Haskell - Finding Divisors of an Integer - list

According to the book this is how its done, but I am not able to get this to work. It gives me an error Not in scope: 'ld'. I'm guessing I should be importing some package but not sure which one. Also the book uses GS module at the prompt but I'm using WinGHCi that has Prelude. What am I missing here?
factors :: Int -> [Int]
factors n | n < 1 = error "not positive"
| n == 1 = []
| otherwise = p : factors (div n p)
where p = ld n
I guess this can also be done using map and filter functions? How?


I suppose the aim of the assignment is to teach you about list comprehensions, filter and similar constructs, and not to have you write functions that test for primality or create the list of divisors in any sensible way. Therefore what you need is a predicate divides,
divides :: Int -> Int -> Bool
a `divides` b = ???
Then you use that predicate for the argument to filter or in a list comprehension to find the list of divisors, and use the divisors function for your isPrime test.


You want to inspect all numbers from 1 to n, and keep them only if they divide n. The filter function can help you:
divisors n = filter ??? [1..n]
So what condition you need to put in place of ??? ?
For the isPrime function you could reuse the divisors function, you already mentioned how.


Break it down into simpler steps.
Write a function, divides :: Int -> Int -> Bool such that
x `divides` n
is true when x is a divisor of n. So, first, think about what it means for x to be a divisor of n.
Now that you have a way to check if a single number x is a divisor of n, you need to check a certain range of numbers less than n to see which ones are divisors.
Hint: In Haskell, you can generate a list of numbers from 1 to n like so: [1..n]
This is where that filter function you mention would be useful. Check its type:
filter :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> [a]
Just replace the a above with Int.
As far as the isPrime function, just think about what it means for a number to be prime... if you've calculated your divisors correctly, you can check the list to make sure that it matches with that property.
If this is a homework related question, you should definitely tag it with homework, then people don't feel as timid about helping out :)

Related

Finding two max in list

How do I find two max value in a list and sum up, not using rec, only can use List.fold_left or right and List.map?
I used filter, but it's not allowed, anyways I can replace the filter?
let max a b =
if b = 0 then a
else if a > b then a
else b;;
let maxl2 lst =
match lst with
| [] -> 0
| h::t ->
let acc = h in
List.fold_left max acc lst +
List.fold_left
max acc
(List.filter (fun x -> (x mod List.fold_left max acc lst) != 0) lst);;

List.fold_left is very powerful and can be used to implement List.filter, List.map, List.rev and so on. So it's not much of a restriction. I would assume the purpose of the exercise is for you to learn about the folds and what they can do.
If your solution with List.filter actually works, you should be able to replace List.filter by one you wrote yourself using List.fold_left. The basic idea of a fold is that it builds up a result (of any type you choose) by looking at one element of the list at a time. For filter, you would add the current element to the result if it passes the test.
However I have to wonder whether your solution will work even with List.filter. I don't see why you're using mod. It doesn't make a lot of sense. You seem to need an equality test (= in OCaml). You can't use mod as an equality test. For example 28 mod 7 = 0 but 28 <> 7.
Also your idea of filtering out the largest value doesn't seem like it would work if the two largest values were equal.
My advice is to use List.fold_left to maintain the two largest values you've seen so far. Then add them up at the end.

To build on what Jeffrey has said, List.fold_left looks at one element in a list at a time and an accumulator. Let's consider a list [1; 3; 7; 0; 6; 2]. An accumulator that makes sense is a tuple with the first element being the largest and the second element representing the second largest. We can initially populate these with the first two elements.
The first two elements of this list are [1; 3]. Finding the max of that we can turn this into the tuple (3, 1). The remainder of the list is [7; 0; 6; 2].
First we consider 7. It's bigger than 3, so we change the accumulator to (7, 3). Next we consider 0. This is smaller than both elements of the accumulator, so we make no changes. Next: 6. This is bigger than 3 but smaller than 7, so we updated the accumulator to (7, 6). Next: 2 which is smaller than both, so no change. The resulting accumulator is (7, 6).
Actually writing the code for this is your job.

