I usually use Crystal when I write my code. In Crystal, there is the <=> comparison operator. Usage is simple:
p! 404 <=> 405
This would print the following in my terminal:
404 <=> 405 # => -1
The printed value is -1, but if the integers in the equation were switched, it would print 1, as 405 is greater than 404. If the integers were equal, it would print 0.
I would like to use something similar in a Julia program I am writing, but can't seem to find an operator that works. I can of course use if-else if-else logic but I am really only concerned with storing the value in a database.
Is this what you want?
julia> cmp(404, 405)
-1
julia> cmp(404, 404)
0
julia> cmp(405, 404)
1
Related
I am having a problem running a spiking-neuron simulator. I keep getting the error message, "operation +: Warning adding a matrix with the empty matrix will give an empty matrix result." Now I'm writing this program in "Scilab," but I'm hoping the problem I am having will be clear for the educated eye regardess. What I am doing is converting an existing MATLAB program to Scilab. The original MATLAB program and an explanation can be found here: https://www.izhikevich.org/publications/spikes.pdf
What happens in my Scilab version is that the first pass through the loop produces all the expected values. I Know this becuase I hit pause at the end of the first run, right before "end," and check all the values and matrix elements. However, if I run the program proper, which includes a loop of 20 iterations, I get the error message above, and all of the matrix values are empty! I cannot figure out what the problem is. I am fairly new to programming so the answer may be very simple as far as I know. Here is the Scilab version of the program:
Ne=8; Ni=2;
re=rand(Ne,1); ri=rand(Ni,1);
a=[0.02*ones(Ne,1); 0.02+0.08*ri];
b=[0.2*ones(Ne,1); 0.25-0.05*ri];
c=[-65+15*re.^2; -65*ones(Ni,1)];
d=[8-6*re.^2; 2*ones(Ni,1)];
S=[0.5*rand(Ne+Ni,Ne), -rand(Ne+Ni,Ni)];
v=60*rand(10,1)
v2=v
u=b.*v;
firings=[];
for t=1:20
I=[5*rand(Ne,1,"normal");2*rand(Ni,1,"normal")];
fired=find(v>=30);
j = length(fired);
h = t*ones(j,1);
k=[h,fired'];
firings=[firings;k];
v(fired)=c(fired);
u(fired)=u(fired)+d(fired);
I=I+sum(S(:,fired),"c");
v=v+0.5*(0.04*v.^2+5*v+140-u+I);
v=v+0.5*(0.04*v.^2+5*v+140-u+I);
u=u+a.*(b.*v-u);
end
plot(firings(:,1), firings(:,2),".");
I tried everything to no avail. The program should run through 20 iterations and produce a "raster plot" of dots representing the fired neurons at each of the 20 time steps.
You can add the following line
oldEmptyBehaviour("on")
at the beginning of your script in order to prevent the default Scilab rule (any algebraic operation with an empty matrix yields an empty matrix). However you will still have some warnings (despite the result will be OK). As a definitive fix I recommend testing the emptyness of fired in your code, like this:
Ne=8; Ni=2;
re=rand(Ne,1); ri=rand(Ni,1);
a=[0.02*ones(Ne,1); 0.02+0.08*ri];
b=[0.2*ones(Ne,1); 0.25-0.05*ri];
c=[-65+15*re.^2; -65*ones(Ni,1)];
d=[8-6*re.^2; 2*ones(Ni,1)];
S=[0.5*rand(Ne+Ni,Ne), -rand(Ne+Ni,Ni)];
v=60*rand(10,1)
v2=v
u=b.*v;
firings=[];
for t=1:20
I=[5*rand(Ne,1,"normal");2*rand(Ni,1,"normal")];
fired=find(v>=30);
if ~isempty(fired)
j = length(fired);
h = t*ones(j,1);
k=[h,fired'];
firings=[firings;k];
v(fired)=c(fired);
u(fired)=u(fired)+d(fired);
I=I+sum(S(:,fired),"c");
end
v=v+0.5*(0.04*v.^2+5*v+140-u+I);
v=v+0.5*(0.04*v.^2+5*v+140-u+I);
u=u+a.*(b.*v-u);
end
plot(firings(:,1), firings(:,2),".");
The [] + 1 is not really defined in a mathematical sense. The operation might fail or produce different results depending on the software you use. For example:
Scilab 5 [] + 1 produces 1
Scilab 6 [] + 1 produces [] and a warning
Julia 1.8 [] .+ 1 produces [] but [] + 1 an error.
Python+Numpy 1.23 np.zeros((0,0)) + 1 produces [].
I suggest checking with size() or a comparison to the empty matrix to avoid such strange behaviour.
Background
While playing around with dialyzer, typespecs and currying, I was able to create an example of a false positive in dialyzer.
For the purposes of this MWE, I am using diallyxir (versions included) because it makes my life easier. The author of dialyxir confirmed this was not a problem on their side, so that possibility is excluded for now.
