where the function is your loop body, the initial value is, well, the initial state, and the list you provide it is the values you're looping over. In this case, your state is a sum and what power you're on. We could make our own data type to represent this, or we could just use a tuple with the first element being the current total and the second element being the current power:
fromDigits xs = fst $ foldr go (0, 1) xs
where
go digit (s, power) = (s + digit * power, power * 10)
This is roughly equivalent to the Python code
def fromDigits(digits):
def go(digit, acc):
s, power = acc
return (s + digit * power, power * 10)
state = (0, 1)
for digit in digits:
state = go(digit, state)
return state[0]
Such a simple function can carry all its state in its bare arguments. Carry around an accumulator argument, and the operation becomes trivial.
fromDigits :: [Int] -> Integer
fromDigits xs = fromDigitsA xs 0 # 0 is the current accumulator value
fromDigitsA [] acc = acc
fromDigitsA (x:xs) acc = fromDigitsA xs (acc * 10 + toInteger x)
If you're really determined to use a right fold for this, you can combine calculating length xs with the calculation like this (taking the liberty of defining fromDigits [] = 0):
fromDigits xn = let (x, _) = fromDigits' xn in x where
fromDigits' [] = (0, 0)
fromDigits' (x:xn) = (toInteger x * 10 ^ l + y, l + 1) where
(y, l) = fromDigits' xn
Now it should be obvious that this is equivalent to
fromDigits xn = fst $ foldr (\ x (y, l) -> (toInteger x * 10^l + y, l + 1)) (0, 0) xn
The pattern of adding an extra component or result to your accumulator, and discarding it once the fold returns, is a very general one when you're re-writing recursive functions using folds.
Having said that, a foldr with a function that is always strict in its second parameter is a really, really bad idea (excessive stack usage, maybe a stack overflow on long lists) and you really should write fromDigits as a foldl as some of the other answers have suggested.
If you want to "fold with state", probably Traversable is the abstraction you're looking for. One of the methods defined in Traversable class is
traverse :: Applicative f => (a -> f b) -> t a -> f (t b)
Basically, traverse takes a "stateful function" of type a -> f b and applies it to every function in the container t a, resulting in a container f (t b). Here, f can be State, and you can use traverse with function of type Int -> State Integer (). It would build an useless data structure (list of units in your case), but you can just discard it. Here's a solution to your problem using Traversable:
import Control.Monad.State
import Data.Traversable
sumDigits :: Traversable t => t Int -> Integer
sumDigits cont = snd $ runState (traverse action cont) 0
where action x = modify ((+ (fromIntegral x)) . (* 10))
test1 = sumDigits [1, 4, 5, 6]
However, if you really don't like building discarded data structure, you can just use Foldable with somewhat tricky Monoid implementation: store not only computed result, but also 10^n, where n is count of digits converted to this value. This additional information gives you an ability to combine two values:
import Data.Foldable
import Data.Monoid
data Digits = Digits
{ value :: Integer
, power :: Integer
}
instance Monoid Digits where
mempty = Digits 0 1
(Digits d1 p1) `mappend` (Digits d2 p2) =
Digits (d1 * p2 + d2) (p1 * p2)
sumDigitsF :: Foldable f => f Int -> Integer
sumDigitsF cont = value $ foldMap (\x -> Digits (fromIntegral x) 10) cont
test2 = sumDigitsF [0, 4, 5, 0, 3]
I'd stick with first implementation. Although it builds unnecessary data structure, it's shorter and simpler to understand (as far as a reader understands Traversable).
Haskell
addm::[Int]->Int
addm (x:xs) = sum(x:xs)
I was able to achieve to get a sum of a list using sum function but is it possible to get the sum of a list using map function? Also what the use of map function?
