Im trying to figure out an equation. This is f(n)=f(n-1) + 3n^2 - n. I also have the values to use as f(1), f(2), f(3). How would i go about solving this??
You would usually use recursion but, whether you do that or an iterative solution, you're missing (or simply haven't shown us) a vital bit of information, the terminating condition such as f(1) = 1 (for example).
With that extra piece of information, you could code up a recursive solution relatively easily, such as the following pseudo-code:
define f(n):
if n == 1:
return 1
return f(n-1) + (3 * n * n) - n
As an aside, that's not actually Fibonacci, which is the specific 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, ... sequence.
It can be said to be Fibonacci-like but it's actually more efficient to do this one recursively since it only involves one self-referential call per level whereas Fibonacci needs two:
define f(n):
if n <= 2:
return 1
return f(n-2) + f(n-1)
And if you're one of those paranoid types who doesn't like recursion (and I'll admit freely it can have its problems in the real world of limited stack depths), you could opt for the iterative version.
define f(n):
if n == 1:
return 1
parent = 1
for num = 2 to n inclusive:
result = parent + (3 * num * num) - num
parent = result
return result
If you ask this question on a programming site such as Stack Overflow, you can expect to get code as an answer.
On the other hand, if you are looking for a closed formula for f(n), then you should direct your question to a specialised StackExchange site such as Computer Science.
Note: what you are looking for is called the repertoire method. It can be used to solve your problem (the closed formula is very simple).
Related
I'm trying to write a Maxima function that iterates another function provided as an argument. The goal is basically...
iter(f,0) ........ gives the identity function lambda([x],x)
iter(f,1) ........ gives f
iter(f,2) ........ gives lambda([x],f(f(x))
iter(f,3) ........ gives lambda([x],f(f(f(x)))
The reason is trying to figure out how an iterated polynomial behaves - similar to the Robert May population equation, but a different polynomial.
Anyway, I'm very new to Maxima (at least to things that seem more like simple programming than just asking for a solution) and after some time trying to figure out what I'm doing wrong, I think I've eliminated all silly mistakes and I must have a more fundamental misunderstanding of how Maxima works.
What I have...
iter(f,n) := if is (n=0)
then lambda ([x], x)
else block ([n2: floor (n/2),
nr: is (n2*2#n),
ff: iter (f,n2) ], if nr then lambda ([x],f(ff(ff(x))))
else lambda ([x], ff(ff(x)) ));
Maxima accepts this. Now as a simple example function to iterate...
inc(x):=x+1;
And some tests - first the base case...
iter(inc,0);
That works - it gives lambda([x],x) as expected. Next, "iterating" one time...
iter(inc,1);
I'm expecting something equivalent to inc, but because of the way this is written, more like lambda([x],inc(identity(identity(x))) but with more clutter. What I'm actually getting is a stack overflow...
Maxima encountered a Lisp error:
Control stack exhausted (no more space for function call frames).
This is probably due to heavily nested or infinitely recursive function
calls, or a tail call that SBCL cannot or has not optimized away.
...
I can't see why the is (n=0) base-case check would fail to spot that in the recursive call, so I can't see why this iter function would be entered more than twice for n=1 - it seems pretty extreme for that the exhaust the stack.
Of course once I have the basic idea working I'll probably special-case n=1 as effectively another base case for efficiency (a less cluttered resulting function definition) and add more checks, but I just want something that doesn't stack-overflow in trivial cases for now.
What am I misunderstanding?
Here's what I came up with. It's necessary to substitute into the body of lambda since the body is not evaluated -- I guess you have encountered this important point already.
