I am getting the error '0 is not a function when I try applying sum-of-prefixes function to a list of numbers:
(define sum-of-prefixes
(lambda (lat)
(cond
((null? lat) '())
((null? (cdr lat)) (car lat))
(else
(sum-of-prefixes-b 0 lat '())))))
(define sum-of-prefixes-b
(lambda (sum lat result)
(cond
((null? lat) result)
(else
(sum-of-prefixes-b (+ sum (car lat)) (cdr lat) (cons (sum result)))))))
I have seen this question, which appears to be similar, but I can't see in my code where an expression might be reduced to (0).
You can try evaluating it here:
https://repl.it/repls/GlamorousProbableBlocks
(sum-of-prefixes '(1 2 4)) Error: 0 is not a function
[sum-of-prefixes, sum-of-prefixes-b, (anon)]
The error is in the last line of sum-of-prefixes-b. It should be:
(sum-of-prefixes-b (+ sum (car lat)) (cdr lat) (cons sum result))))))
instead of:
(sum-of-prefixes-b (+ sum (car lat)) (cdr lat) (cons (sum result)))))))
(sum result) is interpreted as applying sum to result, but sum is not a function, is a variable with value 0.
And perhaps you should change ((null? lat) result) in ((null? lat) (reverse result)) if you want the sums of the prefixes in the same order as the list, assuming I inferred correctly the meaning of the function. In this case I think you should also change the second branch of the conditional of the first function.
Related
I'm finishing up a Scheme assignment and I'm having some trouble with the recursive cases for two functions.
The first function is a running-sums function which takes in a list and returns a list of the running sums i.e (summer '(1 2 3)) ---> (1 3 6) Now I believe I'm very close but can't quite figure out how to fix my case. Currently I have
(define (summer L)
(cond ((null? L) '())
((null? (cdr L)) '())
(else (cons (car L) (+ (car L) (cadr L))))))
I know I need to recursively call summer, but I'm confused on how to put the recursive call in there.
Secondly, I'm writing a function which counts the occurrences of an element in a list. This function works fine through using a helper function but it creates duplicate pairs.
(define (counts L)
(cond ((null? L) '())
(else (cons (cons (car L) (countEle L (car L))) (counts (cdr L))))))
(define (countEle L x)
(if (null? L) 0
(if (eq? x (car L)) (+ 1 (countEle (cdr L) x)) (countEle (cdr L) x))))
The expected output is:
(counts '(a b c c b b)) --> '((a 1) (b 3) ( c 2))
But it's currently returning '((a . 1) (b . 3) (c . 2) (c . 1) (b . 2) (b . 1)). So it's close; I'm just not sure how to handle checking if I've already counted the element.
Any help is appreciated, thank you!
To have a running sum, you need in some way to keep track of the last sum. So some procedure should have two arguments: the rest of the list to sum (which may be the whole list) and the sum so far.
(define (running-sum L)
(define (rs l s)
...)
(rs L 0))
For the second procedure you want to do something like
(define (count-elems L)
(define (remove-elem e L) ...)
(define (count-single e L) ...)
(if (null? L)
'()
(let ((this-element (car L)))
(cons (list this-element (count-single this-element L))
(count-elems (remove-elem this-element (cdr L)))))))
Be sure to remove the elements you've counted before continuing! I think you can fill in the rest.
To your first problem:
The mistake in your procedure is, that there is no recursive call of "summer". Have a look at the last line.
(else (cons (car L) (+ (car L) (cadr L))))))
Here is the complete solution:
(define (summer LL)
(define (loop sum LL)
(if (null? LL)
'()
(cons (+ sum (car LL)) (loop (+ sum (car ll)) (cdr LL)))))
(loop 0 LL))
The problem is to:
Write a function (encode L) that takes a list of atoms L and run-length encodes the list such that the output is a list of pairs of the form (value length) where the first element is a value and the second is the number of times that value occurs in the list being encoded.
For example:
(encode '(1 1 2 4 4 8 8 8)) ---> '((1 2) (2 1) (4 2) (8 3))
This is the code I have so far:
(define (encode lst)
(cond
((null? lst) '())
(else ((append (list (car lst) (count lst 1))
(encode (cdr lst)))))))
(define (count lst n)
(cond
((null? lst) n)
((equal? (car lst) (car (cdr lst)))
(count (cdr lst) (+ n 1)))
(else (n)))))
So I know this won't work because I can't really think of a way to count the number of a specific atom in a list effectively as I would iterate down the list. Also, Saving the previous (value length) pair before moving on to counting the next unique atom in the list. Basically, my main problem is coming up with a way to keep a count of the amount of atoms I see in the list to create my (value length) pairs.
You need a helper function that has the count as additional argument. You check the first two elements against each other and recurse by increasing the count on the rest if it's a match or by consing a match and resetting count to 1 in the recursive call.
