Related
Though I have studied and able am able to understand some programs in recursion, I am still not able to intuitively obtain a solution using recursion as I do easily using Iteration. Is there any course or track available in order to build an intuition for recursion? How can one master the concept of recursion?
if you want to gain a thorough understanding of how recursion works, I highly recommend that you start with understanding mathematical induction, as the two are very closely related, if not arguably identical.
Recursion is a way of breaking down seemingly complicated problems into smaller bits. Consider the trivial example of the factorial function.
def factorial(n):
if n < 2:
return 1
return n * factorial(n - 1)
To calculate factorial(100), for example, all you need is to calculate factorial(99) and multiply 100. This follows from the familiar definition of the factorial.
Here are some tips for coming up with a recursive solution:
Assume you know the result returned by the immediately preceding recursive call (e.g. in calculating factorial(100), assume you already know the value of factorial(99). How do you go from there?)
Consider the base case (i.e. when should the recursion come to a halt?)
The first bullet point might seem rather abstract, but all it means is this: a large portion of the work has already been done. How do you go from there to complete the task? In the case of the factorial, factorial(99) constituted this large portion of work. In many cases, you will find that identifying this portion of work simply amounts to examining the argument to the function (e.g. n in factorial), and assuming that you already have the answer to func(n - 1).
Here's another example for concreteness. Let's say we want to reverse a string without using in-built functions. In using recursion, we might assume that string[:-1], or the substring until the very last character, has already been reversed. Then, all that is needed is to put the last remaining character in the front. Using this inspiration, we might come up with the following recursive solution:
def my_reverse(string):
if not string: # base case: empty string
return string # return empty string, nothing to reverse
return string[-1] + my_reverse(string[:-1])
With all of this said, recursion is built on mathematical induction, and these two are inseparable ideas. In fact, one can easily prove that recursive algorithms work using induction. I highly recommend that you checkout this lecture.
I've been struggling with the basics of functional programming lately. I started writing small functions in SML, so far so good. Although, there is one problem I can not solve. It's on Project Euler (https://projecteuler.net/problem=5) and it simply asks for the smallest natural number that is divisible from all the numbers from 1 - n (where n is the argument of the function I'm trying to build).
Searching for the solution, I've found that through prime factorization, you analyze all the numbers from 1 to 10, and then keep the numbers where the highest power on a prime number occurs (after performing the prime factorization). Then you multiply them and you have your result (eg for n = 10, that number is 2520).
Can you help me on implementing this to an SML function?
Thank you for your time!
Since coding is not a spectator sport, it wouldn't be helpful for me to give you a complete working program; you'd have no way to learn from it. Instead, I'll show you how to get started, and start breaking down the pieces a bit.
Now, Mark Dickinson is right in his comments above that your proposed approach is neither the simplest nor the most efficient; nonetheless, it's quite workable, and plenty efficient enough to solve the Project Euler problem. (I tried it; the resulting program completed instantly.) So, I'll go with it.
To start with, if we're going to be operating on the prime decompositions of positive integers (that is: the results of factorizing them), we need to figure out how we're going to represent these decompositions. This isn't difficult, but it's very helpful to lay out all the details explicitly, so that when we write the functions that use them, we know exactly what assumptions we can make, what requirements we need to satisfy, and so on. (I can't tell you how many times I've seen code-writing attempts where different parts of the program disagree about what the data should look like, because the exact easiest form for one function to work with was a bit different from the exact easiest form for a different function to work with, and it was all done in an ad hoc way without really planning.)
You seem to have in mind an approach where a prime decomposition is a product of primes to the power of exponents: for example, 12 = 22 × 31. The simplest way to represent that in Standard ML is as a list of pairs: [(2,2),(3,1)]. But we should be a bit more precise than this; for example, we don't want 12 to sometimes be [(2,2),(3,1)] and sometimes [(3,1),(2,2)] and sometimes [(3,1),(5,0),(2,2)]. So, we can say something like "The prime decomposition of a positive integer is represented as a list of prime–exponent pairs, with the primes all being positive primes (2,3,5,7,…), the exponents all being positive integers (1,2,3,…), and the primes all being distinct and arranged in increasing order." This ensures a unique, easy-to-work-with representation. (N.B. 1 is represented by the empty list, nil.)
By the way, I should mention — when I tried this out, I found that everything was a little bit simpler if instead of storing exponents explicitly, I just repeated each prime the appropriate number of times, e.g. [2,2,3] for 12 = 2 × 2 × 3. (There was no single big complication with storing exponents explicitly, it just made a lot of little things a bit more finicky.) But the below breakdown is at a high level, and applies equally to either representation.
So, the overall algorithm is as follows:
Generate a list of the integers from 1 to 10, or 1 to 20.
This part is optional; you can just write the list by hand, if you want, so as to jump into the meatier part faster. But since your goal is to learn the basics of functional programming, you might as well do this using List.tabulate [documentation].
