I am trying to implement a recursive function to find the cartesian product of two sets. The code I have currently is as follows:
(define (cartesian-product set-1 set-2)
(let (b (set 2))
(cond [(empty? set-1) '()]
[(empty? set-2) (cartesian-product (rest set-1) b)]
[else (append (list (list (first set-1) (first set-2))) (cartesian product set-1 (rest set-2)))]))))
However, there are errors with my logic that I haven't been able to pinpoint precisely. Any help is appreciated!
How about something with two loops instead of one?
(define (cartesian-product set-1 set-2)
(define (cartesian-product-helper element set)
(if (empty? set)
set
(cons (list element (first set))
(cartesian-product-helper element (rest set)))))
(if (or (empty? set-1)
(empty? set-2))
empty
(cons (cartesian-product-helper (first set-1) set-2)
(cartesian-product (rest set-1) set-2))))
You found the issue in your logic and attempted to save set-2 (which you typo'd as (set 2)) in b, but this value will be overwritten at each recursive call. If you call the helper function instead, which loops through all elements of one set along with the first element of the other set, your issue goes away.
Welcome to DrRacket, version 6.1.1 [3m].
Language: racket; memory limit: 128 MB.
> (cartesian-product '(1 2 3) '(x y z))
'(((1 x) (1 y) (1 z))
((2 x) (2 y) (2 z))
((3 x) (3 y) (3 z)))
> (cartesian-product '(1 2 3) '())
'()
> (cartesian-product '() '(x y z))
'()
Alternatively, something more racket-like:
(define (cartesian-product set-1 set-2)
(if (or (empty? set-1)
(empty? set-2))
empty
(for/list ([i set-1])
(for/list ([j set-2])
(list i j)))))
Related
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 new to racket and trying to write a function that checks if a list is in strictly ascending order.
'( 1 2 3) would return true
'(1 1 2) would return false (repeats)
'(3 2 4) would return false
My code so far is:
Image of code
(define (ascending? 'list)
(if (or (empty? list) (= (length 'list) 1)) true
(if (> first (first (rest list))) false
(ascending? (rest list)))))
I'm trying to call ascending? recursively where my base case is that the list is empty or has only 1 element (then trivially ascending).
I keep getting an error message when I use check-expect that says "application: not a procedure."
I guess you want to implement a procedure from scratch, and Alexander's answer is spot-on. But in true functional programming style, you should try to reuse existing procedures to write the solution. This is what I mean:
(define (ascending? lst)
(apply < lst))
It's shorter, simpler and easier to understand. And it works as expected!
(ascending? '(1 2 3))
=> #t
(ascending? '(1 1 2))
=> #f
Some things to consider when writing functions:
Avoid using built in functions as variable names. For example, list is a built in procedure that returns a newly allocated list, so don't use it as an argument to your function, or as a variable. A common convention/alternative is to use lst as a variable name for lists, so you could have (define (ascending? lst) ...).
Don't quote your variable names. For example, you would have (define lst '(1 2 3 ...)) and not (define 'lst '(1 2 3 ...)).
If you have multiple conditions to test (ie. more than 2), it may be cleaner to use cond rather than nesting multiple if statements.
To fix your implementation of ascending? (after replacing 'list), note on line 3 where you have (> first (first (rest list))). Here you are comparing first with (first (rest list)), but what you really want is to compare (first lst) with (first (rest lst)), so it should be (>= (first lst) (first (rest lst))).