Here is a sketch where you need to implement the <??> parts:
(define (encode lst)
(define (helper lst count)
(cond ((null? lst) <??>)
((null? (cdr lst)) <??>))
((equal? (car lst) (cadr lst)) <??>)
(else (helper <??> <??>))))
(helper lst 1))
;; tests
(encode '()) ; ==> ()
(encode '(1)) ; ==> ((1 1))
(encode '(1 1)) ; ==> ((1 2))
(encode '(1 2 2 3 3 3 3)) ; ==> ((1 1) (2 2) (3 4))
Using a named let expression
This technique of using a recursive helper procedure with state variables is so common in Scheme that there's a special let form which allows you to express the pattern a bit nicer
(define (encode lst)
(let helper ((lst lst) (count 1))
(cond ((null? lst) <??>)
((null? (cdr lst)) <??>))
((equal? (car lst) (cadr lst)) <??>)
(else (helper <??> <??>)))))
Comments on the code in your question: It has excess parentheses..
((append ....)) means call (append ....) then call that result as if it is a function. Since append makes lists that will fail miserably like ERROR: application: expected a function, got a list.
(n) means call n as a function.. Remember + is just a variable, like n. No difference between function and other values in Scheme and when you put an expression like (if (< v 3) + -) it needs to evaluate to a function if you wrap it with parentheses to call it ((if (< v 3) + -) 5 3); ==> 8 or 2
I'm trying to have the following program work, but for some reason it keeps telling me that my input doesnt contain the correct amount of arguments, why? here is the program
(define (sum f lst)
(cond
((null? lst)
0)
((pair? (car lst))
(+(f(sum (f car lst))) (f(sum (f cdr lst)))))
(else
(+ (f(car lst)) (f(sum (f cdr lst)))))))
and here is my input: (sum (lambda (x) (* x x)) '(1 2 3))
Thanks!
btw I take no credit for the code, Im just having fun with this one (http://groups.engin.umd.umich.edu/CIS/course.des/cis400/scheme/listsum.htm)
You're indeed passing the wrong number of arguments to the procedures sum and f, notice that the expressions (sum (f car lst)), (sum (f cdr lst)) are wrong, surely you meant (sum f (car lst)), (sum f (cdr lst)) - you don't want to apply f (a single-parameter procedure) to the two parameters that you're passing, and sum expects two arguments, but only one is passed. Try this instead:
(define (sum f lst)
(cond ((null? lst)
0)
((pair? (car lst))
(+ (sum f (car lst)) (sum f (cdr lst))))
(else
(+ (f (car lst)) (sum f (cdr lst))))))
More important: you're calling the f procedure in the wrong places. Only one call is needed in the last line, for the case when (car lst) is just a number and not a list - in the other places, both (car lst) and (cdr lst) are lists that need to be traversed; simply pass f around as a parameter taking care of correctly advancing the recursion.
Let's try the corrected procedure with a more interesting input - as it is, the procedure is capable of finding the sum of a list of arbitrarily nested lists:
(sum (lambda (x) (* x x)) '(1 (2) (3 (4)) 5))
> 55
You should take a look at either The Little Schemer or How to Design Programs, both books will teach you how to structure the solution for this kind of recursive problems over lists of lists.
First off, this is homework, but I am simply looking for a hint or pseudocode on how to do this.
I need to sum all the items in the list, using recursion. However, it needs to return the empty set if it encounters something in the list that is not a number. Here is my attempt:
(DEFINE sum-list
(LAMBDA (lst)
(IF (OR (NULL? lst) (NOT (NUMBER? (CAR lst))))
'()
(+
(CAR lst)
(sum-list (CDR lst))
)
)
)
)
This fails because it can't add the empty set to something else. Normally I would just return 0 if its not a number and keep processing the list.
I suggest you use and return an accumulator for storing the sum; if you find a non-number while traversing the list you can return the empty list immediately, otherwise the recursion continues until the list is exhausted.
Something along these lines (fill in the blanks!):
(define sum-list
(lambda (lst acc)
(cond ((null? lst) ???)
((not (number? (car lst))) ???)
(else (sum-list (cdr lst) ???)))))
(sum-list '(1 2 3 4 5) 0)
> 15
(sum-list '(1 2 x 4 5) 0)
> ()
I'd go for this:
(define (mysum lst)
(let loop ((lst lst) (accum 0))
(cond
((empty? lst) accum)
((not (number? (car lst))) '())
(else (loop (cdr lst) (+ accum (car lst)))))))
Your issue is that you need to use cond, not if - there are three possible branches that you need to consider. The first is if you run into a non-number, the second is when you run into the end of the list, and the third is when you need to recurse to the next element of the list. The first issue is that you are combining the non-number case and the empty-list case, which need to return different values. The recursive case is mostly correct, but you will have to check the return value, since the recursive call can return an empty list.