(%i3) iter(f, n) := if n = 0 then identity elseif n = 1 then f
else subst([ff = iter(f, n - 1),'f = f],
lambda([x], f(ff(x)))) $
(%i4) iter(inc, 0);
(%o4) identity
(%i5) iter(inc, 1);
(%o5) inc
(%i6) iter(inc, 2);
(%o6) lambda([x], inc(inc(x)))
(%i7) iter(inc, 3);
(%o7) lambda([x], inc(inc(inc(x))))
(%i8) iter(inc, 4);
(%o8) lambda([x], inc(inc(inc(inc(x)))))
(%i9) inc(u) := u + 1 $
(%i10) iter(inc, 4);
(%o10) lambda([x], inc(x + 3))
(%i11) %(10);
(%o11) 14
(%i12) makelist (iter(cos, k), k, 0, 10);
(%o12) [identity, cos, lambda([x], cos(cos(x))),
lambda([x], cos(cos(cos(x)))), lambda([x],
cos(cos(cos(cos(x))))), lambda([x], cos(cos(cos(cos(cos(x)))))),
lambda([x], cos(cos(cos(cos(cos(cos(x))))))),
lambda([x], cos(cos(cos(cos(cos(cos(cos(x)))))))),
lambda([x], cos(cos(cos(cos(cos(cos(cos(cos(x))))))))),
lambda([x], cos(cos(cos(cos(cos(cos(cos(cos(cos(x)))))))))),
lambda([x], cos(cos(cos(cos(cos(cos(cos(cos(cos(cos(x)))))))))))]
(%i13) map (lambda([f], f(0.1)), %);
(%o13) [0.1, 0.9950041652780257, 0.5444993958277886,
0.8553867058793604, 0.6559266636704799, 0.7924831019448093,
0.7020792679906703, 0.7635010336918854, 0.7224196362389732,
0.7502080588752906, 0.731547032044224]
Maxima is almost good at stuff like this -- since it is built on top of Lisp, the right conceptual elements are present. However, the lack of lexical scope is a serious problem when working on problems like this, because it means that when you refer to f within a function definition, it is the same f which might exist outside of it. When the solution depends on carefully distinguishing which f you mean, that's a problem.
Anyway as it stands I hope this solution is useful to you in some way.
Earlier, after a moment of inspiration, I tried the following in Maxima...
block([a:1,b:a],b);
This gave me a where I was expecting 1, which suggests that the b:a variable definition cannot see the a:1 variable definition earlier in the same block. I had assumed that later variable definitions in a block would be able to see earlier definitions, and that affects two variable definitions in my iter function - in particular, iter (f,n2) cannot see the definition of n2 which breaks the base-case check in the recursion.
What I have now (WARNING - NOT A WORKING SOLUTION) is...
iter(f,n) := if is (n=0)
then lambda ([x], x)
else block ([n2: floor (n/2)],
block ([g: iter (f,n2)],
if is (n2*2#n) then lambda ([x],f(g(g(x))))
else lambda ([x], g(g(x)) )));
I'm nesting one block inside another so that the later variable definition can see the earlier one. There is no nr (n was rounded?) variable, though TBH keeping that wouldn't have required a third nested block. I replaced ff with g at some point.
This solves the stack overflow issue - the base case of the recursion seems to be handled correctly now.
This still isn't working - it seems like the references to g now cannot see the definition of g for some reason.
iter(inc,0) ................. lambda([x],x)
iter(inc,1) ................. lambda([x],f(g(g(x))))
iter(inc,2) ................. lambda([x],g(g(x)))
...
When the recursive half-size iteration g is needed, for some reason it's not substituted. Also noticable - neither is f substituted.
As a best guess, this is probably due to the function calls being by-name in the generated lambda, and due to nothing forcing them to be substituted in or forcing the overall expression to be simplified.
(update - This SO question suggests I've understood the problem, but the solution doesn't appear to work in my case - what I'm trying to substitute is referenced via a variable no matter what.)
But it's also a different question (it's not a recursion/stack overflow issue) so I'll come back and ask another question if I can't figure it out. I'll also add a working solution here if/when I figure it out.
I tried a few more approaches using subst and the double-quote notation, but Maxima stubbornly kept referring to f and g by name. After a little thought, I switched approach - instead of generating a function, generate an expression. The working result is...
iter(v,e,n) := if is (n=0)
then ''v
else block ([n2: floor (n/2)],
block ([g: iter (v,e,n2)],
block ([gg: subst([''v=g], g)],
if is (n2*2#n) then subst([''v=e], gg)
else gg )));
The three nested block expressions are annoying - I'm probably still missing something that's obvious to anyone with any Maxima experience. Also, this is fragile - it probably needs some parameter checks, but not on every recursive call. Finally, it doesn't simplify result - it just builds an expression by applying direct substitution into itself.
What if you do everything with expressions?
(%i1) iter(e, n):= block([ans: e], thru n - 1 do ans: subst('x = e, ans), ans) $
(%i2) iter(x^2 + x, 1);
2
(%o2) x + x
(%i3) iter(x^2 + x, 2);
2 2 2
(%o3) (x + x) + x + x
(%i4) iter(x^2 + x, 3);
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
(%o4) ((x + x) + x + x) + (x + x) + x + x
You can define a function at the end:
(%i5) define(g(x), iter(x^2 + x, 3));
I have an assignment with this symbol on it: [Image of unfamiliar symbol
Basically the question asks "Write a recursive Java method which, given a positive integer n, computes and returns the sum of the integers from 1 to n as follows".
