I have confusion. Semantically we can construct 2^(2^n) boolean functions, but I read in Digital Electronics Morris Mano that we can construct 2^2n combinations of minterm/maxterm. How?
Samsamp, could you point to a specific place in the book or even better provide an exact quote? In the copy I found over the Internet I was not able to find such a claim after a fast glance over. The closest thing I found is:
Since the function can be either I or 0 for each minterm, and since there
are 2^n min terms, one can calculate the possible functions that can be formed with n variables to be 2^2^n.
which looks OK to me.
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.
is there any tool or method to figure out what is this hash/cipher function?
i have only a 500 item list of input and output plus i know all of the inputs are numeric, and output is always 2 Byte long hexadecimal representation.
here's some samples:
794352:6657
983447:efbf
479537:0796
793670:dee4
1063060:623c
1063059:bc1b
1063058:b8bc
1063057:b534
1063056:b0cc
1063055:181f
1063054:9f95
1063053:f73c
1063052:a365
1063051:1738
1063050:7489
i looked around and couldn't find any hash this short, is this a hash folded on itself? (with xor maybe?) or maybe a simple trivial cipher?
is there any tool or method for finding the output of other numbers?
(i want to figure this out; my next option would be training a Neural Network or Regression, so i thought i ask before taking any drastic action )
Edit: The Numbers are directory names, and for accessing them, the Hex parts are required.
Actually, Wikipedia's page on hashes lists three CRCs and three checksum methods that it could be. It could also be only half the output from some more complex hashing mechanism. Cross your fingers and hope that it's of the former. Hashes are specifically meant to be difficult (if not impossible) to reverse engineer.
What it's being used for should be a very strong hint about whether or not it's more likely to be a checksum/CRC or a hash.
I am looking for a simple method to assign a number to a mathematical expression, say between 0 and 1, that conveys how simplified that expression is (being 1 as fully simplified). For example:
eval('x+1') should return 1.
eval('1+x+1+x+x-5') should returns some value less than 1, because it is far from being simple (i.e., it can be further simplified).
The parameter of eval() could be either a string or an abstract syntax tree (AST).
A simple idea that occurred to me was to count the number of operators (?)
EDIT: Let simplified be equivalent to how close a system is to the solution of a problem. E.g., given an algebra problem (i.e. limit, derivative, integral, etc), it should assign a number to tell how close it is to the solution.
The closest metaphor I can come up with it how a maths professor would look at an incomplete problem and mentally assess it in order to tell how close the student is to the solution. Like in a math exam, were the student didn't finished a problem worth 20 points, but the professor assigns 8 out of 20. Why would he come up with 8/20, and can we program such thing?
I'm going to break a stack-overflow rule and post this as an answer instead of a comment, because not only I'm pretty sure the answer is you can't (at least, not the way you imagine), but also because I believe it can be educational up to a certain degree.
Let's assume that a criteria of simplicity can be established (akin to a normal form). It seems to me that you are very close to trying to solve an analogous to entscheidungsproblem or the halting problem. I doubt that in a complex rule system required for typical algebra, you can find a method that gives a correct and definitive answer to the number of steps of a series of term reductions (ipso facto an arbitrary-length computation) without actually performing it. Such answer would imply knowing in advance if such computation could terminate, and so contradict the fact that automatic theorem proving is, for any sufficiently powerful logic capable of representing arithmetic, an undecidable problem.
In the given example, the teacher is actually either performing that computation mentally (going step by step, applying his own sequence of rules), or gives an estimation based on his experience. But, there's no generic algorithm that guarantees his sequence of steps are the simplest possible, nor that his resulting expression is the simplest one (except for trivial expressions), and hence any quantification of "distance" to a solution is meaningless.
Wouldn't all this be true, your problem would be simple: you know the number of steps, you know how many steps you've taken so far, you divide the latter by the former ;-)
Now, returning to the criteria of simplicity, I also advice you to take a look on Hilbert's 24th problem, that specifically looked for a "Criteria of simplicity, or proof of the greatest simplicity of certain proofs.", and the slightly related proof compression. If you are philosophically inclined to further understand these subjects, I would suggest reading the classic Gödel, Escher, Bach.
Further notes: To understand why, consider a well-known mathematical artefact called the Mandelbrot fractal set. Each pixel color is calculated by determining if the solution to the equation z(n+1) = z(n)^2 + c for any specific c is bounded, that is, "a complex number c is part of the Mandelbrot set if, when starting with z(0) = 0 and applying the iteration repeatedly, the absolute value of z(n) remains bounded however large n gets." Despite the equation being extremely simple (you know, square a number and sum a constant), there's absolutely no way to know if it will remain bounded or not without actually performing an infinite number of iterations or until a cycle is found (disregarding complex heuristics). In this sense, every fractal out there is a rough approximation that typically usages an escape time algorithm as an heuristic to provide an educated guess whether the solution will be bounded or not.
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.
I earlier asked a question about arrays in scheme (turns out they're called vectors but are basically otherwise the same as you'd expect).
Is there an easy way to do multidimensional arrays vectors in PLT Scheme though? For my purposes I'd like to have a procedure called make-multid-vector or something.
By the way if this doesn't already exist, I don't need a full code example of how to implement it. If I have to roll this myself I'd appreciate some general direction though. The way I'd probably do it is to just iterate through each element of the currently highest dimension of the vector to add another dimension, but I can see that being a bit ugly using scheme's recursive setup.
Also, this seems like something I should have been able to find myself so please know that I did actually google it and nothing came up.
The two common approaches are the same as in many languages, either use a vector of vectors, or (more efficiently) use a single vector of X*Y and compute the location of each reference. But there is a library that does that -- look in the docs for srfi/25, which you can get with (require srfi/25).