I am trying to figure out this double recursion problem but I cannot. To visualize, I used the function stack.
if(n==1) {
return 1;
}
else {
return r((n+1)/2) + r(n/2);
}
}
Using the stack can someone help me understand how to get the answer if int x = r(10)?
Here is what I've done so far:
struct rep_list {
struct node *head;
struct node *tail;
}
typedef rep_list *list;
int length(const list lst) {
if (lst->head == NULL) {
return 0;
}
else {
lst->head = lst->head->next;
return 1 + length(lst);
}
}
This works, but the head of the list the function accepts as a parameter gets changed. I don't know how to fix that.
I'm not allowed to change the function definition so it should always accept a list variable.
Any ideas?
EDIT: I tried to do what Tyler S suggested in the comments but I encountered another problem. If I create a node* variable at the beginning, it should point to lst->head. But then every recursive call to the function changes the value back to lst->head and I cannot move forward.
You don't need a local node: just don't change the list head. Instead, pass the next pointer as the recursion head.
int length(const list lst) {
if (lst->head == NULL) {
return 0;
}
else {
return 1 + length(lst->head-next);
}
}
I see. Okay; this gets a bit clunky because of the chosen representation. You need a temporary variable to contain the remaining list. This iscludes changing the head.
int length(const list lst) {
if (lst->head == NULL) {
return 0;
}
else {
new_lst = new(list)
new_lst->head = lst->head->next;
var result = 1 + length(new_lst);
free(new_lst)
return result
}
}
At each recursion step, you create a new list object, point it to the 2nd element of the current list, and continue. Does this do the job for you?
Although this solution is clunky and I hate it, its the only way I can see to accomplish what you're asking without modifying the method signature. We create a temporary node * as member data of the class and modify it when we start.
struct rep_list {
struct node *head;
struct node *tail;
}
node *temp = NULL;
bool didSetHead = false;
typedef rep_list *list;
int length(const list lst) {
if ((didSetHead) && (lst->head != temp)) {
temp = lst->head;
didSetHead = false;
}
if (temp == NULL) {
didSetHead = true;
return 0;
}
else {
temp = temp->next;
return 1 + length(temp);
}
}
Please note, I haven't tested this code and you may have to play with a bit, but the idea will work.
I need to write a factorial function that takes in one input and returns the factorial of the given number. if the function is passed in to be 0 or less than 0 then the function should return 0.
I am not actually sure how to write this only using the features of PSScript version 1.0 however I just wrote this, please can someone help me.
JAVA -
public static int factorial (int n) {
if (n<0) {
return 0;
}
return (n<2) ? 1 : n *factorial(n-1);
}
I want to know if there is any I could write this so could use this to write a function in PSScript version 1.0
This is what I have done so far ;
func fac (int n) return int {
if (n<0){
return 0;
}
else
{
return (n<2) ? 1 : n *factorial(n-1);
}
}
Based on the language spec you linked to I would guess the recursive factorial function would look like this in your fictional language:
func fac (int n) returns int {
if (n == 0) {
return 1;
} else {
return n * fac(n - 1);
}
}
Maybe it should check for negative arguments too.
I've been running through codeacademy's tutorials and projects. On FizzBuzz++ 1.5 they want us to re-write the "Wobble" function as Wob, using ternary operators. I keep getting an error saying "missing operand" with the following code. Also the +1 on the end of the return, how does that work, does javaScript store it as a temp value because it doesn't get assigned to any var. Thanks for the help. Code is below.
var Wibble = {
Wobble: function(a, b) {
if(a===b)
//if the variables are equal return 0
return 0;
else {
//decrement the larger of the 2 values
if (a>b) {
a--;
} else {
b--;
}
//call this function again with the decremented values
//once they are equal the functions will return up the stack
//adding 1 to the return value for each recursion
return Wibble.Wobble(a,b)+1;
}
},
//This is the line of code that doesn't want to function..
Wob: function(a, b) {
(a===b) ? return 0 :(a<b) ? return this.Wob(a--,b)+1 : return this.Wob(a,b--)+1;
}
};
The following expression with the ternary operator:
result = (a) ? x : y;
is equivalent to the following:
if(a)
{
result = x;
}
else
{
result = y;
}
Note the syntactical difference, where in the ternary operator you are switching in the assignment, whereas in the if statement syntax, you are assigning in the switch.
That is to say that:
(a == b) ? return 0 : return 1;
is not equivalent to:
if(a == b)
return 0;
else
return 1;
Instead, you would want to write:
return (a == b) ? 0 : 1;
I have just been studying the concept of recursion and I thought that I would try a simple example. In the following code, I am attempting to take the numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and add them together using recursion. I expected the result to be 15, but my code is returning 16.
What am I doing wrong?