Here is a sample implementation:
(define (ascending? lst)
(cond
[(null? lst) #t]
[(null? (cdr lst)) #t]
[(>= (car lst) (cadr lst)) #f]
[else
(ascending? (cdr lst))]))
or if you want to use first/rest and true/false you can do:
(define (ascending? lst)
(cond
[(empty? lst) true]
[(empty? (rest lst)) true]
[(>= (first lst) (first (rest lst))) false]
[else
(ascending? (rest lst))]))
For example,
> (ascending? '(1 2 3))
#t
> (ascending? '(1 1 2))
#f
> (ascending? '(3 2 4))
#f
If you write down the properties of an ascending list in bullet form;
An ascending list is either
the empty list, or
a one-element list, or
a list where
the first element is smaller than the second element, and
the tail of the list is ascending
you can wind up with a pretty straight translation:
(define (ascending? ls)
(or (null? ls)
(null? (rest ls))
(and (< (first ls) (first (rest ls)))
(ascending? (rest ls)))))
This Scheme solution uses an explicitly recursive named let and memoization:
(define (ascending? xs)
(if (null? xs) #t ; Edge case: empty list
(let asc? ((x (car xs)) ; Named `let`
(xs' (cdr xs)) )
(if (null? xs') #t
(let ((x' (car xs'))) ; Memoization of `(car xs)`
(if (< x x')
(asc? x' (cdr xs')) ; Tail recursion
#f)))))) ; Short-circuit termination
(display
(ascending?
(list 1 1 2) )) ; `#f`
I'm using the beginning language with list abbreviations for DrRacket and want to make a powerset recursively but cannot figure out how to do it. I currently have this much
(define
(powerset aL)
(cond
[(empty? aL) (list)]
any help would be good.
What's in a powerset? A set's subsets!
An empty set is any set's subset,
so powerset of empty set's not empty.
Its (only) element it is an empty set:
(define
(powerset aL)
(cond
[(empty? aL) (list empty)]
[else
As for non-empty sets, there is a choice,
for each set's element, whether to be
or not to be included in subset
which is a member of a powerset.
We thus include both choices when combining
first element with smaller powerset,
that, which we get recursively applying
the same procedure to the rest of input:
(combine (first aL)
(powerset (rest aL)))]))
(define
(combine a r) ; `r` for Recursive Result
(cond
[(empty? r) empty] ; nothing to combine `a` with
[else
(cons (cons a (first r)) ; Both add `a` and
(cons (first r) ; don't add, to first subset in `r`
(combine ; and do the same
a ; with
(rest r))))])) ; the rest of `r`
"There are no answers, only choices". Rather,
the choices made, are what the answer's made of.
In Racket,
#lang racket
(define (power-set xs)
(cond
[(empty? xs) (list empty)] ; the empty set has only empty as subset
[(cons? xs) (define x (first xs)) ; a constructed list has a first element
(define ys (rest xs)) ; and a list of the remaining elements
;; There are two types of subsets of xs, thouse that
;; contain x and those without x.
(define with-out-x ; the power sets without x
(power-set ys))
(define with-x ; to get the power sets with x we
(cons-all x with-out-x)) ; we add x to the power sets without x
(append with-out-x with-x)])) ; Now both kind of subsets are returned.
(define (cons-all x xss)
; xss is a list of lists
; cons x onto all the lists in xss
(cond
[(empty? xss) empty]
[(cons? xss) (cons (cons x (first xss)) ; cons x to the first sublist
(cons-all x (rest xss)))])) ; and to the rest of the sublists
To test:
(power-set '(a b c))
Here's yet another implementation, after a couple of tests it appears to be faster than Chris' answer for larger lists. It was tested using standard Racket:
(define (powerset aL)
(if (empty? aL)
'(())
(let ((rst (powerset (rest aL))))
(append (map (lambda (x) (cons (first aL) x))
rst)
rst))))
Here's my implementation of power set (though I only tested it using standard Racket language, not Beginning Student):
(define (powerset lst)
(if (null? lst)
'(())
(append-map (lambda (x)
(list x (cons (car lst) x)))
(powerset (cdr lst)))))
(Thanks to samth for reminding me that flatmap is called append-map in Racket!)
You can just use side effect:
(define res '())
(define
(pow raw leaf)
(cond
[(empty? raw) (set! res (cons leaf res))
res]
[else (pow (cdr raw) leaf)
(pow (cdr raw) (cons (car raw) leaf))]))
(pow '(1 2 3) '())
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.
Given a list of numbers, say, (1 3 6 10 0), how do you compute differences (xi - xi-1), provided that you have x-1 = 0 ?