Use this to generate a list of the prime decompositions of these integers.
Specifically: you'll want to write a factorize or decompose function that takes a positive integer and returns its prime decomposition. You can then use map, a.k.a. List.map [documentation], to apply this function to each element of your list of integers.
Note that this decompose function will need to keep track of the "next" prime as it's factoring the integer. In some languages, you would use a mutable local variable for this; but in Standard ML, the normal approach is to write a recursive helper function with a parameter for this purpose. Specifically, you can write a function helper such that, if n and p are positive integers, p ≥ 2, where n is not divisible by any prime less than p, then helper n p is the prime decomposition of n. Then you just write
local
fun helper n p = ...
in
fun decompose n = helper n 2
end
Use this to generate the prime decomposition of the least common multiple of these integers.
To start with, you'll probably want to write a lcmTwoDecompositions function that takes a pair of prime decompositions, and computes the least common multiple (still in prime-decomposition form). (Writing this pairwise function is much, much easier than trying to create a multi-way least-common-multiple function from scratch.)
Using lcmTwoDecompositions, you can then use foldl or foldr, a.k.a. List.foldl or List.foldr [documentation], to create a function that takes a list of zero or more prime decompositions instead of just a pair. This makes use of the fact that the least common multiple of { n1, n2, …, nN } is lcm(n1, lcm(n2, lcm(…, lcm(nN, 1)…))). (This is a variant of what Mark Dickinson mentions above.)
Use this to compute the least common multiple of these integers.
This just requires a recompose function that takes a prime decomposition and computes the corresponding integer.
I have been playing with an implementation of lookandsay (OEIS A005150) in J. I have made two versions, both very simple, using while. type control structures. One recurs, the other loops. Because I am compulsive, I started running comparative timing on the versions.
look and say is the sequence 1 11 21 1211 111221 that s, one one, two ones, etc.
For early elements of the list (up to around 20) the looping version wins, but only by a tiny amount. Timings around 30 cause the recursive version to win, by a large enough amount that the recursive version might be preferred if the stack space were adequate to support it. I looked at why, and I believe that it has to do with handling intermediate results. The 30th number in the sequence has 5808 digits. (32nd number, 9898 digits, 34th, 16774.)
When you are doing the problem with recursion, you can hold the intermediate results in the recursive call, and the unstacking at the end builds the results so that there is minimal handling of the results.
In the list version, you need a variable to hold the result. Every loop iteration causes you to need to add two elements to the result.
The problem, as I see it, is that I can't find any way in J to modify an extant array without completely reassigning it. So I am saying
try. o =. o,e,(0&{y) catch. o =. e,(0&{y) end.
to put an element into o where o might not have a value when we start. That may be notably slower than
o =. i.0
.
.
.
o =. (,o),e,(0&{y)
The point is that the result gets the wrong shape without the ravels, or so it seems. It is inheriting a shape from i.0 somehow.
But even functions like } amend don't modify a list, they return a list that has a modification made to it, and if you want to save the list you need to assign it. As the size of the assigned list increases (as you walk the the number from the beginning to the end making the next number) the assignment seems to take more time and more time. This assignment is really the only thing I can see that would make element 32, 9898 digits, take less time in the recursive version while element 20 (408 digits) takes less time in the loopy version.
The recursive version builds the return with:
e,(0&{y),(,lookandsay e }. y)
The above line is both the return line from the function and the recursion, so the whole return vector gets built at once as the call gets to the end of the string and everything unstacks.
In APL I thought that one could say something on the order of:
a[1+rho a] <- new element
But when I try this in NARS2000 I find that it causes an index error. I don't have access to any other APL, I might be remembering this idiom from APL Plus, I doubt it worked this way in APL\360 or APL\1130. I might be misremembering it completely.
I can find no way to do that in J. It might be that there is no way to do that, but the next thought is to pre-allocate an array that could hold results, and to change individual entries. I see no way to do that either - that is, J does not seem to support the APL idiom:
a<- iota 5
a[3] <- -1
Is this one of those side effect things that is disallowed because of language purity?
Does the interpreter recognize a=. a,foo or some of its variants as a thing that it should fastpath to a[>:#a]=.foo internally?
This is the recursive version, just for the heck of it. I have tried a bunch of different versions and I believe that the longer the program, the slower, and generally, the more complex, the slower. Generally, the program can be chained so that if you want the nth number you can do lookandsay^: n ] y. I have tried a number of optimizations, but the problem I have is that I can't tell what environment I am sending my output into. If I could tell that I was sending it to the next iteration of the program I would send it as an array of digits rather than as a big number.
