In racket a higher order function like map used on two lists does this:
(map list '(1 2 3) '(1 2 3))
> '( (1 1) (2 2) (3 3) )
But I would like a cartesian-product thing like this:
'( (1 1) (1 2) (1 3) (2 1) (2 2) (2 3) (3 1) (3 2) (3 3) )
How can I achieve this? Preferably with higher order functions?
Here's a method that totally uses higher-order functions (foldr, append-map, and map; now also with compose1, curry, and curryr):
(define (cartesian-product . lists)
(foldr (lambda (a b)
(append-map (compose1 (curryr map b) (curry cons))
a))
'(())
lists))
Pardon the terrible parameter names. One day I'll come up with something good. :-)
> (require unstable/list)
> (cartesian-product '(1 2 3) '(a b c))
'((1 a) (1 b) (1 c) (2 a) (2 b) (2 c) (3 a) (3 b) (3 c))
See http://docs.racket-lang.org/unstable/list.html#%28def._%28%28lib._unstable%2Flist..rkt%29._cartesian-product%29%29
In SCIP chapter 2.2.3 "Sequences as Conventional Interfaces, authors show us a general way to approach such problem. There is actually a similar example. The book uses flatmap as a common abstraction. The combination of mapping and accumulating with append is so common in this sort of program that we will isolate it as a separate procedure: flatmap. Here is a solution using flatmap:
>(define (flatmap proc seq)
(foldr append '() (map proc seq)))
>(flatmap
(lambda (x)
(map
(lambda (y) (list y x))
'(1 2 3)))
'(a b c))
'((1 a) (2 a) (3 a) (1 b) (2 b) (3 b) (1 c) (2 c) (3 c))
Related
I need to extract the main diagonal from a square matrix
(1 2 3)
(4 5 6) -> (1 5 9)
(7 8 9)
I have the following code and I need to replace the ... with the appropriate functions.
(define (diag m)
(if (null? m) '()
(cons (... m)
(diag (map ... (... m))))))
Input: (diag '((1 2 3) (4 5 6) (7 8 9)))
Output: (1 5 9)
Any ideas? Thank you!
First of all I created a function that returns n-th element of list (I am not sure if you can use built-in function for it, that's why I created my own bicycle):
(define (nthItem l item currentItem)
(if (null? l) '()
(if (= currentItem item) (car l)
(nthItem (cdr l) item (+ currentItem 1)))))
Then I created a function that you need. I added a parameter "i" that contains current position on a diagonal:
(define (diagPrivate m i)
(if (null? m) '()
(cons (nthItem (car m) i 0)
(diagPrivate (cdr m) (+ i 1)))))
For better appearance I created a wrapper for this function (that looks like your initial function):
(define (diag m)
(diagPrivate m 0))
So you are asking, given you have the list '((1 2 3) (4 5 6) (7 8 9)) how do I get the value 1 from it?
Then you are asking given the same list, how do I get ((4 5 6) (7 8 9)) from it.
Then given that result how do I make a new list using map that only takes the rest of each element list so that the result is ((5 6) (8 9))
The question code looks like came from SO as an answer with VERY easy challenge on how to complete it. Am I right?
The answer is of course just list accessors every beginner schemer should know: cdr x 2 and caar, not necessarily in that order.
Using Racket which is a Scheme dialect:
(define diag '((1 2 3) (4 5 6) (7 8 9)))
(define (getDiagonal l)
(let loop ((l l)
(ol '())
(n 0))
(cond
[(empty? l) (reverse ol)]
[(loop (rest l)
(cons (list-ref (first l) n) ol)
(add1 n))])))
(getDiagonal diag)
Output:
'(1 5 9)
There is for/list loop in Racket which also can be used here:
(for/list ((i (length diag)))
(list-ref (list-ref diag i) i))
I am practicing for my programming paradigms exam and working through problem sets I come to this problem. This is the first problem after reversing and joining lists recursively, so I suppose there is an elegant recursive solution.
