Can someone point out my mistake here. I am trying to check if a number is a prime number or not.
It works to an extent but I have a semantics error. For example it is telling me that 9 is a prime number but at the same time it is telling me 4 and 6 are not prime numbers and I am confused.
(defvar *prime* nil)
(defun primeCheck (x y)
(if (and (>= x y) (not (= (mod x y) 0)))
(progn
(setf y (+ y 1))
(primeCheck x y)
(setf *prime* 'yes))
(setf *prime* 'no))
)
(primeCheck 9 2)
(if (equal *prime* 'yes) (print "Number is prime") (print "Number is not prime"))
Many things are wrong.
How about using primarity test e.g. from SICP (structure and interpretation of computer programs)?
;; from SICP (here in clojure)
;; http://www.sicpdistilled.com/section/1.2.6/
(defun smallest-divisor (n)
(find-divisor n 2))
(defun square (n)
(* n n))
(defun find-divisor (n test-divisor)
(cond ((> (square test-divisor) n) n)
((dividesp test-divisor n) test-divisor)
(t (find-divisor n (1+ test-divisor)))))
(defun dividesp (a b)
(zerop (mod b a)))
(defun primep (n)
(= n (smallest-divisor n)))
primep tests for primarity.
I suggest you to download some IDE (for example LispWorks Personal Edition) or find online REPL for Common Lisp and run your codes in it. Your mistakes:
("prime number") is badly formed list. Replace that with (print "prime number")
primeCheck calls some (yet) undefined function modulus
(*prime-Check* nil) is badly formed list. Replace with (setf *prime-Check* nil)
badly formed cond and and
with all these corrections, it doesn't work for 2,3,5 etc.
Related
(Just for fun) I figured out a way to represent this:
250 : 8 = 31 + 2
31 : 8 = 3 + 7
∴ (372)8
in the following procedure:
(defun dec->opns (n base)
(do* ((lst nil (append lst (list pos))) ; this is also not so nice
(m n (truncate m base))
(pos (rem m base) (rem m base)) ) ; <<<<<<
((< m base) (reverse (append lst (list m)))) ))
The procedure does what it is supposed to do until now.
CL-USER> (dec->opns 2500000 8)
(1 1 4 2 2 6 4 0)
At this point, I simply ask myself, how to avoid the two times
(rem m base).
First of all because of duplicates are looking daft. But also they may be a hint that the solution isn't the elegant way. Which also is not a problem. I am studying for becoming a primary school teacher (from 1st to 6nd class) and am considering examples for exploring math in a sense of Paperts Mindstorms. Therefore exploring all stages of creating and refining a solution are welcome.
But to get a glimpse of the professional solution, would you be so kind to suggest a more elegant way to implement the algorithm in an idiomatic way?
(Just to anticipate opposition to my "plan": I have no intentions to overwhelm the youngsters with Common Lisp. For now, I am using Common Lisp for reflecting about my study content and using the student content for practicing Common Lisp. My intention in the medium term is to write a "common (lisp) Logo setup" and a Logo environment with which the examples in Harveys Computer Science Logo style (vol. 1), Paperts Mindstorms, Solomons et. al LogoWorks, and of course in Abelsons et. al Turtle Geometry can be implemented uncompromisingly. If I will not cave in, the library will be found with quickload in the still more distant future under the name "c-logo-s" and be called cλogos ;-) )
The closest to your code
You can reduce the reversing of the reversing and append -> by using cons only. The duplication of (rem m base) is only an optical issue, since the first (rem m base) gets executed only the first time the loop runs and the second (rem m base) in all other cases. Thus they are actually not a duplication. One cannot use a let here, because of the required syntax within the macro. (<variable> <initial-value> <progression-for-each-round>)
(defun dec->ops (n base)
(do* ((acc nil (cons r acc))
(m n (truncate m base))
(r (rem m base) (rem m base)))
((zerop m) acc)))
The most Common Lispy version
The rosetta solutions for Common Lisp seems to give the most Common Lisp-like ways - either using write-to-string/parse-integer or even some format quircks.