Because I'm not smart enough to figure out how to do this in one function, let's be painfully explicit:
#lang racket
; This checks the entire list for numericness
(define is-numeric-list?
(lambda (lst)
(cond
((null? lst) true)
((not (number? (car lst))) false)
(else (is-numeric-list? (cdr lst))))))
; This naively sums the list, and will fail if there are problems
(define sum-list-naive
(lambda (lst)
(cond
((null? lst) 0)
(else (+ (car lst) (sum-list-naive (cdr lst)))))))
; This is a smarter sum-list that first checks numericness, and then
; calls the naive version. Note that this is inefficient, because the
; entire list is traversed twice: once for the check, and a second time
; for the sum. Oscar's accumulator version is better!
(define sum-list
(lambda (lst)
(cond
((is-numeric-list? lst) (sum-list-naive lst))
(else '()))))
(is-numeric-list? '(1 2 3 4 5))
(is-numeric-list? '(1 2 x 4 5))
(sum-list '(1 2 3 4 5))
(sum-list '(1 2 x 4 5))
Output:
Welcome to DrRacket, version 5.2 [3m].
Language: racket; memory limit: 128 MB.
#t
#f
15
'()
>
I suspect your homework is expecting something more academic though.
Try making a "is-any-nonnumeric" function (using recursion); then you just (or (is-any-numeric list) (sum list)) tomfoolery.
how to design a function content which
inputs a single list of atoms lat and which returns
the content of lat.Thus the content of '(a b c a b c d d) is '(a b c d).
The procedure content below should get you what you need.
(define (work x y)
(if (null? (cdr x))
(if (in? (car x) y)
y
(cons (car x) y))
(if (in? (car x) y)
(work (cdr x) y)
(work (cdr x) (cons (car x) y)))))
(define (in? x y)
(if (null? y)
#f
(if (equal? x (car y))
#t
(in? x (cdr y)))))
(define (content x) (work x (list)))
The procedure content accepts a list as a parameter. It sends the list to another procedure called work. This procedure processes the list and adds the items in the list to a new list (if they are not already in the new list). The work procedure makes use of yet another procedure called in, which checks to see if an item is a member of a list.
My solution essentially divides your problem into two sub-problems and makes use of procedures which operate at a lower level of abstraction than your original problem.
Hope that helps.
It is PLT Scheme solution:
(define (is_exists list element)
(cond
[(empty? list) false]
[else
(cond
[(= (first list) element) true]
[else (is_exists (rest list) element)])]))
(define (unique list target)
(cond
[(empty? list) target]
[else
(cond
[(is_exists target (first list)) (unique (rest list) target)]
[else (unique (rest list) (cons (first list) target))])]))
(define (create_unique list)
(unique list empty))
Check it:
> (define my_list (cons '1 (cons '2 (cons '3 (cons '2 (cons '1 empty))))))
> my_list
(list 1 2 3 2 1)
> (create_unique my_list)
(list 3 2 1)
How about little schemer style,
(define (rember-all a lat)
(cond
((null? lat) '())
((eq? a (car lat)) (rember-all a (cdr lat)))
(else (cons (car lat) (rember-all a (cdr lat))))))
(define (content lat)
(cond
((null? lat) '())
(else (cons (car lat)
(content (rember-all (car lat) (cdr lat)))))))
Start from a procedure that simply creates a copy of the passed-in list (very easy to do):
(define (unique-elements seq)
(define (loop ans rest)
(cond ((null? rest) ans)
(else
(loop (cons (car rest) ans)
(cdr rest)))))
(loop '() seq))
To ensure that the output list's elements are unique, we should skip the CONS if the head of REST is already a member of ANS. So we add another condition to do just that:
;;; Create list containing elements of SEQ, discarding duplicates.
(define (unique-elements seq)
(define (loop ans rest)
(cond ((null? rest) ans)
((member (car rest) ans) ; *new*
(loop ans (cdr rest))) ; *new*
(else
(loop (cons (car rest) ans)
(cdr rest)))))
(loop '() seq))
The following function takes in a list and returns a new list with only the unique inputs of it's argument using recursion:
(defun uniq (list)
(labels ((next (lst new)
(if (null lst)
new
(if (member (car lst) new)
(next (cdr lst) new)
(next (cdr lst) (cons (car lst) new))))))
(next list ())))
As was mentioned in the comments, common lisp already has this function:
(defun uniq (list)
(remove-duplicates list))
(define (remove-duplicates aloc)
(cond
((empty? aloc) '())
(else (cons (first aloc)
(remove-duplicates
(filter (lambda (x)
(cond
((eq? x (first aloc)) #f)
(else #t)))
(rest aloc)))))))