I am given a list of lists and a permutation. I should permute every list including a list of lists with that specified permutation.
I am given an example:
->(permute '((1 2 3) (a b c) (5 6 7)) '(1 3 2))
->((1 3 2) (5 7 6) (a c b))
I have no idea even how to start. I need to formulate the problem in recursive interpretation to be able to solve it, but I can not figure out how.
Well, let's see how we can break this problem down. We are given a list of lists, and a list of numbers, and we want to order each list according to the order specified by the list of numbers:
=>(permute '((1 2 3) (4 5 6)) '(3 2 1))
'((3 2 1) (6 5 4))
We can see that each list in the list of lists can be handled separately, their solutions are unrelated to each other. So we can have a helper permute1 that handles the case of one list, then use map to apply this function to each of the lists (with the same ordering each time):
(define (permute lists ordering)
(map (lambda (xs) (permute1 xs ordering))
lists))
(define (permute1 items ordering)
...)
Now, to calculate (permute1 '(4 5 6) '(3 2 1)), what we mean is:
The first item of the new list will be the 3rd item of items, because the first number in ordering is 3.
The rest of the items of the new list will be determined by using the rest of the numbers in the ordering.
If the ordering is the empty list, return the empty list.
This forms the base case (3), the recursive case (1), and the steps to recur deeper (2). So a sketch of our solution would look like:
(define (permute1 items ordering)
(if (empty? ordering)
'()
(let ([next-item ???])
(??? next-item
(permute1 items (rest ordering))))))
Where the ???s represent getting the item based on the first number in ordering and combining this item with the remainder of the calculation, respectively.
Here's another option, using higher-order functions. This is the idiomatic way to think about a solution in a functional language - we split the problem in sub-problems, solve each one using existing procedures and finally we compose the answer:
(define (atom? x)
(and (not (null? x))
(not (pair? x))))
(define (perm lst order)
(foldr (lambda (idx acc)
(cons (list-ref lst (sub1 idx)) acc))
'()
order))
(define (permute lst order)
(if (atom? lst)
lst
(perm (map (lambda (x) (permute x order)) lst)
order)))
We start by defining atom?, a generic predicate and perm, a helper that will reorder any given list according to the ordering specified in one of its parameters. It uses foldr to build the output list and list-ref to access elements in a list, given its 0-based indexes (that's why we subtract one from each index).
The main permute function takes care of (recursively) mapping perm on each element of an arbitrarily nested input list, so we can obtain the desired result:
(permute '((1 2 3) (a b c) (5 6 7)) '(1 3 2))
=> '((1 3 2) (5 7 6) (a c b))
I am given an example:
(permute ('(1 2 3) '(a b c) '(5 6 7)) '(1 3 2))
((1 3 2) (5 7 6) (a c b))
The syntax you've given isn't correct, and will cause an error, but it's fairly clear what you mean. You want that
(permute '((1 2 3) (a b c) (5 6 7)) '(1 3 2))
;=> ((1 3 2) (5 7 6) (a c b))
Now, it's not clear how you're indicating the permutation. Is '(1 3 2) a permutation because it has some (1-based) indices, and indicates the way to rearrange elements, or is it because it is actually a permutation of the elements of the first list of the first list? E.g., would
(permute '((x y z) (a b c) (5 6 7)) '(1 3 2))
;=> ((x z y) (5 7 6) (a c b))
work too? I'm going to assume that it would, because it will make the problem much easier.
I have no idea even how to start. I need to formulate the problem in
recursive interpretation to be able to solve it, but I can not figure
out how.
You need to write a function that can take a list of indices, and that returns a function that will perform the permutation. E.g,.