I do not need any help on the recursion itself, I really just need to understand what that symbol means (Link Included), so I can answer the question properly.
My Question: What meaning does the symbol possess? What is my instructor expecting as a valid response?
NOTE: I do NOT want anyone to attempt to answer the actual assignment question. I ONLY want know understand what the symbol being used means and what should be returned in my recursion method.
IT is the sigma symbol which means take the sum from i = 1 to n.
so your output comes as 1 + 2 + 3 + ..... + n
This explanation is to left hand side of the equation. others are the same.
It's a summation symbol
The sum of each i starting from i = 1 to i == n equals the sum of each i starting from i = 1 to i == n/2 plus the sum of of each i starting from i = n/2 + 1 to i == n
I was asked to use dynamic programming to solve a problem. I have mixed notes on what constitutes dynamic programming. I believe it requires a "bottom-up" approach, where smallest problems are solved first.
One thing I have contradicting information on, is whether something can be dynamic programming if the same subproblems are solved more than once, as is often the case in recursion.
For instance. For Fibonacci, I can have a recursive algorithm:
RecursiveFibonacci(n)
if (n=1 or n=2)
return 1
else
return RecursiveFibonacci(n-1) + RecursiveFibonacci(n-2)
In this situation, the same sub-problems may be solved over-and-over again. Does this render it is not dynamic programming? That is, if I wanted dynamic programming, would I have to avoid resolving subproblems, such as using an array of length n and storing the solution to each subproblem (the first indices of the array are 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21)?
Fibonacci(n)
F1 = 1
F2 = 1
for i=3 to n
Fi=Fi-1 + Fi-2
return Fn
Dynamic programs can usually be succinctly described with recursive formulas.
But if you implement them with simple recursive computer programs, these are often inefficient for exactly the reason you raise: the same computation is repeated. Fibonacci is a example of repeated computation, though it is not a dynamic program.
There are two approaches to avoiding the repetition.
Memoization. The idea here is to cache the answer computed for each set of arguments to the recursive function and return the cached value when it exists.
Bottom-up table. Here you "unwind" the recursion so that results at levels less than i are combined to the result at level i. This is usually depicted as filling in a table, where the levels are rows.
One of these methods is implied for any DP algorithm. If computations are repeated, the algorithm isn't a DP. So the answer to your question is "yes."
So an example... Let's try the problem of making change of c cents given you have coins with values v_1, v_2, ... v_n, using a minimum number of coins.
Let N(c) be the minimum number of coins needed to make c cents. Then one recursive formulation is
N(c) = 1 + min_{i = 1..n} N(c - v_i)
The base cases are N(0)=0 and N(k)=inf for k<0.
To memoize this requires just a hash table mapping c to N(c).
In this case the "table" has only one dimension, which is easy to fill in. Say we have coins with values 1, 3, 5, then the N table starts with
N(0) = 0, the initial condition.
N(1) = 1 + min(N(1-1), N(1-3), N(1-5) = 1 + min(0, inf, inf) = 1
N(2) = 1 + min(N(2-1), N(2-3), N(2-5) = 1 + min(1, inf, inf) = 2
N(3) = 1 + min(N(3-1), N(3-3), N(3-5) = 1 + min(2, 0, inf) = 1
You get the idea. You can always compute N(c) from N(d), d < c in this manner.
In this case, you need only remember the last 5 values because that's the biggest coin value. Most DPs are similar. Only a few rows of the table are needed to get the next one.
The table is k-dimensional for k independent variables in the recursive expression.
We think of a dynamic programming approach to a problem if it has
overlapping subproblems
optimal substructure
In very simple words we can say dynamic programming has two faces, they are top-down and bottom-up approaches.
In your case, it is a top-down approach if you are talking about the recursion.
In the top-down approach, we will try to write a recursive solution or a brute-force solution and memoize the results so that we will try to use that result when a similar subproblem arrives, so it is brute-force + memoization. We can achieve that brute-force approach with a simple recursive relation.
I'm working my way through How to Design Programs on my own. I haven't quite grasped complex linear recursion, so I need a little help.
The problem:
Define multiply, which consumes two natural numbers, n and x, and produces n * x without using Scheme's *. Eliminate + from this definition, too.
Straightforward with the + sign:
(define (multiply n m)
(cond
[(zero? m) 0]
[else (+ n (multiply n (sub1 m)))]))
(= (multiply 3 3) 9)
I know to use add1, but I can't it the recursion right.
Thanks.
