I'm creating a tail recursive function that evaluates a polynomial by passing a list of coefficients and an x value.
example: evaluate x^3 + 2x^2 + 5, so the user would pass the list '(5 0 2 1) and an x like 1 in a functional call (poly '(5 0 2 1) 1).
I can't figure out why i'm getting the following error:
if: bad syntax in: (if (null? (cdr lst)) (+ total (car lst))
eval-poly-tail-helper ((cdr lst) x (+ (* (expt x n) (car lst)) total)
(+ 1 n)))
(define (poly lst x)
(poly-assistant lst x 0 0))
(define (poly-assistant lst x total n)
(if (null? (cdr lst))
(+ total (car lst))
poly-assistant((cdr lst) x (+ (* (expt x n) (car lst)) total) (+ 1 n))))
You need a left paren before poly-assistant in the last line.
In Scheme, function applications start with a left paren. And if takes 2 or 3 operands.
Use a better editor (e.g. emacs) able to match parenthesis.
The two left parenthesis before cdr looks suspicious. You might need only one.
Learn to use your Scheme debugger, or at least add debugging prints.
Related
I am trying to create Pascal's Triangle using recursion. My code is:
(define (pascal n)
(cond
( (= n 1)
list '(1))
(else (append (list (pascal (- n 1))) (list(add '1 (coresublist (last (pascal (- n 1))))))
)))) ;appends the list from pascal n-1 to the new generated list
(define (add s lst) ;adds 1 to the beginning and end of the list
(append (list s) lst (list s))
)
(define (coresublist lst) ;adds the subsequent numbers, takes in n-1 list
(cond ((= (length lst) 1) empty)
(else
(cons (+ (first lst) (second lst)) (coresublist (cdr lst)))
)))
When I try to run it with:
(display(pascal 3))
I am getting an error that says:
length: contract violation
expected: list?
given: 1
I am looking for someone to help me fix this code (not write me entirely new code that does Pascal's Triangle). Thanks in advance! The output for pascal 3 should be:
(1) (1 1) (1 2 1)
We should start with the recursive definition for a value inside Pascals' triangle, which is usually expressed in terms of two parameters (row and column):
(define (pascal x y)
(if (or (zero? y) (= x y))
1
(+ (pascal (sub1 x) y)
(pascal (sub1 x) (sub1 y)))))
There are more efficient ways to implement it (see Wikipedia), but it will work fine for small values. After that, we just have to build the sublists. In Racket, this is straightforward using iterations, but feel free to implement it with explicit recursion if you wish:
(define (pascal-triangle n)
(for/list ([x (in-range 0 n)])
(for/list ([y (in-range 0 (add1 x))])
(pascal x y))))
It'll work as expected:
(pascal-triangle 3)
=> '((1) (1 1) (1 2 1))
I am simply trying to make this average function to be tail recursive. I have managed to get my function to work and that took some considerable effort. Afterwards I went to ask my professor if my work was satisfactory and he informed me that
my avg function was not tail recursive
avg did not produce the correct output for lists with more than one element
I have been playing around with this code for the past 2 hours and have hit a bit of a wall. Can anyone help me to identify what I am not understanding here.
Spoke to my professor he was != helpful
(defun avg (aList)
(defun sumup (aList)
(if (equal aList nil) 0
; if aList equals nil nothing to sum
(+ (car aList) (sumup (cdr aList)) )
)
)
(if
(equal aList nil) 0
; if aList equals nil length dosent matter
(/ (sumup aList) (list-length aList) )
)
)
(print (avg '(2 4 6 8 19))) ;39/5
my expected results for my test are commented right after it 39/5
So this is what I have now
(defun avg (aList &optional (sum 0) (length 0))
(if aList
(avg (cdr aList) (+ sum (car aList))
(+ length 1))
(/ sum length)))
(print (avg '(2 4 6 8 19))) ;39/5
(defun avg (list &optional (sum 0) (n 0))
(cond ((null list) (/ sum n))
(t (avg (cdr list)
(+ sum (car list))
(+ 1 n)))))
which is the same like:
(defun avg (list &optional (sum 0) (n 0))
(if (null list)
(/ sum n)
(avg (cdr list)
(+ sum (car list))
(+ 1 n))))
or more similar for your writing:
(defun avg (list &optional (sum 0) (n 0))
(if list
(avg (cdr list)
(+ sum (car list))
(+ 1 n))
(/ sum n)))
(defun avg (lst &optional (sum 0) (len 0))
(if (null lst)
(/ sum len)
(avg (cdr lst) (incf sum (car lst)) (1+ len))))
You could improve your indentation here by putting the entire if-then/if-else statement on the same line, because in your code when you call the avg function recursively the indentation bleeds into the next line. In the first function you could say that if the list if null (which is the base case of the recursive function) you can divide the sum by the length of the list. If it is not null, you can obviously pass the cdr of the list, the sum so far by incrementing it by the car of the list, and then increment the length of the list by one. Normally it would not be wise to use the incf or 1+ functions because they are destructive, but in this case they will only have a localized effect because they only impact the optional sum and len parameters for this particular function, and not the structure of the original list (or else I would have passed a copy of the list).
