needing some help (if possible) in how to count the amount of times a recursive function executes itself.
I don't know how to make some sort of counter in OCaml.
Thanks!
Let's consider a very simple recursive function (not Schroder as I don't want to do homework for you) to calculate Fibonacci numbers.
let rec fib n =
match n with
| 0 | 1 -> 1
| _ when n > 0 -> fib (n - 2) + fib (n - 1)
| _ -> raise (Invalid_argument "Negative values not supported")
Now, if we want to know how many times it's been passed in, we can have it take a call number and return a tuple with that call number updated.
To get each updated call count and pass it along, we explicitly call fib in let bindings. Each time c shadows its previous binding, as we don't need that information.
let rec fib n c =
match n with
| 0 | 1 -> (1, c + 1)
| _ when n > 0 ->
let n', c = fib (n - 1) (c + 1) in
let n'', c = fib (n - 2) (c + 1) in
(n' + n'', c)
| _ -> raise (Invalid_argument "Negative values not supported")
And we can shadow that to not have to explicitly pass 0 on the first call.
let fib n = fib n 0
Now:
utop # fib 5;;
- : int * int = (8, 22)
The same pattern can be applied to the Schroder function you're trying to write.
You can create a reference in any higher scope like so
let counter = ref 0 in
let rec f ... =
counter := !counter + 1;
... (* Function body *)
If the higher scope happens to be the module scope (or file top-level scope) you should omit the in
You can return a tuple (x,y) where y you increment by one for each recursive call. It can be useful if your doing for example a Schroder sequence ;)
Related
I am trying to implement a lazy fibonacci generator in Ocaml as shown below:
(* fib's helper *)
let rec fibhlpr n = if n == 0 then 0 else if n == 1 then 1 else fibhlpr (n-1) + fibhlpr (n-2);;
(* lazy fib? *)
let rec fib n = ((fibhlpr n), fun() -> fib (n+1));;
I am trying to return the result of fibhlpr (an int) and a function to retrieve the next value, but am not sure how. I think I have to create a new type in order to accommodate the two items I am returning, but I don't know what type fun() -> fib (n+1) returns. When messing around with the code, I received an error which informed me that
fun() -> fib (n+1) has type: int * (unit ->'a).
I am rather new to Ocaml and functional programming in general, so I don't know what this means. I tried creating a new type as follows:
type t = int * (unit -> 'a);;
However, I received the error: "Unbound type parameter 'a".
At this point I am truly stuck: how can I returns the two items that I want (the result of fibhlpr n and a function which returns the next value in the sequence) without causing an error? Thank you for any help.
If you want to define a lazy sequence, you can use the built-in sequence type
constructor Seq.t
let rec gen_fib a b () = Seq.Cons(a, gen_fib b (a+b))
let fib () = gen_fib 0 1 ()
This implementation also has the advantage that computing the n-th term of the sequence is O(n) rather than O(2^n).
If you want to keep using an infinite lazy type, it is also possible. However, you cannot use the recursive type expression
type t = int * (unit -> t)
without the -rectypes flag. And using -rectypes is generally ill-advised for beginners because it reduces the ability of type inference to identify programming errors.
It is thus better to simply use a recursive type definition as suggested by #G4143
type 'a infinite_sequence = { x:'a; next: unit -> 'a infinite_sequence }
let rec gen_fib a b () =
{ x = a; next = gen_fib b (a+b) }
let fib = gen_fib 0 1 ()
The correct type is
type t = int * (unit -> t)
You do not need a polymorphic 'a, because fibonacci only ever yields ints.
However, when you call the next function, you need to get the next value, but also a way to get the one after it, and so on and so on. You could call the function multiple times, but then it means that the function has mutable state, the above signature doesn't require that.
Try:
type 'a t = int * (unit -> 'a);
Your whole problems stems from this function:
let rec fib n = ((fibhlpr n), fun() -> fib (n+1))
I don't think the type system can define fib when it returns itself.. You need to create a new type which can construct a function to return.
I quickly tried this and it works:
type func = Func of (unit ->(int * func))
let rec fib n =
let c = ref 0 in
let rec f () =
if !c < n
then
(
c := !c + 1;
((fibhlpr !c), (Func f))
)
else
failwith "Done"
in
f
Following octachron's lead.. Here's a solution using Seq's unfold function.
let rec fibhlpr n =
if n == 0
then
0
else if n == 1
then
1
else
fibhlpr (n-1) + fibhlpr (n-2)
type func = Func of (unit -> (int * int * func))
let rec fib n =
(n, (fibhlpr n), Func(fun() -> fib (n+1)))
let seq =
fun x ->
Seq.unfold
(
fun e ->
let (c, d, Func f) = e in
if c > x
then
None
else
(
Some((c, d), f())
)
) (fib 0)
let () =
Seq.iter
(fun (c, d) -> Printf.printf "%d: %d\n" c d; (flush stdout)) (seq 30)
You started right saying your fib function returns an integer and a function:
type t = int * (unit -> 'a);;
But as the compiler says the 'a is not bound to anything. Your function also isn't polymorphic so that is has to return a type variable. The function you return is the fib function for the next number. Which also returns an integer and a function:
type t = int * (unit -> int * (unit -> 'a));;
But that second function again is the fib function for the next number.