(defun decimal->base-n (n base)
(write-to-string n :base base))
(defun base-n->decimal (base-n base)
(parse-integer (format nil "~a" base-n) :radix base))
(defun decimal-to-base-n (number &key (base 16))
(format nil (format nil "~~~dr" base) number))
(defun base-n-to-decimal (number &key (base 16))
(read-from-string (format nil "#~dr~d" base number)))
;; or:
(defun change-base (number input-base output-base)
(format nil "~vr" output-base (parse-integer number :radix input-base)))
Source: https://rosettacode.org/wiki/Non-decimal_radices/Convert#Common_Lisp
(decimal-to-base-n 2500000 :base 8)
;;=> "11422640"
Solution without format or write-to-string/parse-integer
Use tail call recursion:
(defun dec->ops (n base &optional (acc nil))
(if (< n base)
(cons n acc)
(multiple-value-bind (m r) (truncate n base)
(dec->ops m base (cons r acc)))))
Try it:
[41]> (dec->ops 250 8)
(3 7 2)
[42]> (dec->ops 250000 8)
(7 5 0 2 2 0)
[43]> (dec->ops 2500000 8)
(1 1 4 2 2 6 4 0)
The do/do* macros are in this case not so nice, because one cannot capture the multiple values returned by truncate nicely (truncate is mod and rem in one function - one should use this fact).
If you really wants to use do*
(defun dec->ops (n base)
(do* ((acc nil (cons (second values) acc))
(values (list n) (multiple-value-list (truncate (first values) base))))
((< (first values) base) (nbutlast (cons (first values) (cons (second values) acc))))))
This works
[69]> (dec->ops 250 8)
(3 7 2)
[70]> (dec->ops 2500000 8)
(1 1 4 2 2 6 4 0)
I would go with the following implementation when trying to avoid recursion:
(defun digits-in-base (number base)
(check-type number (integer 0))
(check-type base (integer 2))
(loop
:with remainder
:do (multiple-value-setq (number remainder) (truncate number base))
:collect remainder
:until (= number 0)))
Multiple values are not directly handled by LOOP so instead of converting the values to a list I prefer using MULTIPLE-VALUE-SETQ to update multiple values at once.
The code first does some type checks because otherwise it can loop infinitely: the inputs are expected to be respectively positive or null, and greater than 1.
I put the :until condition at the end so that 0 gives (0).
Note that the digits are sorted from the smallest to the highest rank:
(digits-in-base 4 2)
=> (0 0 1)
(digits-in-base 250 8)
=> (2 7 3)
Alternatively, for the reverse order:
(defun digits-in-base (number base)
(check-type number (integer 0))
(check-type base (integer 2))
(loop
:with remainder :and digits
:do (multiple-value-setq (number remainder) (truncate number base))
:do (push remainder digits)
:until (= number 0)
:finally (return digits)))
(digits-in-base 4 2)
=> (1 0 0)
(digits-in-base 250 8)
=> (3 7 2)
In a previous version of this answer I said the first one (from low to high digits) is better for further manipulation of the digits, but I am not so sure.
Converting back to a number is quite easy with number arranged from high to low digits (all the code below use the second version):
(defun digits-to-number (digits base)
(reduce (lambda (n d) (+ d (* n base)))
digits
:initial-value 0))
So is formatting to a string:
(defun number-string-base (number base)
(format nil
(if (<= base 10)
"(~{~d~})~d"
"(~{~d~^'~})~d")
(digits-in-base number base)
base))
(number-string-base 250 8)
=> "(372)8"
(number-string-base 250 16)
=> "(15'10)16"
Since you expressed interest in various approaches, one thing worth remembering is that Lisp's great strength is creating and extending languages. Indeed all the iteration constructs in Common Lisp are such extensions: CL has no primitive iteration constructs at all.