Another option would be to use a recursive local function, and avoid the optional parameters and not have to compute the length of the list on each recursive call. In your original code it looks like you were attempting to use a local function within the context of your avg function, but you should use the "labels" Special operator to do that, and not "defun":
(defun avg (lst)
(if (null lst)
0
(labels ((find-avg (lst sum len)
(if (null lst)
(/ sum len)
(find-avg (cdr lst) (incf sum (car lst)) len))))
(find-avg lst 0 (length lst))))
I'm not 100% sure if your professor would want the local function to be tail-recursive or if he was referring to the global function (avg), but that is how you could also make the local function tail-recursive if that is an acceptable remedy as well. It's actually more efficient in some ways, although it requires more lines of code. In this case a lambda expression could also work, BUT since they do not have a name tail-recursion is not possibly, which makes the labels Special operator is useful for local functions if tail-recursion is mandatory.
i am trying to write a function in Scheme that takes in a list and an integer and outputs the same list minus all the members less than the integer... please help. I seem to be unable to add the numbers into a new list that can be outputed.
(define result '())
(display result)
(define nums-less-than-x
(lambda (lst x)
(define impl
(lambda (l1 b result)
(if (null? l1) result
(begin (if (> b (car l1))
(begin (cons (car l1) result)
;(display result)(newline)(newline)
(display (car l1) )(newline))
)
(impl (cdr l1) b result)
))
))
(impl lst x result)
))
(display (show-up '(4 6 3 -8 3 4) 5))
The code juss displays (), an empty list like that, when I run
(display (num-less-than-x '(some list) x))
Your result is never updated. usually I would expect that only when the element is not being a part of the result and otherwise a recursion like:
(impl (cdr l1) b (cons (car l1) result))
I notice that you have put debug output as the last expression in a begin, eg.
(begin
expression-that-does-something
(display ...)
(newline))
Note that the expressions result is not the result, but the result from the newline, typically some undefined value. You need to put your debug stuff first then as the tail the expression your function should return. Alternatively you could make a debug function:
(define (debug expr)
(display expr)
(newline)
expr))
My understanding is that you want the procedure to return the result, not to display it, which is the right way to do it:
(define show-up
(lambda (lst mx)
(if (null? lst)
lst
(let ((c (car lst)))
(if (> c mx)
(show-up (cdr lst) mx)
(cons c (show-up (cdr lst) mx)))))))
Testing:
> (show-up '(4 6 3 -8 3 4) 5)
'(4 3 -8 3 4)
When programming in a functional style, we try to use existing procedures to solve a problem. With that in mind, the preferred solution would be:
(define (show-up-to-n lst x)
(filter (lambda (n) (< n x))
lst))
Also notice that in truly functional code we avoid at all costs procedures that modify state (such as set!), it's a better idea to create a new list with the result.
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.
I'm new to Scheme (via Racket) and (to a lesser extent) functional programming, and could use some advise on the pros and cons of accumulation via variables vs recursion. For the purposes of this example, I'm trying to calculate a moving average. So, for a list '(1 2 3 4 5), the 3 period moving average would be '(1 2 2 3 4). The idea is that any numbers before the period are not yet part of the calculation, and once we reach the period length in the set, we start averaging the subset of the list according the chosen period.
So, my first attempt looked something like this:
(define (avg lst)
(cond
[(null? lst) '()]
[(/ (apply + lst) (length lst))]))
(define (make-averager period)
(let ([prev '()])
(lambda (i)
(set! prev (cons i prev))
(cond
[(< (length prev) period) i]
[else (avg (take prev period))]))))
(map (make-averager 3) '(1 2 3 4 5))
> '(1 2 2 3 4)
This works. And I like the use of map. It seems composible and open to refactoring. I could see in the future having cousins like:
(map (make-bollinger 5) '(1 2 3 4 5))
(map (make-std-deviation 2) '(1 2 3 4 5))
etc.