type t = int * (unit -> int * (unit -> int * (unit -> 'a)))
And so on to infinity. Your type definition is actually recursive. The function you return as second half has the same type as the overall return type. You might try to write this as:
# type t = int * (unit -> t);;
Error: The type abbreviation t is cyclic
Recursive types are not allowed in ocaml unless the -rectypes option is used, which has some other side effects you should read about before using it.
A different way to break the cycle is to insert a Constructor into the cyclic type by making it a variant type:
# type t = Pair of int * (unit -> t)
let rec fibhlpr n = if n == 0 then 0 else if n == 1 then 1 else fibhlpr (n-1) + fibhlpr (n-2)
let rec fib n = Pair ((fibhlpr n), fun() -> fib (n+1));;
type t = Pair of int * (unit -> t)
val fibhlpr : int -> int = <fun>
val fib : int -> t = <fun>
Encapsulating the type recursion into a record type also works and might be the more common solution. Something like:
type t = { value : int; next : unit -> t; }
I also think you are missing the point of the exercise. Unless I'm mistaken the point of making it a generator is so that the function can compute the next fibonacci number from the two previous numbers, which you remember, instead of computing it recursively over and over.
I am trying to solve the coin change problem with tail recursion. The recursive solutions I come across are usually something like this
let rec combinations (amount:int) (coins:list<int>) =
if amount = 0 then
1
elif coins.IsEmpty || amount < 0 then
0
else
combinations (amount - coins.Head) coins + combinations amount coins.Tail
clearly inefficient and non tail recursive. I tried to make the solution tail recursive myself:
let combinationsTail (amount:int) (coins:list<int>) : int =
let rec go (amount:int) (sum:int) (coins:list<int>) =
match amount,sum ,coins with
| _,_, [] -> 0
| n,s,_ when n = 0 -> s
| n,_,cs when n < 0 || cs.IsEmpty -> 0
| n,s,h::t -> go (n - h) (n + s) t
go amount 0 coins
But it doesn't work. Does anyone know how to implement a tail recursive solution to this problem? is it even possible?
For achieving tail-recursiveness, you probably want to look into continuation-passing style. Here's an example applied to the Fibonacci sequence, which you could translate verbatim to the coins change problem, since both problems are dealing with aggregation of a recursive tree structure.
It's not the last word on efficiency.
let cc amount coins =
let rec aux k = function
| amount, _ when amount = 0 -> k 1
| amount, _ when amount < 0 -> k 0
| _, [] -> k 0
| amount, hd::tl ->
let k' x =
let k'' y = k (x + y)
aux k'' (amount - hd, hd::tl)
aux k' (amount, tl)
aux id (amount, coins)
I'm working on an implementation of prime decomposition in OCaml. I am not a functional programmer; Below is my code. The prime decomposition happens recursively in the prime_part function. primes is the list of primes from 0 to num. The goal here being that I could type prime_part into the OCaml interpreter and have it spit out when n = 20, k = 1.
2 + 3 + 7
5 + 7
I adapted is_prime and all_primes from an OCaml tutorial. all_primes will need to be called to generate a list of primes up to b prior to prime_part being called.
(* adapted from http://www.ocaml.org/learn/tutorials/99problems.html *)
let is_prime n =
let n = abs n in
let rec is_not_divisor d =
d * d > n || (n mod d <> 0 && is_not_divisor (d+1)) in
n <> 1 && is_not_divisor 2;;
let rec all_primes a b =
if a > b then [] else
let rest = all_primes (a + 1) b in
if is_prime a then a :: rest else rest;;
let f elem =
Printf.printf "%d + " elem
let rec prime_part n k lst primes =
let h elem =
if elem > k then
append_item lst elem;
prime_part (n-elem) elem lst primes in
if n == 0 then begin
List.iter f lst;
Printf.printf "\n";
()
end
else
if n <= k then
()
else
List.iter h primes;
();;
let main num =
prime_part num 1 [] (all_primes 2 num)
I'm largely confused with the reclusive nature with the for loop. I see that List.ittr is the OCaml way, but I lose access to my variables if I define another function for List.ittr. I need access to those variables to recursively call prime_part. What is a better way of doing this?
I can articulate in Ruby what I'm trying to accomplish with OCaml. n = any number, k = 1, lst = [], primes = a list of prime number 0 to n
def prime_part_constructive(n, k, lst, primes)
if n == 0
print(lst.join(' + '))
puts()
end
if n <= k
return
end
primes.each{ |i|
next if i <= k
prime_part_constructive(n - i, i, lst+[i], primes)
}
end
Here are a few comments on your code.