So there is nothing preventing anyone writing their own, which will be just as good as the ones the language provides. For instance Tim Bradshaw's simple loops provides an 'applicative looping construct', looping, which makes this quite simple to implement:
(defun dec->ops (n base)
(looping ((m n)
(a '()))
(when (< (abs m) base)
(return (cons m a)))
(multiple-value-bind (q r) (truncate m base)
(values q (cons r a)))))
Using looping, the variables bound in the loop are updated by the values of the last form in the loop's body.
Of course this is rather close to the classic tail-recursive implementation (here using iterate):
(defun dec->ops (n base)
(iterate next ((m n)
(a '()))
(if (< (abs m) base)
(cons m a)
(multiple-value-bind (q r) (truncate m base)
(next q (cons r a))))))
People tend not to like things like this because they are 'not idiomatic CL' of course.
Just started to learn LISP and I'm trying to figure out how to write the following recursive function.
So should I have
(DOT-PRODUCT '(1 2) '(3 4)))
The output should be 11
I've written the following
(defun DOT-PRODUCT (a b)
(if (or (null a) (null b))
0
(+ (* (first a) (first b))
(DOT-PRODUCT (rest a) (rest b)))))
And everything seems to work; however, it still works with lists of different lengths. I want it to just work with lists of numbers that have the same length. Where should I add code that returns "invalid length" should we have such?
A simple way is to rewrite the function so that it checks different cases using the conditional form cond:
(defun dot-product (a b)
(cond ((null a) (if (null b) 0 (error "invalid length")))
((null b) (error "invalid length"))
(t (+ (* (first a) (first b))
(dot-product (rest a) (rest b))))))
In the first branch of the cond, if the first argument is NIL, the second one must be NIL as well, otherwise an error is generated. In the second branch, we already know that a is not NIL, so an error is immediately generated. Finally, the result is calculated.
Multiply corresponding elements of lists X and Y:
(mapcar #'* X Y)
Add elements of a list Z:
(reduce #'+ Z)
Put together: dot product:
(reduce #'+ (mapcar #'* X Y))
reduce and mapcar are the basis for the "MapReduce" concept, which is a generalization of that sort of thing that includes dot products, convolution integrals and a myriad ways of massaging and summarizing data.
One can increase efficiency by introducing an accumulator variable and turning the standard recursion into a tail recursion. In this example, I used (labels) to define the recursion:
(defun DOT-PRODUCT (a b)
(labels ((dp (x y accum)
(if (or (null x) (null y))
accum
(dp (rest x) (rest y) (+ accum (* (first x) (first y)))))))
(if (= (length a) (length b))
(dp a b 0)
(error "Invalid length."))))
UPDATED: The code should compile now without errors or warnings. Sorry about the previous one. The problem I have now is that when a run (or with any other integer)
(NxNqueen-solver 10)
The function getqueencol will return nil because there are no queens on the board in the first place, hence there will be a (= number nil) in the queen-can-be-placed-here because tcol will be nil. I think this will happen everytime there is no queen in the row passed as argument to the queen-can-be-placed-here function.
Please share some advice on how to fix this problem. Thank you in advance.
Here is the code
(defvar *board* (make-array '(10 10) :initial-element nil))
(defun getqueencol (row n)
"Traverses through the columns of a certain row
and returns the column index of the queen."
(loop for i below n
do (if (aref *board* row i)
(return-from getqueencol i))))
(defun print-board (n)
"Prints out the solution, e.g. (1 4 2 5 3),
where 1 denotes that there is a queen at the first
column of the first row, and so on."
(let ((solutionlist (make-list n)))
(loop for row below n
do (loop for col below n
do (when (aref *board* row col)
(setf (nth row solutionlist) col))))
(print solutionlist)))
(defun queen-can-be-placed-here (row col n)
"Returns t if (row,col) is a possible place to put queen, otherwise nil."