But, it's not in the spirit of Scheme (right?) because I'm accumulating with side effects. So I rewrote it to look like this:
(define (moving-average l period)
(let loop ([l l] [acc '()])
(if (null? l)
l
(let* ([acc (cons (car l) acc)]
[next
(cond
[(< (length acc) period) (car acc)]
[else (avg (take acc period))])])
(cons next (loop (cdr l) acc))))))
(moving-average '(1 2 3 4 5) 3)
> '(1 2 2 3 4)
Now, this version is more difficult to grok at first glance. So I have a couple questions:
Is there a more elegant way to express the recursive version using some of the built in iteration constructs of racket (like for/fold)? Is it even tail recursive as written?
Is there any way to write the first version without the use of an accumulator variable?
Is this type of problem part of a larger pattern for which there are accepted best practices, especially in Scheme?
It's a little strange to me that you're starting before the first of the list but stopping sharply at the end of it. That is, you're taking the first element by itself and the first two elements by themselves, but you don't do the same for the last element or the last two elements.
That's somewhat orthogonal to the solution for the problem. I don't think the accumulator is making your life any easier here, and I would write the solution without it:
#lang racket
(require rackunit)
;; given a list of numbers and a period,
;; return a list of the averages of all
;; consecutive sequences of 'period'
;; numbers taken from the list.
(define ((moving-average period) l)
(cond [(< (length l) period) empty]
[else (cons (mean (take l period))
((moving-average period) (rest l)))]))
;; compute the mean of a list of numbers
(define (mean l)
(/ (apply + l) (length l)))
(check-equal? (mean '(4 4 1)) 3)
(check-equal? ((moving-average 3) '(1 3 2 7 6)) '(2 4 5))
Well, as a general rule, you want to separate the manner in which you recurse and/or iterate from the content of the iteration steps. You mention fold in your question, and this points in the right step: you want some form of higher-order function that will handle the list traversal mechanics, and call a function you supply with the values in the window.
I cooked this up in three minutes; it's probably wrong in many ways, but it should give you an idea:
;;;
;;; Traverse a list from left to right and call fn with the "windows"
;;; of the list. fn will be called like this:
;;;
;;; (fn prev cur next accum)
;;;
;;; where cur is the "current" element, prev and next are the
;;; predecessor and successor of cur, and accum either init or the
;;; accumulated result from the preceeding call to fn (like
;;; fold-left).
;;;
;;; The left-edge and right-edge arguments specify the values to use
;;; as the predecessor of the first element of the list and the
;;; successor of the last.
;;;
;;; If the list is empty, returns init.
;;;
(define (windowed-traversal fn left-end right-end init list)
(if (null? list)
init
(windowed-traversal fn
(car list)
right-end
(fn left-end
(car list)
(if (null? (cdr list))
right-end
(second list))
init)
(cdr list))))
(define (moving-average list)
(reverse!
(windowed-traversal (lambda (prev cur next list-accum)
(cons (avg (filter true? (list prev cur next)))
list-accum))
#f
#f
'()
list)))
Alternately, you could define a function that converts a list into n-element windows and then map average over the windows.
(define (partition lst default size)
(define (iter lst len result)
(if (< len 3)
(reverse result)
(iter (rest lst)
(- len 1)
(cons (take lst 3) result))))
(iter (cons default (cons default lst))
(+ (length lst) 2)
empty))
(define (avg lst)
(cond
[(null? lst) 0]
[(/ (apply + lst) (length lst))]))
(map avg (partition (list 1 2 3 4 5) 0 3))
Also notice that the partition function is tail-recursive, so it doesn't eat up stack space -- this is the point of result and the reverse call. I explicitly keep track of the length of the list to avoid either repeatedly calling length (which would lead to O(N^2) runtime) or hacking together a at-least-size-3 function. If you don't care about tail recursion, the following variant of partition should work:
(define (partition lst default size)
(define (iter lst len)
(if (< len 3)
empty
(cons (take lst 3)
(iter (rest lst)
(- len 1)))))
(iter (cons default (cons default lst))
(+ (length lst) 2)))
Final comment - using '() as the default value for an empty list could be dangerous if you don't explicitly check for it. If your numbers are greater than 0, 0 (or -1) would probably work better as a default value - they won't kill whatever code is using the value, but are easy to check for and can't appear as a legitimate average