You can define nested functions in OCaml. Nested functions have access to all previously defined names. So you can use List.iter without losing access to your local variables.
I don't see any reason that your function prime_part_constructive returns an integer value. It would be more idiomatic in OCaml for it to return the value (), known as "unit". This is the value returned by functions that are called for their side effects (such as printing values).
The notation a.(i) is for accessing arrays, not lists. Lists and arrays are not the same in OCaml. If you replace your for with List.iter you won't have to worry about this.
To concatenate two lists, use the # operator. The notation lst.concat doesn't make sense in OCaml.
Update
Here's how it looks to have a nested function. This made up function takes a number n and a list of ints, then writes out the value of each element of the list multiplied by n.
let write_mults n lst =
let write1 m = Printf.printf " %d" (m * n) in
List.iter write1 lst
The write1 function is a nested function. Note that it has access to the value of n.
Update 2
Here's what I got when I wrote up the function:
let prime_part n primes =
let rec go residue k lst accum =
if residue < 0 then
accum
else if residue = 0 then
lst :: accum
else
let f a p =
if p <= k then a
else go (residue - p) p (p :: lst) a
in
List.fold_left f accum primes
in
go n 1 [] []
It works for your example:
val prime_part : int -> int list -> int list list = <fun>
# prime_part 12 [2;3;5;7;11];;
- : int list list = [[7; 5]; [7; 3; 2]]
Note that this function returns the list of partitions. This is much more useful (and functional) than writing them out (IMHO).
I'm sure there's a way to do this elegantly in SML but I'm having difficulty keeping track of the number of iterations (basically the number of times my function has been called).
I'm trying to write a function that evaluates to a pair of numbers, one for the floor of the answer and the other for the remainder. So if you called:
divmod(11, 2), you'd get (5, 1) back.
Here's what I have so far:
divmod(number : int, divisor : int) =
if number < divisor then
(number, count)
else
divmod(number - divisor, divisor);
Obviously, I haven't set up my count variable so it won't compile but that's the idea of the algorithm. All that's left is initializing count to 0 and being able to pass it between recursive calls. But I'm only allowed the two parameters for this function.
I can, however, write auxiliary functions.
Thoughts?
If SML has support for nested functions you could do like this:
divmod(number : int, divisor : int) =
_divmod(n : int, d : int, count : int) =
if n < d then
(count, n)
else
_divmod(n - d, d, count + 1)
_divmod(number, divisor, 0)
Personally, I like the fact that SML isn't a pure functional language. Keeping track of function calls is naturally done via side effects (rather than explicitly passing a counter variable).
For example, given a generic recursive Fibonacci:
fun fib 0 = 0
| fib 1 = 0
| fib n = fib(n-2) + fib(n-1);
You can modify it so that every time it is called it increments a counter as a side effect:
counter = ref 0;
fun fib 0 = (counter := !counter + 1; 0)
| fib 1 = (counter := !counter + 1; 1)
| fib n = (counter := !counter + 1; fib(n-2) + fib(n-1));
You can use this directly or wrap it up a bit:
fun fibonacci n = (
counter :=0;
let val v = fib n
in
(!counter,v)
end);
With a typical run:
- fibonacci 30;
val it = (2692537,832040) : int * int
(Which, by the way, shows why this version of the Fibonacci recursion isn't very good!)
I'm trying to write a function that accepts an int n and returns a list that runs down from n to 0.
This is what I have
let rec downFrom n =
let m = n+1 in
if m = 0 then
[]
else
(m-1) :: downFrom (m - 1);;
The function compiles ok but when I test it with any int it gives me the error
Stack overflow during evaluation (looping recursion?).
I know it's the local varible that gets in the way but I don't know another way to declare it. Thank you!!!
First, the real thing wrong with your program is that you have an infinite loop. Why, because your inductive base case is 0, but you always stay at n! This is because you recurse on m - 1 which is really n + 1 - 1
I'm surprised as to why this compiles, because it doesn't include the rec keyword, which is necessary on recursive functions. To avoid stack overflows in OCaml, you generally switch to a tail recursive style, such as follows:
let downFrom n =
let rec h n acc =
if n = 0 then List.rev acc else h (n-1) (n::acc)
in
h n []
Someone suggested the following edit:
let downFrom n =
let rec h m acc =
if m > n then acc else h (m + 1) (m::acc)
in
h 0 [];
This saves a call to List.rev, I agree.
The key with recursion is that the recursive call has to be a smaller version of the problem. Your recursive call doesn't create a smaller version of the problem. It just repeats the same problem.
You can try with a filtering parameter
syntax:
let f = function
p1 -> expr1
| p2 -> expr2
| p3 -> ...;;
let rec n_to_one =function
0->[]
|n->n::n_to_one (n-1);;
# n_to_one 3;;
- : int list = [3; 2; 1]