(loop for i below n
do (let ((tcol (getqueencol i n)))
(if (or (= col tcol) (= (abs (- row i)) (abs (- col tcol))))
(return-from queen-can-be-placed-here nil)))))
(defun backtracking (row n)
"Solves the NxN-queen problem with backtracking"
(if (< row n)
(loop for i below n
do (when (queen-can-be-placed-here row i n)
(setf (aref *board* row i) 't)
(return-from backtracking (backtracking (+ row 1) n))
(setf (aref *board* row i) 'nil))
(print-board n))))
(defun NxNqueen-solver (k)
"Main program for the function call to the recursive solving of the problem"
(setf *board* (make-array '(k k) :initial-element nil))
(backtracking 0 k))
You say that you compiled your code. That can't be the case, since then you would have see the compiler complaining about errors. You want to make sure that you really compile the code and correct the code, such that it compiles without errors and warnings.
You might want to get rid of the errors/problems in the code (see Renzo's comment) and then look at the algorithmic problem. I makes very little sense to look into an algorithmic problem, when the code contains errors.
SETQ does not introduce a variable, the variable has to be defined somewhere
DEFVAR makes no sense inside a function.
Something like (let (x (sin a)) ...) definitely looks wrong. The syntax of LET requires a pair of parentheses around the bindings list.
RETURN-FROM takes as first argument the name of an existing block to return from. The optional second argument is a return value. Get the syntax right and return from the correct block.
in a call to MAKE-ARRAY specify the default value: (make-array ... :initial-element nil), otherwise it's not clear what it is.
The variable *board* is undefined
Style
in LOOP: for i to (1- n) is simpler for i below n
you don't need to quote NIL and T.
(if (eq foo t) ...) might be simpler written as (if foo ...). Especially if the value of foo is either NIL or T.
(if foo (progn ...)) is simply (when foo ...)
I'm not sure what you are doing to claim that your code compiles. It does not compile.
Every function has compiler warnings. You should check the compiler warnings and fix the problems.
(defun getqueencol (row)
"Traverses through the columns of a certain row
and returns the column index of the queen."
(loop for i below n
do (if (aref board row i)
(return-from getqueencol i))))
The compiler complains:
;;;*** Warning in GETQUEENCOL: N assumed special
;;;*** Warning in GETQUEENCOL: BOARD assumed special
Where is n defined? Where is board coming from?
(defun print-board (board)
"Prints out the solution, e.g. (1 4 2 5 3),
where 1 denotes that there is a queen at the first
column of the first row, and so on."
(let (solutionlist)
(setq solutionlist (make-list n)))
(loop for row below n
do (loop for col below n
do (when (aref board row col)
(setf (nth row solutionlist) col))))
(print solutionlist))
The LET makes no sense. (let (foo) (setq foo bar) ...) is (let ((foo bar)) ...).
Why is solutionlist not defined? Look at the LET... it does not make sense.
Where is n coming from?
(defun queen-can-be-placed-here (row col)
"Returns t if (row,col) is a possible place to put queen, otherwise nil."
(loop for i below n
do (let (tcol)
(setq tcol (getqueencol i)))
(if (or (= col tcol) (= (abs (- row i)) (abs (- col tcol))))
(return-from queen-can-be-placed-here nil))))
where is n coming from? The LET makes no sense.
(defun backtracking (row)
"Solves the NxN-queen problem with backtracking"
(if (< row n)
(loop for i below n
do (when (queen-can-be-placed-here row i)
(setf (aref board row i) 't)
(return-from backtracking (backtracking (+ row 1)))
(setf (aref board row i) 'nil))
(print-board board))))
Where is n coming from? Where is board defined?
(defun NxNqueen-solver (k)
"Main program for the function call to the recursive solving of the problem"
(let (n board)
(setq n k)
(setq board (make-array '(k k) :initial-element nil)))
(backtracking 0))
Why use setq when you have a let? The local variables n and board are unused.
MAKE-ARRAY expects a list of numbers, not a list of symbols.