I also suspect that if I could figure out how to make a tacit version of the code, it would run faster, based on my finding that when I add something to the code that should make it shorter, it runs longer.
lookandsay=: 3 : 0
if. 0 = # ,y do. return. end. NB. return on empty argument
if. 1 ~: ##$ y do. NB. convert rank 0 argument to list of digits
y =. (10&#.^:_1) x: y
f =. 1
assert. 1 = ##$ y NB. the converted argument must be rank 1
else.
NB. yw =. y
f =. 0
end.
NB. e should be a count of the digits that match the leading digit.
e=.+/*./\y=0&{y
if. f do.
o=. e,(0&{y),(,lookandsay e }. y)
assert. e = 0&{ o
10&#. x: o
return.
else.
e,(0&{y),(,lookandsay e }. y)
return.
end.
)
I was interested in the characteristics of the numbers produced. I found that if you start with a 1, the numerals never get higher than 3. If you start with a numeral higher than 3, it will survive as a singleton, and you can also get a number into the generated numbers by starting with something like 888888888 which will generate a number with one 9 in it and a single 8 at the end of the number. But other than the singletons, no digit gets higher than 3.
Edit:
I did some more measuring. I had originally written the program to accept either a vector or a scalar, the idea being that internally I'd work with a vector. I had thought about passing a vector from one layer of code to the other, and I still might using a left argument to control code. With I pass the top level a vector the code runs enormously faster, so my guess is that most of the cpu is being eaten by converting very long numbers from vectors to digits. The recursive routine always passes down a vector when it recurs which might be why it is almost as fast as the loop.
That does not change my question.
I have an answer for this which I can't post for three hours. I will post it then, please don't do a ton of research to answer it.
assignments like
arr=. 'z' 15} arr
are executed in place. (See JWiki article for other supported in-place operations)
Interpreter determines that only small portion of arr is updated and does not create entire new list to reassign.
What happens in your case is not that array is being reassigned, but that it grows many times in small increments, causing memory allocation and reallocation.
If you preallocate (by assigning it some large chunk of data), then you can modify it with } without too much penalty.
After I asked this question, to be honest, I lost track of this web site.
Yes, the answer is that the language has no form that means "update in place, but if you use two forms
x =: x , most anything
or
x =: most anything } x
then the interpreter recognizes those as special and does update in place unless it can't. There are a number of other specials recognized by the interpreter, like:
199(1000&|#^)199
That combined operation is modular exponentiation. It never calculates the whole exponentiation, as
199(1000&|^)199
would - that just ends as _ without the #.
So it is worth reading the article on specials. I will mark someone else's answer up.
The link that sverre provided above ( http://www.jsoftware.com/jwiki/Essays/In-Place%20Operations ) shows the various operations that support modifying an existing array rather than creating a new one. They include:
myarray=: myarray,'blah'
If you are interested in a tacit version of the lookandsay sequence see this submission to RosettaCode:
las=: ,#((# , {.);.1~ 1 , 2 ~:/\ ])&.(10x&#.inv)#]^:(1+i.#[)
5 las 1
11 21 1211 111221 312211
I have a function that logs into a sensor via telnet/pexpect and acts as a data collector.
I don't want to rewrite the part that logs in, grabs the data, and parses out relevant output from it (pexpect). However, I need to do different things with this code and the data it gathers
For example, I may need to:
Time until the first reading is returned
Take the average of a varying number of sensor readings
Return the status (which is one piece of data) or return the sensor
reading (which is a separate piece of
data) from the output
Ultimately, it should still login and parse output the same and I want to use one code block for that part.
Higher up in the code, it's being used instantaneously. When I call it, I know what type of data I need to gather and that's that. Constructing objects is too clumsy.
My usage has outstripped adding more arguments to a single function.
Any ideas?
This is such a common situation, I'm surprised you haven't already done what everyone else does.
Refactor your function to decompose it into smaller functions.
Functions are objects, and can be passed as arguments to other functions.
def step1():
whatever
def step2():
whatever
def step2_alternative():
whatever
def original( args ):
step1()
step2()
def revised( args, step2_choice ):
step1()
step2_choice()
Now you can do this.
revised( step2 )
revised( step2_alternative )
It's just OO programming with function objects.
Could you pass a data processing function to the function you described as an argument?
That may be more or less elegant, depending on your taste.
(Forgive me: I know nothing about pexpect, and I may even have misunderstood your question!)
Being unable to reproduce a given result. (either because it's wrong or because I was doing something wrong) I was asking myself if it would be easy to just write a small program which takes all the constants and given number and permutes it with a possible operators (* / - + exp(..)) etc) until the result is found.
Permutations of n distinct objects with repetition allowed is n^r. At least as long as r is small I think you should be able to do this. I wonder if anybody did something similar here..
Yes, it has been done here: Code Golf: All +-*/ Combinations for 3 integers
However, because a formula gives the desired result doesn't guarantee that it's the correct formula. Also, you don't learn anything by just guessing what to do to get to the desired result.
If you're trying to fit some data with a function whose form is uncertain, you can try using Eureqa.