Environment
$ elixir -v
Erlang/OTP 24 [erts-12.2.1] [source] [64-bit] [smp:12:12] [ds:12:12:10] [async-threads:1] [jit]
Elixir 1.13.2 (compiled with Erlang/OTP 24)
Which version of Dialyxir are you using? (cat mix.lock | grep dialyxir):
"dialyxir": {:hex, :dialyxir, "1.1.0", "c5aab0d6e71e5522e77beff7ba9e08f8e02bad90dfbeffae60eaf0cb47e29488", [:mix], [{:erlex, ">= 0.2.6", [hex: :erlex, repo: "hexpm", optional: false]}], "hexpm", "07ea8e49c45f15264ebe6d5b93799d4dd56a44036cf42d0ad9c960bc266c0b9a"},
"erlex": {:hex, :erlex, "0.2.6", "c7987d15e899c7a2f34f5420d2a2ea0d659682c06ac607572df55a43753aa12e", [:mix], [], "hexpm", "2ed2e25711feb44d52b17d2780eabf998452f6efda104877a3881c2f8c0c0c75"},
Current behavior
Given the following code sample:
defmodule PracticingCurrying do
#spec greater_than(integer()) :: (integer() -> String.t())
def greater_than(min) do
fn number -> number > min end
end
end
Which clearly has a wrong typing, I get a success message:
$ mix dialyzer
Compiling 1 file (.ex)
Generated grokking_fp app
Finding suitable PLTs
Checking PLT...
[:compiler, :currying, :elixir, :gradient, :gradualizer, :kernel, :logger, :stdlib, :syntax_tools]
Looking up modules in dialyxir_erlang-24.2.1_elixir-1.13.2_deps-dev.plt
Finding applications for dialyxir_erlang-24.2.1_elixir-1.13.2_deps-dev.plt
Finding modules for dialyxir_erlang-24.2.1_elixir-1.13.2_deps-dev.plt
Checking 518 modules in dialyxir_erlang-24.2.1_elixir-1.13.2_deps-dev.plt
Adding 44 modules to dialyxir_erlang-24.2.1_elixir-1.13.2_deps-dev.plt
done in 0m24.18s
No :ignore_warnings opt specified in mix.exs and default does not exist.
Starting Dialyzer
[
check_plt: false,
init_plt: '/home/user/Workplace/fl4m3/grokking_fp/_build/dev/dialyxir_erlang-24.2.1_elixir-1.13.2_deps-dev.plt',
files: ['/home/user/Workplace/fl4m3/grokking_fp/_build/dev/lib/grokking_fp/ebin/Elixir.ImmutableValues.beam',
'/home/user/Workplace/fl4m3/grokking_fp/_build/dev/lib/grokking_fp/ebin/Elixir.PracticingCurrying.beam',
'/home/user/Workplace/fl4m3/grokking_fp/_build/dev/lib/grokking_fp/ebin/Elixir.TipCalculator.beam'],
warnings: [:unknown]
]
Total errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Unnecessary Skips: 0
done in 0m1.02s
done (passed successfully)
Expected behavior
I expected dialyzer to tell me the correct spec is #spec greater_than(integer()) :: (integer() -> bool()).
As a side note (and comparison, if you will) gradient does pick up the error.
I know that comparing these tools is like comparing oranges and apples, but I think it is still worth mentioning.
Questions
Is dialyzer not intended to catch this type of error?
If it should catch the error, what can possibly be failing? (is it my example that is incorrect, or something inside dialyzer?)
I personally find it hard to believe this could be a bug in Dialyzer, the tool has been used rather extensively by a lot of people for me to be the first to discover this error. However, I cannot explain what is happening.
Help is appreciated.
Dialyzer is pretty optimistic in its analysis and ignores some categories of errors.
This article provides some advanced explanations about its approach and limitations.
In the particular case of anonymous functions, dialyzer seems to perform a very minimal check
when they are being declared: it will ignore both the types of its arguments and return type, e.g.
the following doesn't lead any error even if is clearly wrong:
# no error
#spec add(integer()) :: (String.t() -> String.t())
def add(x) do
fn y -> x + y end
end
It will however point out a mismatch in arity, e.g.
# invalid_contract
# The #spec for the function does not match the success typing of the function.
#spec add2(integer()) :: (integer(), integer() -> integer())
def add2(x) do
fn y -> x + y end
end
Dialyzer might be able to detect a type conflict when trying to use the anonymous function,
but this isn't guaranteed (see article above), and the error message might not be helpful:
# Function main/0 has no local return.
def main do
positive? = greater_than(0)
positive?.(2)
end
We don't know what is the problem exactly, not even the line causing the error. But at least we know there is one and can debug it.