Often, functions called by fold use an accumulator that is simple enough to be stored as an anonymous tuple. But this can become hard to understand when you are dealing with complex behaviors: you have to consider different corner cases, like what is the initial accumulator value? what is the regular behavior of the function, ie. when the accumulator has encountered enough values? what happens before that?
For example here you have to keep track of two maximal values (the general case), but your code has a build-up phase where there is only one element being visited in the list, and starts with initially no known max value. This kind of intermediate states is IMO the hardest part of using fold (the more pleasant cases are when the accumulator and list elements are of the same type).
I'd recommend making it very clear what type the accumulator is, and write as many helper functions as possible to clear things up.
To that effect, let's define the accumulator type as follows, with all different cases treated explicitly:
type max_of_acc =
| SortedPair of int * int (* invariant: fst <= snd *)
| Single of int
| Empty
Note that this isn't the only way to do it, you could keep a list of maximum values, initially empty, always sorted, and of size at most N, for some N (and then you would solve a more general case, ie. a list of N highest values). But as an exercise, it helps to cover the different cases as above.
For example, at some point you will need to compute the sum of the max values.
let sum_max_of m = match m with
| Empty -> 0
| Single v -> v
| SortedPair (u,v) -> u+v;;
I would also define the following helper function:
let sorted_pair u v = if u <= v then SortedPair (u,v) else SortedPair (v, u)
Finally, your function would look like this:
let fold_max_of acc w = match acc with
| Empty -> ...
| Single v -> ...
| SortedPair (u, v) -> ...
And could be used in the following way:
# List.fold_left fold_max_of Empty [1;2;3;5;4];;
- : max_of = SortedPair (4, 5)

Function which outputs a list of factors

For an assignment I need to create a function which takes a list of Ints and outputs all of a number's factors in a new list. Thing is, I have absolutely no idea how to do this. I know its signature needs to be like this though :
factors :: [Int] -> [[Int]]
factors xs = ???
So when you take a list like this : [2,5,7,8]
It outputs [[],[],[],[2,4]]
I have tried things with map, filter, mod, list comprehension or higher order functions, but since this is the first language I am learning, it's very hard for me to come up with any sort of solution.

So the first thing to do if we get stuck is to skip the programming part of the problem and start by solving the actual problem. We want to take 1 number, get the factors of that number, wrap the factors inside a list, and keep going until there are no more numbers to factor.
So how do we get the factors of a number? A number x is a factor of y if we can write y as a product of x and some other integer z. Therefor, 2 is a factor of 8 because 8 can be written as 2*4.
Using this information we also know that 8 must be divisble by 2 without rest, which it is. Great! So know we know that for any two integers x and y, if x is divisible by y without rest, y is a factor.
Lets go to haskell and try some approach with the information : " x is a factor of y if y is divided by x with no rest"
factors :: Int -> [Int]
factors y = [ x | x <- [1..y], y `mod` x == 0]
So, using a listcomp we can wrap all x:es from [1..y] and put them in a list, but if and only if
y 'mod' that specific x equals 0.
If we have a function to create a list with all the factors of one number, what if we just map that function to a list of numbers, and wrap the resulting lists in a new list, and return that list
listFactors :: [Int] -> [[Int]]
listFactors xs = map factors xs
If we do not want to show the multiplication identity 1 or the number itself we can just change the interval to [2..y-1]

Append integer to global list inside function haskell

I'll use a simple example for what I'm trying to do.
Say I have the list:
nums = []
Now I have the function:
allNums n = nums.append(n)
So if I run the function:
allNums 6
The list nums should have the values
[6]
I know nums.append doesn't work, but what code could replace that.

Simple Answer:
You can't do that. Haskell is a pure, functional language, that means:
A function does not have any side effect.
A function does always return the same result when called with the same parameters.
A function may or may not be called, but you don't have to care about that. If it wasn't called, it wasn't needed, but because the function does not have any side effects, you won't find out.
Complex answer:
You could use the State Monad to implement something that behaves a bit like this, but this is probably out of reach for you yet.