Split the problem in two functions. First, you need a function (add m n) which adds m to n. What is the base case? when n is zero, return m. What is the recursive step? add one to the result of calling add again, but decrementing n. You guessed it, add1 and sub1 will be useful.
The other function, (mul m n) is similar. What is the base case? if either m or n are zero, return 0. What is the recursive step? add (using the previously defined function) m to the result of calling mul again, but decrementing n. And that's it!
Since this is almost certainly a homework-type question, hints only.
How do you add 7 and 2? While most people just come up with 9, is there a more basic way?
How about you increment the first number and decrement the second number until one of them reaches zero?
Then the other one is the answer. Let's try the sample:
7 2
8 1
9 0 <- bingo
This will work fine for natural numbers though you need to be careful if you ever want to apply it to negatives. You can get into the situation (such as with 10 and -2) where both numbers are moving away from zero. Of course, you could check for that before hand and swap the operations.
So now you know can write + in terms of an increment and decrement instruction. It's not fantastic for recursion but, since your multiply-by-recursive-add already suffers the same problem, it's probably acceptable.
Now you just have to find out how to increment and decrement in LISP without using +. I wonder whether there might be some specific instructions for this :-)
Recently I have been studying recursion; how to write it, analyze it, etc. I have thought for a while that recurrence and recursion were the same thing, but some problems on recent homework assignments and quizzes have me thinking there are slight differences, that 'recurrence' is the way to describe a recursive program or function.
This has all been very Greek to me until recently, when I realized that there is something called the 'master theorem' used to write the 'recurrence' for problems or programs. I've been reading through the wikipedia page, but, as usual, things are worded in such a way that I don't really understand what it's talking about. I learn much better with examples.
So, a few questions:
Lets say you are given this recurrence:
r(n) = 2*r(n-2) + r(n-1);
r(1) = r(2)
= 1
Is this, in fact, in the form of the master theorem? If so, in words, what is it saying? If you were to be trying to write a small program or a tree of recursion based on this recurrence, what would that look like? Should I just try substituting numbers in, seeing a pattern, then writing pseudocode that could recursively create that pattern, or, since this may be in the form of the master theorem, is there a more straightforward, mathematical approach?
Now, lets say you were asked to find the recurrence, T(n), for the number of additions performed by the program created from the previous recurrence. I can see that the base case would probably be T(1) = T(2) = 0, but I'm not sure where to go from there.
Basically, I am asking how to go from a given recurrence to code, and the opposite. Since this looks like the master theorem, I'm wondering if there is a straightforward and mathematical way of going about it.
EDIT: Okay, I've looked through some of my past assignments to find another example of where I'm asked, 'to find the recurrence', which is the part of this question I'm having the post trouble with.
Recurrence that describes in the best
way the number of addition operations
in the following program fragment
(when called with l == 1 and r == n)
int example(A, int l, int r) {
if (l == r)
return 2;
return (A[l] + example(A, l+1, r);
}
A few years ago, Mohamad Akra and Louay Bazzi proved a result that generalizes the Master method -- it's almost always better. You really shouldn't be using the Master Theorem anymore...
See, for example, this writeup: http://courses.csail.mit.edu/6.046/spring04/handouts/akrabazzi.pdf
Basically, get your recurrence to look like equation 1 in the paper, pick off the coefficients, and integrate the expression in Theorem 1.
Zachary:
Lets say you are given this
recurrence:
r(n) = 2*r(n-2) + r(n-1); r(1) = r(2)
= 1
Is this, in fact, in the form of the
master theorem? If so, in words, what
is it saying?
I think that what your recurrence relation is saying is that for function of "r" with "n" as its parameter (representing the total number of data sets you're inputting), whatever you get at the nth position of the data-set is the output of the n-1 th position plus twice whatever is the result of the n-2 th position, with no non-recursive work being done. When you try to solve a recurrence relation, you're trying to go about expressing it in a way that doesn't involve recursion.
However, I don't think that that is in the correct form for the Master Theorem Method. Your statement is a "second order linear recurrence relation with constant coefficients". Apparently, according to my old Discrete Math textbook, that's the form you need to have in order to solve the recurrence relation.
Here's the form that they give:
r(n) = a*r(n-1) + b*r(n-2) + f(n)
For 'a' and 'b' are some constants and f(n) is some function of n. In your statement, a = 1, b = 2, and f(n) = 0. Whenever, f(n) is equal to zero the recurrence relation is known as "homogenous". So, your expression is homogenous.