I propose you use a basic Lisp introduction (Common Lisp: A Gentle Introduction to Symbolic Computation - free download) and a Lisp reference (CL Hyperspec).
I decided to write a function that given a number will return a list containing the digits in that number, my attempt is:
(define (rev-digits n)
(if (= n 0)
'()
(cons (modulo n 10) (digits (quotient n 10)))))
(define (digits n)
(reverse (rev-digits n)))
The fact is, I need the digits to be in proper order, but the function returns, for example:
> (digits 1234567890)
'(9 7 5 3 1 2 4 6 8 0)
In seemingly random order... can you help me getting a more ordinated output?
rev-digits needs to call itself, not digits.
(define (rev-digits n)
(if (= n 0)
'()
(cons (modulo n 10) (rev-digits (quotient n 10)))))
(define (digits n)
(reverse (rev-digits n)))
should work.
It's worth noting that your "random" output was not in fact random; rather the digits were "bouncing" back and forth from the start to the end of the list. Which makes sense, because you were effectively switching back and forth between a "normal" and reversed version of your digits function.
The answer given by #JayKominek is spot-on and fixes the error in your code. To complement it, here's an alternative implementation:
(define (rev-digits n)
(let loop ((n n) (acc '()))
(if (< n 10)
(cons n acc)
(loop (quotient n 10) (cons (modulo n 10) acc)))))
The advantages of the above code are:
It's tail recursive and hence more efficient
It correctly handles the edge case when n is zero (your code returns an empty list)
It doesn't require a helper procedure, thanks to the use of a named let
It builds the list in the correct order, there's no need to reverse it at the end
A simple solution:
#lang racket
(define (digits n)
(for/list ([c (number->string n)])
(- (char->integer c) (char->integer #\0))))
I'd like to turn integers into lists. For example, 2245 => (2 2 4 5).
I dislike (coerce (write-to-string 2245) 'list) because it yields (#\2 #\2 #\4 #\5).
Help please?
(map 'list #'digit-char-p (prin1-to-string n))
works well.
(defun number-to-list (n)
(loop for c across (write-to-string n) collect (digit-char-p c)))
An alternative loop based solution.
Same as jon_darkstar but in common lisp. This fails for negative numbers, but trivial to amend.
(defun number-to-list (number)
(assert (and (integerp number)
(>= number 0)))
(labels ((number-to-list/recursive (number) (print number)
(cond
((zerop number)
nil)
(t
(cons (mod number 10)
(number-to-list/recursive (truncate (/ number 10))))))))
(nreverse (number-to-list/recursive number))))
Common Lisp implementation for non-negative integers:
(defun number-to-list (n &optional tail)
(if (zerop n)
(or tail '(0))
(multiple-value-bind (val rem)
(floor n 10)
(number-to-list val (cons rem tail)))))
I don't really use common lisp, but I'd do it like this in Scheme. hopefully that can help?
(define (number-to-list x)
(define (mod-cons x l)
(if (zero? x)
l
(mod-cons (quotient x 10) (cons (remainder x 10) l))))
(mod-cons x '()))
(number-to-list 1234)
A variation on #Mark Cox's solution that also includes the '-' sign in case of negative integers. Inspired by #Terje Norderhaug's amendment to #rhombidodecahedron's solution, where negative numbers are represented by including a negative sign before the digits.
(defun number-to-numlist (number)
"Converts an integer to a list of its digits. Negative numbers
are represented by a '-' sign prepended to the digits of its absolute value."
(assert (integerp number))
(labels ((collect-digits (number number-components list-of-numbers)
(setf number-components (multiple-value-list (floor number 10)))
(if (zerop number)
(or list-of-numbers '(0))
(collect-digits (first number-components) nil
(cons (second number-components) list-of-numbers)))))
(let ((number-list (collect-digits (abs number) nil nil)))
(if (< number 0)
(append '(-) number-list)
number-list))))