Code:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Console.WriteLine(Sum(5));
Console.Read();
}
static int Sum(int value)
{
if (value > 0)
{
return value + Sum(value - 1);
}
else
{
return 1;
}
}
You're returning 1 in the else clause. You should be returning 0:
else
{
return 0;
}
If the value is not greater than zero, why would you return one in the first place?
Your code executes as follows:
Sum --> 5
Sum --> 4
Sum --> 3
Sum --> 2
Sum --> 1
Sum --> 0
1 <---
2 <---
4 <---
7 <---
11 <---
16 <---
Check your base case.
Others already noted the error, and I will elaborate on recursion.
Although C# does not currently perform tail call optimization (although IL has special tail instruction), it's worth mentioning that tail recursion is generally a good thing.
Tail recursion is a special case of recursion in which the last operation of the function, the tail call, is a recursive call. Since the last call is the recursive call there is no need to preserve stack frame of the calling function and the compiler can easily use this information to generate machine instruction such that the stack doesn't grow at all. So it can basically turn recursive function into an iterative one.
Rewriting your code to support tail recursion can be done as follws:
static int Sum(int result, int value)
{
if(value == 0)
return result;
return Sum(result + 1, value - 1);
}
static int Sum(int value)
{
if (value > 0)
{
return value + Sum(value - 1);
}
else
{
return 0; //Change this.
}
}
That's because, when the value is = 0, you return 1. Then it get's added.
Sum's "else" clause should return 0.
I always prefer to put the terminating case(s) up front so they're obvious, and I have a violent near-psychopathic hatred of "if cond then return a else return b" constructs. My choice would be (making it clear that it won't work properly for negative numbers):
static unsigned int Sum(unsigned int value) {
if (value == 0)
return 0;
return value + Sum(value - 1);
}
I believe that's far more readable than a morass of braces and control flow.
The others have already answered that question, but when I work with recursion, one of the things I like to do to check that it works is to use check the base case and one additional case. I your case I would test it with 1, which would yield 2. Since this is obviously wrong you might want to check for 0 which is not going to use any recursion and so it should be obvious that the error lies in the base class.
In general recursion is easier to reason about, since you can list the limited number of things you need to check, but it does initially require a leap of faith since your intuition will be wrong. Just test the edge cases and trust the math it will never fail.
int summation(int num){
if (num==1)
return 1;
return summation(num-1)+num;
}
I'm pretty sure the problem is because you want your recursion to terminate when value == 1, and it's currently terminating when value == 0.
Your terminating expression is at issue. When value == 0 (or lower), it should return a 0 rather than 1. For sake of efficiency (which, let's admit it here, obviously isn't a concern, otherwise recursion wouldn't have been used for this task), you should terminate the recursion at value == 1 and return a literal 1 to save one unnecessary level of recursion.
using System;
using NUnit.Framework;
namespace Recursion
{
[TestFixture()]
public class Test
{
[Test()]
public void TestSum ()
{
Assert.AreEqual (Sum (new int[] { }), 0);
Assert.AreEqual (Sum (new int[] { 0 }), 0);
Assert.AreEqual (Sum (new int[] { 1 }), 1);
Assert.AreEqual (Sum (new int[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 }), 15);
}
public int Sum(int[] head)
{
if (head.Length == 0) return 0;
int[] tail = new int[head.Length - 1];
for (int i = 1; i < head.Length; i++)
{
tail [i-1] = head [i];
}
return head[0] + Sum (tail);
}
}
}
It could also be written like this:
public static int sum(int n){
int total;
if(n==1){
total =1;
}else{
total = sum(n-1)+n;
}
return total;
}
Actually, I think you don't need to check case else because
public static int sum(int number){
if(number > 0){
return number + sum(--number);
}
return number; // return 0 so that's why you don't need check else condition
}
To begin at the end, a recursive Sum method looks like this:
// version 3
public static int Sum(int startRange, int endRange)
{
if (endRange > startRange)
{
return endRange + Sum(startRange, endRange - 1);
}
if (endRange < startRange)
{
return startRange + Sum(endRange, startRange - 1);
}
return endRange;
}
Hardcoding the startRange to be 0 gives us:
// version 2
public static int Sum(int range)
{
if (range > 0)
{
return range + Sum(0, range - 1);
}
if (range < 0)
{
return Sum(range, -1);
}
return range;
}
...and if you want to limit the method to positive numbers only, there's no need for a sign:
// version 1
public static unsigned int Sum(unsigned int range)
{
if (range > 0)
{
return range + Sum(0, range - 1);
}
return range;
}
I hope this helps give more of an insight into summing number ranges via recursion.
static int Sum(int[] addends)
{
if (addends.Length == 1)
{
return addends[0];
}
else
{
int tailIndex = addends.Length - 1;
var subArray = addends[0..tailIndex];
return addends[tailIndex] + Sum(subArray);
}
}
Try this code:
def sumr(n):
if n==0:
return n
return n+sumr(n-1)