(define (make-permutation indices)
…)
such that
((make-permutation '(3 1 2)) '(a b c))
;=> (c a b)
One you have that, it sounds like your permute function is pretty simple:
(define (permute lists indices)
(let ((p (make-permutation indices)))
(p (map p lists))))
That would handle the case you've given in your example, since (map p lists) will return ((1 3 2) (a b c) (5 7 6)), and then calling p with that will return ((1 3 2) (5 7 6) (a c b)). If you need to be able to handle more deeply nested lists, you'll need to implement a recursive mapping function.
Here's my take, which seems to be shorter than the previous examples:
(define (permute lst ord)
(define ord-1 (map sub1 ord)) ; change from 1-based to 0-based indexes
(define (perm elts) ; recursive sub-procedure
(if (list? elts)
(map perm (map (curry list-ref elts) ord-1)) ; list -> recurse
elts)) ; else return unchanged
(perm lst)) ; initial call
testing
> (permute '((1 2 3) (a b c) (5 6 7)) '(1 3 2))
'((1 3 2) (5 7 6) (a c b))
> (permute '((1 (i permute did) 3) (a b (scheme cool is)) (5 6 7)) '(1 3 2))
'((1 3 (i did permute)) (5 7 6) (a (scheme is cool) b))
I have a small exercise in Lisp:
Write a function test-delta with parameters delta and lst, which will
check if the difference between successive elements in lst is smaller than
delta. Write the function in two ways:
recursively
using a mapping function
I have no problem writing that function recursively, but I don't know which mapping function I should use. All the standard mapping functions work with only one element of the list at a time. reduce cannot be used either, because I do not have some operation to use between successive elements. What function could I use here?
All standard functions are working only with one element at time.
Reduce function cannot be use either
because i do not have some operation to use between to elements.
There's already an answer by uselpa showing that you can do this with reduce, but it feels a bit awkward to me to bend reduce to this case.
It's much more natural, in my opinion, to recognize that the standard mapping functions actually let you work with multiple lists. I'll show mapcar and loop first, and then every, which I think is the real winner here. Finally, just for completeness, I've also included maplist.
mapcar
The standard mapcar can take more than one list, which means that you can take elements from two different lists at once. Of particular note, it could take a list and (rest list). E.g.,
(let ((list '(1 2 3 4 5 6)))
(mapcar 'cons
list
(rest list)))
;=> ((1 . 2) (2 . 3) (3 . 4) (4 . 5) (5 . 6))
loop
You can use loop to do the same sort of thing:
(loop
with l = '(1 2 3 4 5 6)
for a in l
for b in (rest l)
collect (cons a b))
;=> ((1 . 2) (2 . 3) (3 . 4) (4 . 5) (5 . 6))
There are some other variations on loop that you can use, but some of them have less conventient results. E.g., you could loop for (a b) on list, but then you get a (perhaps) unexpected final binding of your variables:
(loop for (a b) on '(1 2 3 4 5 6)
collect (list a b))
;=> ((1 2) (2 3) (3 4) (4 5) (5 6) (6 NIL))
This is similar to what maplist will give you.
every
I think the real winners here, though, are going to the be every, some, notevery, and notany functions. These, like mapcar can take more than one list as an argument. This means that your problem can simply be:
(let ((delta 4)
(lst '(1 2 4 7 9)))
(every (lambda (x y)
(< (abs (- x y)) delta))
lst
(rest lst)))
;=> T
(let ((delta 2)
(lst '(1 2 4 7 9)))
(every (lambda (x y)
(< (abs (- x y)) delta))
lst
(rest lst)))
;=> NIL
maplist
You could also do this with maplist, which works on successive tails of the list, which means you'd have access to each element and the one following. This has the same 6 NIL at the end that the second loop solution did, though. E.g.:
(maplist (lambda (tail)
(list (first tail)
(second tail)))
'(1 2 3 4 5 6))
;=> ((1 2) (2 3) (3 4) (4 5) (5 6) (6 NIL))
reduce can be used:
(defun testdelta (delta lst)
(reduce
(lambda (r e)
(if (< (abs (- r e)) delta)
e
(return-from testdelta nil)))
lst)
t)
or, without return-from (but possibly slower):
(defun testdelta (delta lst)
(and
(reduce
(lambda (r e)
(and r (if (< (abs (- r e)) delta) e nil)))
lst)
t))
I'm trying to solve a problem in Scheme which is demanding me to use a nested loop or a nested recursion.
e.g. I have two lists which I have to check a condition on their Cartesian product.