I'm suggesting to use an infinite list instead of appending to global variable.
It's true haskell is pure functional. But also it's lazy. Every part of data is not calculated until is really needed. It also applies to collections. So you could even define a collection with elements based on previous elements of same collection.
Consider following code:
isPrime n = all (\p -> (n `mod` p) /= 0 ) $ takeWhile (\p ->p * p <= n) primes
primes = 2 : ( filter isPrime $ iterate (+1) 3 )
main = putStrLn $ show $ take 100 primes
definition of isPrime is trivia when primes list is defined. It takes pack of primes which is less or equivalent to square root of examining number
takeWhile (\p ->p * p <= n) primes
then it checks if number have only non-zero remainders in division by all of these numbers
all (\p -> (n `mod` p) /= 0 )
the $ here is an application operator
Next using this definition we taking all numbers starting from 3:
iterate (+1) 3
And filtering primes from them.
filter isPrime
Then we just prepending the first prime to it:
primes = 2 : ( ... )
So primes becomes an infinite self-referred list.
You may ask: why we prepending 2 and just no starting filtering numbers from it like:
primes = filter isPrime $ iterate (+1) 2
You could check this leads to uncomputable expression because the isPrime function needs at least one known member of primes to apply the takeWhile to it.
As you can see primes is well defined and immutable while it could have as many elements as you'll need in your logic.

Intermediate lists in Haskell

I am doing Project Euler question 55 on Lychrel numbers where the aim is to find the number of Lychrel numbers below 10,000 within 50 iterations. I came up with this:
revAdd n = (read $ reverse $ show n) + n
lychrel n | length xs == 50 = error "False"
| ((reverse $ show (revAdd n)) == (show (revAdd n))) = True
| otherwise = (lychrel (revadd n) ) : xs
answer = length [ x | x <- [1..10000] , lychrel x == True]
But I don't know how to define xs as the list of previous iterations upon n, which are when n is not a palindrome. How would I do this, and secondly would this work?

It becomes much easier if you separate your concerns into distinct steps.
Define a function that sums a number and its reverse.
Use iterate to repeat your number, starting from x.
Use take to limit your iteration to 50 steps.
Use all with a predicate to determine if any of these steps results in a palindrome.

You need to pass the list of iterations (or just the number of iterations) in as a parameter to lychrel, starting with [] in the call from answer and adding to it in the recursive call in the otherwise case. Look up "accumulating parameters" for more general background on this technique.

Concurrent Prime Generator

I'm going through the problems on projecteuler.net to learn how to program in Erlang, and I am having the hardest time creating a prime generator that can create all of the primes below 2 million, in less than a minute. Using the sequential style, I have already written three types of generators, including the Sieve of Eratosthenes, and none of them perform well enough.
I figured a concurrent Sieve would work great, but I'm getting bad_arity messages, and I'm not sure why. Any suggestions on why I have the problem, or how to code it properly?
Here's my code, the commented out sections are where I tried to make things concurrent:
-module(primeserver).
-compile(export_all).
start() ->
register(primes, spawn(fun() -> loop() end)).
is_prime(N) -> rpc({is_prime,N}).
rpc(Request) ->
primes ! {self(), Request},
receive
{primes, Response} ->
Response
end.
loop() ->
receive
{From, {is_prime, N}} ->
if
N From ! {primes, false};
N =:= 2 -> From ! {primes, true};
N rem 2 =:= 0 -> From ! {primes, false};
true ->
Values = is_not_prime(N),
Val = not(lists:member(true, Values)),
From ! {primes, Val}
end,
loop()
end.
for(N,N,_,F) -> [F(N)];
for(I,N,S,F) when I + S [F(I)|for(I+S, N, S, F)];
for(I,N,S,F) when I + S =:= N -> [F(I)|for(I+S, N, S, F)];
for(I,N,S,F) when I + S > N -> [F(I)].
get_list(I, Limit) ->
if
I
[I*A || A
[]
end.
is_not_prime(N) ->
for(3, N, 2,
fun(I) ->
List = get_list(I,trunc(N/I)),
lists:member(N,lists:flatten(List))
end
).
%%L = for(1,N, fun() -> spawn(fun(I) -> wait(I,N) end) end),
%%SeedList = [A || A
%% lists:foreach(fun(X) ->
%% Pid ! {in_list, X}
%% end, SeedList)
%% end, L).
%%wait(I,N) ->
%% List = [I*A || A lists:member(X,List)
%% end.