(the result in this example should be (1 2 3 4 -10))
I've found this solution to be correct:
(define (pairwise-2 f init l)
(first
(foldl
(λ (x acc-data)
(let ([result-list (first acc-data)]
[prev-x (second acc-data)])
(list
(append result-list (list(f x prev-x)))
x)))
(list empty 0)
l)))
(pairwise-2 - 0 '(1 3 6 10 0))
;; => (1 2 3 4 -10)
However, I think there should be more elegant though no less flexible solution. It's just ugly.
I'm new to functional programming and would like to hear any suggestions on the code.
Thanks.
map takes multiple arguments. So I would just do
(define (butlast l)
(reverse (cdr (reverse l))))
(let ((l '(0 1 3 6 10)))
(map - l (cons 0 (butlast l)))
If you want to wrap it up in a function, say
(define (pairwise-call f init l)
(map f l (cons init (butlast l))))
This is of course not the Little Schemer Way, but the way that avoids writing recursion yourself. Choose the way you like the best.
I haven't done scheme in dog's years, but this strikes me as a typical little lisper type problem.
I started with a base definition (please ignore misplacement of parens - I don't have a Scheme interpreter handy:
(define pairwise-diff
(lambda (list)
(cond
((null? list) '())
((atom? list) list)
(t (pairwise-helper 0 list)))))
This handles the crap cases of null and atom and then delegates the meat case to a helper:
(define pairwise-helper
(lambda (n list)
(cond
((null? list) '())
(t
(let ([one (car list)])
(cons (- one n) (pairwise-helper one (cdr list))))
))))
You could rewrite this using "if", but I'm hardwired to use cond.
There are two cases here: null list - which is easy and everything else.
For everything else, I grab the head of the list and cons this diff onto the recursive case. I don't think it gets much simpler.
After refining and adapting to PLT Scheme plinth's code, I think nearly-perfect solution would be:
(define (pairwise-apply f l0 l)
(if (empty? l)
'()
(let ([l1 (first l)])
(cons (f l1 l0) (pairwise-apply f l1 (rest l))))))
Haskell tells me to use zip ;)
(define (zip-with f xs ys)
(cond ((or (null? xs) (null? ys)) null)
(else (cons (f (car xs) (car ys))
(zip-with f (cdr xs) (cdr ys))))))
(define (pairwise-diff lst) (zip-with - (cdr lst) lst))
(pairwise-diff (list 1 3 6 10 0))
; gives (2 3 4 -10)
Doesn't map finish as soon as the shortest argument list is exhausted, anyway?
(define (pairwise-call fun init-element lst)
(map fun lst (cons init-element lst)))
edit: jleedev informs me that this is not the case in at least one Scheme implementation. This is a bit annoying, since there is no O(1) operation to chop off the end of a list.
Perhaps we can use reduce:
(define (pairwise-call fun init-element lst)
(reverse (cdr (reduce (lambda (a b)
(append (list b (- b (car a))) (cdr a)))
(cons (list init-element) lst)))))
(Disclaimer: quick hack, untested)
This is the simplest way:
(define (solution ls)
(let loop ((ls (cons 0 ls)))
(let ((x (cadr ls)) (x_1 (car ls)))
(if (null? (cddr ls)) (list (- x x_1))
(cons (- x x_1) (loop (cdr ls)))))))
(display (equal? (solution '(1)) '(1))) (newline)
(display (equal? (solution '(1 5)) '(1 4))) (newline)
(display (equal? (solution '(1 3 6 10 0)) '(1 2 3 4 -10))) (newline)
Write out the code expansion for each of the example to see how it works.
If you are interested in getting started with FP, be sure to check out How To Design Program. Sure it is written for people brand new to programming, but it has tons of good FP idioms within.
(define (f l res cur)
(if (null? l)
res
(let ((next (car l)))
(f (cdr l) (cons (- next cur) res) next))))
(define (do-work l)
(reverse (f l '() 0)))
(do-work '(1 3 6 10 0))
==> (1 2 3 4 -10)