In the following example, the error is a bit more informative (using :lists.map/2 instead of Enum.map/2 because
dialyzer doesn't understand the enumerable protocol):
# Function main2/0 has no local return.
def main2 do
positive? = greater_than(0)
# The function call will not succeed.
# :lists.map(_positive? :: (integer() -> none()), [-2 | 0 | 1, ...])
# will never return since the success typing arguments are
# ((_ -> any()), [any()])
:lists.map(positive?, [1, 0, -2])
end
This tells us that dialyzer inferred the return type of greater_than/1 to be (integer() -> none()).
none is described in the article above as:
This is a special type that means that no term or type is valid.
Usually, when Dialyzer boils down the possible return values of a function to none(), it means the function should crash.
It is synonymous with "this stuff won't work."
So dialyzer knows that this function cannot be called successfully, but doesn't consider it to be a type clash until actually called, so it will allow the declaration (in the same way you can perfectly create a function that just raises).
Disclaimer: I couldn't find an official explanation regarding how dialyzer handles anonymous
functions in detail, so the explanations above are based on my observations and interpretation
data Even: Nat -> Type where
EvenZ: Even Z
EvenS: Even n -> Even (n + 2)
total
lemma1: Even Z
lemma1 = EvenZ
-- total
-- lemma2: Even Z
-- lemma2 impossible -- Idris says 'lemma2 is a valid case' and I agree with you
total
lemma3: Even 2
lemma3 = EvenS EvenZ
total
lemma4: Even 2 -> Void
lemma4 x impossible -- what does it work?
total
lemma5: Even 1 -> Void
lemma5 x impossible
I wrote some proofs on Even.
lemma1, lemma2 and lemma3 are ok, but lemma4 looks strange to me.
AFAIK, both lemma3 and lemma4 can not be provable at the same time.
I expected impossible keyword in lemma4 not to work and expected Idris to show me some error messages about the wrong usage of impossible.
Is impossible an unsafe keyword that can be used to assert to type checker?
fact(1,1):-!.
fact(N,F):-
N1=N-1,
fact(N1,F1),
F=F1*N.
It leads to the stackoverflow(not the site)! It shouldn't because of the cut(!). Does it work in SWI-Prolog?
Please note that both definitions (the OP's and pad's) do not terminate for a query like fact(0,N). But also fact(1,2) does not terminate. It should fail. And for fact(N, F) it gives only one correct answer, but there should be infinitely many. Using cuts for such purpose is very tricky. The cleanest way to fix this is to add the goal N > 0 to the rule and have a fact fact(0,1). There is an even better way, provided you use SWI-Prolog: Use library(clpfd). In the documentation, you find n_factorial/2 already defined. It can be used for queries like:
?- n_factorial(47, F).
F = 258623241511168180642964355153611979969197632389120000000000
; false.
?- n_factorial(N, 1).
N = 0
; N = 1
; false.
?- n_factorial(N, 3).
false.
I'm working on a p2p app that uses hash trees.
I am writing the hash tree construction functions (publ/4 and publ_top/4) but I can't see how to fix publ_top/4.
I try to build a tree with publ/1:
nivd:publ("file.txt").
prints hashes...
** exception error: no match of right hand side value [67324168]
in function nivd:publ_top/4
in call from nivd:publ/1
The code in question is here:
http://github.com/AndreasBWagner/nivoa/blob/886c624c116c33cc821b15d371d1090d3658f961/nivd.erl
Where do you think the problem is?
Thank You,
Andreas
Looking at your code I can see one issue that would generate that particular exception error
publ_top(_,[],Accumulated,Level) ->
%% Go through the accumulated list of hashes from the prior level
publ_top(string:len(Accumulated),Accumulated,[],Level+1);
publ_top(FullLevelLen,RestofLevel,Accumulated,Level) ->
case FullLevelLen =:= 1 of
false -> [F,S|T]=RestofLevel,
io:format("~w---~w~n",[F,S]),
publ_top(FullLevelLen,T,lists:append(Accumulated,[erlang:phash2(string:concat([F],[S]))]),Level);
true -> done
end.
In the first function declaration you match against the empty list. In the second declaration you match against a list of length (at least) 2 ([F,S|T]). What happens when FullLevelLen is different from 1 and RestOfLevel is a list of length 1? (Hint: You'll get the above error).
The error would be easier to spot if you would pattern match on the function arguments, perhaps something like:
publ_top(_,[],Accumulated,Level) ->
%% Go through the accumulated list of hashes from the prior level
publ_top(string:len(Accumulated),Accumulated,[],Level+1);
publ_top(1, _, _, _) ->
done;
publ_top(_, [F,S|T], Accumulated, Level) ->
io:format("~w---~w~n",[F,S]),
publ_top(FullLevelLen,T,lists:append(Accumulated,[erlang:phash2(string:concat([F],[S]))]),Level);
%% Missing case:
% publ_top(_, [H], Accumulated, Level) ->
% ...