I wrote an Eratosthenesque concurrent prime sieve using the Go and channels.
Here is the code: http://github.com/aht/gosieve
I blogged about it here: http://blog.onideas.ws/eratosthenes.go
The program can sieve out the first million primes (all primes upto 15,485,863) in about 10 seconds. The sieve is concurrent, but the algorithm is mainly synchronous: there are far too many synchronization points required between goroutines ("actors" -- if you like) and thus they can not roam freely in parallel.

The 'badarity' error means that you're trying to call a 'fun' with the wrong number of arguments. In this case...
%%L = for(1,N, fun() -> spawn(fun(I) -> wait(I,N) end) end),
The for/3 function expects a fun of arity 1, and the spawn/1 function expects a fun of arity 0. Try this instead:
L = for(1, N, fun(I) -> spawn(fun() -> wait(I, N) end) end),
The fun passed to spawn inherits needed parts of its environment (namely I), so there's no need to pass it explicitly.
While calculating primes is always good fun, please keep in mind that this is not the kind of problem Erlang was designed to solve. Erlang was designed for massive actor-style concurrency. It will most likely perform rather badly on all examples of data-parallel computation. In many cases, a sequential solution in, say, ML will be so fast that any number of cores will not suffice for Erlang to catch up, and e.g. F# and the .NET Task Parallel Library would certainly be a much better vehicle for these kinds of operations.

Primes parallel algorithm : http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~scandal/cacm/node8.html

Another alternative to consider is to use probabalistic prime generation. There is an example of this in Joe's book (the "prime server") which uses Miller-Rabin I think...

You can find four different Erlang implementations for finding prime numbers (two of which are based on the Sieve of Eratosthenes) here. This link also contains graphs comparing the performance of the 4 solutions.

The Sieve of Eratosthenes is fairly easy to implement but -- as you have discovered -- not the most efficient. Have you tried the Sieve of Atkin?
Sieve of Atkin # Wikipedia

Two quick single-process erlang prime generators; sprimes generates all primes under 2m in ~2.7 seconds, fprimes ~3 seconds on my computer (Macbook with a 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo). Both are based on the Sieve of Eratosthenes, but since Erlang works best with lists, rather than arrays, both keep a list of non-eliminated primes, checking for divisibility by the current head and keeping an accumulator of verified primes. Both also implement a prime wheel to do initial reduction of the list.
-module(primes).
-export([sprimes/1, wheel/3, fprimes/1, filter/2]).
sieve([H|T], M) when H=< M -> [H|sieve([X || X<- T, X rem H /= 0], M)];
sieve(L, _) -> L.
sprimes(N) -> [2,3,5,7|sieve(wheel(11, [2,4,2,4,6,2,6,4,2,4,6,6,2,6,4,2,6,4,6,8,4,2,4,2,4,8,6,4,6,2,4,6,2,6,6,4,2,4,6,2,6,4,2,4,2,10,2,10], N), math:sqrt(N))].
wheel([X|Xs], _Js, M) when X > M ->
lists:reverse(Xs);
wheel([X|Xs], [J|Js], M) ->
wheel([X+J,X|Xs], lazy:next(Js), M);
wheel(S, Js, M) ->
wheel([S], lazy:lazy(Js), M).
fprimes(N) ->
fprimes(wheel(11, [2,4,2,4,6,2,6,4,2,4,6,6,2,6,4,2,6,4,6,8,4,2,4,2,4,8,6,4,6,2,4,6,2,6,6,4,2,4,6,2,6,4,2,4,2,10,2,10], N), [7,5,3,2], N).
fprimes([H|T], A, Max) when H*H =< Max ->
fprimes(filter(H, T), [H|A], Max);
fprimes(L, A, _Max) -> lists:append(lists:reverse(A), L).
filter(N, L) ->
filter(N, N*N, L, []).
filter(N, N2, [X|Xs], A) when X < N2 ->
filter(N, N2, Xs, [X|A]);
filter(N, _N2, L, A) ->
filter(N, L, A).
filter(N, [X|Xs], A) when X rem N /= 0 ->
filter(N, Xs, [X|A]);
filter(N, [_X|Xs], A) ->
filter(N, Xs, A);
filter(_N, [], A) ->
lists:reverse(A).
lazy:lazy/1 and lazy:next/1 refer to a simple implementation of pseudo-lazy infinite lists:
lazy(L) ->
repeat(L).
repeat(L) -> L++[fun() -> L end].
next([F]) -> F()++[F];
next(L) -> L.
Prime generation by sieves is not a great place for concurrency (but it could use parallelism in checking for divisibility, although the operation is not sufficiently complex to justify the additional overhead of all parallel filters I have written thus far).
`