What is the best way to approach these types of problems? Any pointers on how to simplify these types of functions?
I'll elaborate a bit, since my intent might not be clear enough.
A regular recursive function might look like this:
(define (factorial n)
(factorial-impl n 1))
(define (factorial-impl n t)
(if (eq? n 0)
t
(factorial-impl (- n 1) (* t n))))
Trying to write a similar function but with nested recursion introduces a new level of complexity to the code, and I was wondering what the basic pattern is for these types of functions, as it can get very ugly, very fast.
As a specific example, I'm looking for the easiest way to visit all the items in a cartesian product of two lists.
In Scheme,
The "map" function is often handy for computing one list based on another.
In fact, in scheme, map takes an "n-argument" function and "n" lists and calls the
function for each corresponding element of each list:
> (map * '(3 4 5) '(1 2 3))
(3 8 15)
But a very natural addition to this would be a "cartesian-map" function, which would call your "n-argument" function with all of the different ways of picking one element from each list. It took me a while to figure out exactly how to do it, but here you go:
; curry takes:
; * a p-argument function AND
; * n actual arguments,
; and returns a function requiring only (p-n) arguments
; where the first "n" arguments are already bound. A simple
; example
; (define add1 (curry + 1))
; (add1 3)
; => 4
; Many other languages implicitly "curry" whenever you call
; a function with not enough arguments.
(define curry
(lambda (f . c) (lambda x (apply f (append c x)))))
; take a list of tuples and an element, return another list
; with that element stitched on to each of the tuples:
; e.g.
; > (stitch '(1 2 3) 4)
; ((4 . 1) (4 . 2) (4 . 3))
(define stitch
(lambda (tuples element)
(map (curry cons element) tuples)))
; Flatten takes a list of lists and produces a single list
; e.g.
; > (flatten '((1 2) (3 4)))
; (1 2 3 4)
(define flatten
(curry apply append))
; cartesian takes two lists and returns their cartesian product
; e.g.
; > (cartesian '(1 2 3) '(4 5))
; ((1 . 4) (1 . 5) (2 . 4) (2 . 5) (3 . 4) (3 . 5))
(define cartesian
(lambda (l1 l2)
(flatten (map (curry stitch l2) l1))))
; cartesian-lists takes a list of lists
; and returns a single list containing the cartesian product of all of the lists.
; We start with a list containing a single 'nil', so that we create a
; "list of lists" rather than a list of "tuples".
; The other interesting function we use here is "fold-right" (sometimes called
; "foldr" or "reduce" in other implementations). It can be used
; to collapse a list from right to left using some binary operation and an
; initial value.
; e.g.
; (fold-right cons '() '(1 2 3))
; is equivalent to
; ((cons 1 (cons 2 (cons 3 '())))
; In our case, we have a list of lists, and our binary operation is to get the
; "cartesian product" between each list.