You can't really use map to sum up a list, because map treats each list element independently from the others. You can use map for example to increment each value in a list like in
map (+1) [1,2,3,4] -- gives [2,3,4,5]
Another way to implement your addm would be to use foldl:
addm' = foldl (+) 0
Here it is, the supposedly impossible definition of sum in terms of map:
sum' xs = let { ys = 0 : map (\(a,b) -> a + b) (zip xs ys) } in last ys
this actually shows how scanl can be implemented in terms of map (and zip and last), the above being equivalent to foldl (+) 0 xs === last $ scanl (+) 0 xs:
scanl' f z xs = let { ys = z : map (uncurry f) (zip ys xs) } in ys
I expect one can calculate many things with map, arranging for all kinds of information flow through zip.
edit: the above is just a zipWith in disguise of course (and zipWith is kind of a map2):
sum' xs = let { ys = 0 : zipWith (+) ys xs } in last ys
This seems to suggest that scanl is more versatile than foldl.
It is not possible to use map to reduce a list to its sum. That recursive pattern is a fold.
sum :: [Int] -> Int
sum = foldr (+) 0
As an aside, note that you can define map as a fold as well:
map :: (a -> b) -> ([a] -> [b])
map f = fold (\x xs -> f x : xs) []
This is because foldr is the canonical recursive function on lists.
References: A tutorial on the universality and expressiveness of fold, Graham Hutton, J. Functional Programming 9 (4): 355–372, July 1999.
After some insights I have to add another answer: You can't get the sum of a list with map, but you can get the sum with its monadic version mapM. All you need to do is to use a Writer monad (see LYAHFGG) over the Sum monoid (see LYAHFGG).
I wrote a specialized version, which is probably easier to understand:
data Adder a = Adder a Int
instance Monad Adder where
return x = Adder x 0
(Adder x s) >>= f = let Adder x' s' = f x
in Adder x' (s + s')
toAdder x = Adder x x
sum' xs = let Adder _ s = mapM toAdder xs in s
main = print $ sum' [1..100]
--5050
Adder is just a wrapper around some type which also keeps a "running sum." We can make Adder a monad, and here it does some work: When the operation >>= (a.k.a. "bind") is executed, it returns the new result and the value of the running sum of that result plus the original running sum. The toAdder function takes an Int and creates an Adder that holds that argument both as wrapped value and as running sum (actually we're not interested in the value, but only in the sum part). Then in sum' mapM can do its magic: While it works similar to map for the values embedded in the monad, it executes "monadic" functions like toAdder, and chains these calls (it uses sequence to do this). At this point, we get through the "backdoor" of our monad the interaction between list elements that the standard map is missing.
Map "maps" each element of your list to an element in your output:
let f(x) = x*x
map f [1,2,3]
This will return a list of the squares.
To sum all elements in a list, use fold:
foldl (+) 0 [1,2,3]
+ is the function you want to apply, and 0 is the initial value (0 for sum, 1 for product etc)
As the other answers point out, the "normal" way is to use one of the fold functions. However it is possible to write something pretty similar to a while loop in imperative languages:
sum' [] = 0
sum' xs = head $ until single loop xs where
single [_] = True
single _ = False
loop (x1 : x2 : xs) = (x1 + x2) : xs
It adds the first two elements of the list together until it ends up with a one-element list, and returns that value (using head).
I realize this question has been answered, but I wanted to add this thought...
listLen2 :: [a] -> Int
listLen2 = sum . map (const 1)
I believe it returns the constant 1 for each item in the list, and returns the sum!
Might not be the best coding practice, but it was an example my professor gave to us students that seems to relate to this question well.
map can never be the primary tool for summing the elements of a container, in much the same way that a screwdriver can never be the primary tool for watching a movie. But you can use a screwdriver to fix a movie projector. If you really want, you can write
import Data.Monoid
import Data.Foldable
mySum :: (Foldable f, Functor f, Num a)
=> f a -> a
mySum = getSum . fold . fmap Sum
Of course, this is silly. You can get a more general, and possibly more efficient, version:
mySum' :: (Foldable f, Num a) => f a -> a
mySum' = getSum . foldMap Sum
Or better, just use sum, because its actually made for the job.