Project Euler problems (I'd say most of the first 50 if not more) are mostly about brute force with a splash of ingenuity in choosing your bounds.
Remember to test any if N is prime (by brute force), you only need to see if its divisible by any prime up to floor(sqrt(N)) + 1, not N/2.
Good luck

I love Project Euler.
On the subject of prime generators, I am a big fan of the Sieve of Eratosthenes.
For the purposes of the numbers under 2,000,000 you might try a simple isPrime check implementation. I don't know how you'd do it in erlang, but the logic is simple.
For Each NUMBER in LIST_OF_PRIMES
If TEST_VALUE % NUMBER == 0
Then FALSE
END
TRUE
if isPrime == TRUE add TEST_VALUE to your LIST_OF_PRIMES
iterate starting at 14 or so with a preset list of your beginning primes.
c# ran a list like this for 2,000,000 in well under the 1 minute mark
Edit: On a side note, the sieve of Eratosthenes can be implemented easily and runs quickly, but gets unwieldy when you start getting into huge lists. The simplest implementation, using a boolean array and int values runs extremely quickly. The trouble is that you begin running into limits for the size of your value as well as the length of your array. -- Switching to a string or bitarray implementation helps, but you still have the challenge of iterating through your list at large values.

here is a vb version
'Sieve of Eratosthenes
'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieve_of_Eratosthenes
'1. Create a contiguous list of numbers from two to some highest number n.
'2. Strike out from the list all multiples of two (4, 6, 8 etc.).
'3. The list's next number that has not been struck out is a prime number.
'4. Strike out from the list all multiples of the number you identified in the previous step.
'5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until you reach a number that is greater than the square root of n (the highest number in the list).
'6. All the remaining numbers in the list are prime.
Private Function Sieve_of_Eratosthenes(ByVal MaxNum As Integer) As List(Of Integer)
'tested to MaxNum = 10,000,000 - on 1.8Ghz Laptop it took 1.4 seconds
Dim thePrimes As New List(Of Integer)
Dim toNum As Integer = MaxNum, stpw As New Stopwatch
If toNum > 1 Then 'the first prime is 2
stpw.Start()
thePrimes.Capacity = toNum 'size the list
Dim idx As Integer
Dim stopAT As Integer = CInt(Math.Sqrt(toNum) + 1)
'1. Create a contiguous list of numbers from two to some highest number n.
'2. Strike out from the list all multiples of 2, 3, 5.
For idx = 0 To toNum
If idx > 5 Then
If idx Mod 2 <> 0 _
AndAlso idx Mod 3 <> 0 _
AndAlso idx Mod 5 <> 0 Then thePrimes.Add(idx) Else thePrimes.Add(-1)
Else
thePrimes.Add(idx)
End If
Next
'mark 0,1 and 4 as non-prime
thePrimes(0) = -1
thePrimes(1) = -1
thePrimes(4) = -1
Dim aPrime, startAT As Integer
idx = 7 'starting at 7 check for primes and multiples
Do
'3. The list's next number that has not been struck out is a prime number.
'4. Strike out from the list all multiples of the number you identified in the previous step.
'5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until you reach a number that is greater than the square root of n (the highest number in the list).
If thePrimes(idx) <> -1 Then ' if equal to -1 the number is not a prime
'not equal to -1 the number is a prime
aPrime = thePrimes(idx)
'get rid of multiples
startAT = aPrime * aPrime
For mltpl As Integer = startAT To thePrimes.Count - 1 Step aPrime
If thePrimes(mltpl) <> -1 Then thePrimes(mltpl) = -1
Next
End If
idx += 2 'increment index
Loop While idx < stopAT
'6. All the remaining numbers in the list are prime.
thePrimes = thePrimes.FindAll(Function(i As Integer) i <> -1)
stpw.Stop()
Debug.WriteLine(stpw.ElapsedMilliseconds)
End If
Return thePrimes
End Function