(define cartesian-lists
(lambda (lists)
(fold-right cartesian '(()) lists)))
; cartesian-map takes a n-argument function and n lists
; and returns a single list containing the result of calling that
; n-argument function for each combination of elements in the list:
; > (cartesian-map list '(a b) '(c d e) '(f g))
; ((a c f) (a c g) (a d f) (a d g) (a e f) (a e g) (b c f)
; (b c g) (b d f) (b d g) (b e f) (b e g))
(define cartesian-map
(lambda (f . lists)
(map (curry apply f) (cartesian-lists lists))))
Without all the comments and some more compact function definition syntax we have:
(define (curry f . c) (lambda x (apply f (append c x))))
(define (stitch tuples element)
(map (curry cons element) tuples))
(define flatten (curry apply append))
(define (cartesian l1 l2)
(flatten (map (curry stitch l2) l1)))
(define cartesian-lists (curry fold-right cartesian '(()))))
(define (cartesian-map f . lists)
(map (curry apply f) (cartesian-lists lists)))
I thought the above was reasonably "elegant"... until someone showed me the equivalent Haskell definition:
cartes f (a:b:[]) = [ f x y | x <- a , y <- b ]
cartes f (a:b:bs) = cartes f ([ f x y | x <- a , y <- b ]:bs)
2 lines!!!
I am not so confident on the efficiency of my implementation - particularly the "flatten" step was quick to write but could end up calling "append"
with a very large number of lists, which may or may not be very efficient on some Scheme
implementations.
For ultimate practicality/usefulness you would want a version that could take "lazily evaluated" lists/streams/iterator rather than fully specified lists.... a "cartesian-map-stream" function if you like, that would then return a "stream" of the results... but this depends on the context (I am thinking of the "stream" concept as introduced in SICP)... and would come for free from the Haskell version thanks to it's lazy evaluation.
In general, in Scheme, if you wanted to "break out" of the looping at some point you could also use a continuation (like throwing an exception but it is accepted practise in Scheme for control flow).
I had fun writing this!
I'm not sure I see what the problem is.
I believe the main thing you have to understand in functional programming is : build complicated functions by composing several simpler functions.
For instance, in this case:
;compute the list of the (x,y) for y in l
(define (pairs x l)
(define (aux accu x l)
(if (null? l)
accu
(let ((y (car l))
(tail (cdr l)))
(aux (cons (cons x y) accu) x tail))))
(aux '() x l))
(define (cartesian-product l m)
(define (aux accu l)
(if (null? l)
accu
(let ((x (car l))
(tail (cdr l)))
(aux (append (pairs x m) accu) tail))))
(aux '() l))
You identify the different steps: to get the cartesian product, if you "loop" over the first list, you're going to have to be able to compute the list of the (x,y), for y in the second list.
There are some good answers here already, but for simple nested functions (like your tail-recursive factorial), I prefer a named let:
(define factorial
(lambda (n)
(let factorial-impl ([n n] [t 1])
(if (eq? n 0)
t
(factorial-impl (- n 1) (* t n))))))
Is there a way to make a list that holds functions? What I'm trying to do is, make a list of some arithmetic operators (+ - * /) so I can easily manipulate their order and apply them to a list of numbers.
So, if I have that list, I'd use it like this:
(apply (map (lambda (x)
x)
'(+ - * /))
'(1 2 3 4))
I'm a novice programmer, so if there's a better way to do such operation, your advice is much appreciated.
Lists are made with the function LIST.
(list 1 2 3)
(list + - * /)
Applying a list of symbols makes no sense:
(apply (map (lambda (x) x) '(+ - * /)) '(1 2 3 4))
Would be (applying a list of functions still makes no sense):
(apply (map (lambda (x) x) (list + - * /)) '(1 2 3 4))
Simplified (still wrong):
(apply (list + - * /) '(1 2 3 4))
But, maybe you wanted this:
(map (lambda (f)
(apply f '(1 2 3 4)))
(list + - * /))
In Common Lisp:
(mapcar #'(lambda (f)
(apply f '(1 2 3 4)))
(list #'+ #'- #'* #'/))
Returns:
(10 -8 24 1/24)
I'm surprised no one has mentioned quasiquotation. :-) In Scheme, you could say:
`(,+ ,- ,* ,/)
or in Common Lisp:
`(,#'+ ,#'- ,#'* ,#'/)
In some cases, especially involving complex lists, quasiquotation makes the code much simpler to read than the corresponding list version.