I don't think that you can solve a homogenous recurrence relation using the Master Method Theoerm because f(n) = 0. None of the cases for Master Method Theorem allow for that because n-to-the-power-of-anything can't equal zero. I could be wrong, because I'm not really an expert at this but I don't that it's possible to solve a homogenous recurrence relation using the Master Method.
I that that the way to solve a homogeneous recurrence relation is to go by 5 steps:
1) Form the characteristic equation, which is something of the form of:
x^k - c[1]*x^k-1 - c[2]*x^k-2 - ... - c[k-1]*x - c[k] = 0
If you've only got 2 recursive instances in your homogeneous recurrence relation then you only need to change your equation into the Quadratic Equation where
x^2 - a*x - b = 0
This is because a recurrence relation of the form of
r(n) = a*r(n-1) + b*r(n-2)
Can be re-written as
r(n) - a*r(n-1) - b*r(n-2) = 0
2) After your recurrence relation is rewritten as a characteristic equation, next find the roots (x[1] and x[2]) of the characteristic equation.
3) With your roots, your solution will now be one of the two forms:
if x[1]!=x[2]
c[1]*x[1]^n + c[2]*x[2]^n
else
c[1]*x[1]^n + n*c[2]*x[2]^n
for when n>2.
4) With the new form of your recursive solution, you use the initial conditions (r(1) and r(2)) to find c[1] and c[2]
Going with your example here's what we get:
1)
r(n) = 1*r(n-1) + 2*r(n-2)
=> x^2 - x - 2 = 0
2) Solving for x
x = (-1 +- sqrt(-1^2 - 4(1)(-2)))/2(1)
x[1] = ((-1 + 3)/2) = 1
x[2] = ((-1 - 3)/2) = -2
3) Since x[1] != x[2], your solution has the form:
c[1](x[1])^n + c[2](x[2])^n
4) Now, use your initial conditions to find the two constants c[1] and c[2]:
c[1](1)^1 + c[2](-2)^1 = 1
c[1](1)^2 + c[2](-2)^2 = 1
Honestly, I'm not sure what your constants are in this situation, I stopped at this point. I guess you'd have to plug in numbers until you'd somehow got a value for both c[1] and c[2] which would both satisfy those two expressions. Either that or perform row reduction on a matrix C where C equals:
[ 1 1 | 1 ]
[ 1 2 | 1 ]
Zachary:
Recurrence that describes in the best
way the number of addition operations
in the following program fragment
(when called with l == 1 and r == n)
int example(A, int l, int r) {
if (l == r)
return 2;
return (A[l] + example(A, l+1, r);
}
Here's the time complexity values for your given code for when r>l:
int example(A, int l, int r) { => T(r) = 0
if (l == r) => T(r) = 1
return 2; => T(r) = 1
return (A[l] + example(A, l+1, r); => T(r) = 1 + T(r-(l+1))
}
Total: T(r) = 3 + T(r-(l+1))
Else, when r==l then T(r) = 2, because the if-statement and the return both require 1 step per execution.
Your method, written in code using a recursive function, would look like this:
function r(int n)
{
if (n == 2) return 1;
if (n == 1) return 1;
return 2 * r(n-2) + r(n-1); // I guess we're assuming n > 2
}
I'm not sure what "recurrence" is, but a recursive function is simply one that calls itself.
Recursive functions need an escape clause (some non-recursive case - for example, "if n==1 return 1") to prevent a Stack Overflow error (i.e., the function gets called so much that the interpreter runs out of memory or other resources)
A simple program that would implement that would look like:
public int r(int input) {
if (input == 1 || input == 2) {
return 1;
} else {
return 2 * r(input - 2) + r(input -1)
}
}
You would also need to make sure that the input is not going to cause an infinite recursion, for example, if the input at the beginning was less than 1. If this is not a valid case, then return an error, if it is valid, then return the appropriate value.
"I'm not exactly sure what 'recurrence' is either"
The definition of a "recurrence relation" is a sequence of numbers "whose domain is some infinite set of integers and whose range is a set of real numbers." With the additional condition that that the function describing this sequence "defines one member of the sequence in terms of a previous one."
And, the objective behind solving them, I think, is to go from a recursive definition to one that isn't. Say if you had T(0) = 2 and T(n) = 2 + T(n-1) for all n>0, you'd have to go from the expression "T(n) = 2 + T(n-1)" to one like "2n+2".
sources:
1) "Discrete Mathematics with Graph Theory - Second Edition", by Edgar G. Goodair and Michael M. Parmenter
2) "Computer Algorithms C++," by Ellis Horowitz, Sartaj Sahni, and Sanguthevar Rajasekaran.