How do I do recursion in an anonymous function, without using tail recursion?
For example (from Vanderhart 2010, p 38):
(defn power
[number exponent]
(if (zero? exponent)
1
(* number (power number (- exponent 1)))))
Let's say I wanted to do this as an anonymous function. And for some reason I didn't want to use tail recursion. How would I do it? For example:
( (fn [number exponent] ......))))) 5 3)
125
Can I use loop for this, or can loop only be used with recur?
The fn special form gives you the option to provide a name that can be used internally for recursion.
(doc fn)
;=> (fn name? [params*] exprs*)
So, add "power" as the name to complete your example.
(fn power [n e]
(if (zero? e)
1
(* n (power n (dec e)))))
Even if the recursion happened in the tail position, it will not be optimized to replace the current stack frame. Clojure enforces you to be explicit about it with loop/recur and trampoline.
I know that in Clojure there's syntactic support for "naming" an anonymous function, as other answers have pointed out. However, I want to show a first-principles approach to solve the question, one that does not depend on the existence of special syntax on the programming language and that would work on any language with first-order procedures (lambdas).
In principle, if you want to do a recursive function call, you need to refer to the name of the function so "anonymous" (i.e. nameless functions) can not be used for performing a recursion ... unless you use the Y-Combinator. Here's an explanation of how it works in Clojure.
Let me show you how it's used with an example. First, a Y-Combinator that works for functions with a variable number of arguments:
(defn Y [f]
((fn [x] (x x))
(fn [x]
(f (fn [& args]
(apply (x x) args))))))
Now, the anonymous function that implements the power procedure as defined in the question. Clearly, it doesn't have a name, power is only a parameter to the outermost function:
(fn [power]
(fn [number exponent]
(if (zero? exponent)
1
(* number (power number (- exponent 1))))))
Finally, here's how to apply the Y-Combinator to the anonymous power procedure, passing as parameters number=5 and exponent=3 (it's not tail-recursive BTW):
((Y
(fn [power]
(fn [number exponent]
(if (zero? exponent)
1
(* number (power number (- exponent 1)))))))
5 3)
> 125
fn takes an optional name argument that can be used to call the function recursively.
E.g.:
user> ((fn fact [x]
(if (= x 0)
1
(* x (fact (dec x)))))
5)
;; ==> 120
Yes you can use loop for this. recur works in both loops and fns
user> (loop [result 5 x 1] (if (= x 3) result (recur (* result 5) (inc x))))
125
an idomatic clojure solution looks like this:
user> (reduce * (take 3 (repeat 5)))
125
or uses Math.pow() ;-)
user> (java.lang.Math/pow 5 3)
125.0
loop can be a recur target, so you could do it with that too.
Related
Here is an example:
;; Helper function for marking multiples of a number as 0
(def mark (fn [[x & xs] k m]
(if (= k m)
(cons 0 (mark xs 1 m))
(cons x (mark xs (inc k) m))
)))
;; Sieve of Eratosthenes
(defn sieve
[x & xs]
(if (= x 0)
(sieve xs)
(cons x (sieve (mark xs 1 x)))
))
(take 10 (lazy-seq (sieve (iterate inc 2))))
It produces a StackOverflowError.
There are a couple of issues here. First, as pointed out in the other answer, your mark and sieve functions don't have terminating conditions. It looks like they are designed to work with infinite sequences, but if you passed a finite-length sequence they'd keep going off the end.
The deeper problem here is that it looks like you're trying to have a function create a lazy infinite sequence by recursively calling itself. However, cons is not lazy in any way; it is a pure function call, so the recursive calls to mark and sieve are invoked immediately. Wrapping the outer-most call to sieve in lazy-seq only serves to defer the initial call; it does not make the entire sequence lazy. Instead, each call to cons must be wrapped in its own lazy sequence.
For instance:
(defn eager-iterate [f x]
(cons x (eager-iterate f (f x))))
(take 3 (eager-iterate inc 0)) ; => StackOverflowError
(take 3 (lazy-seq (eager-iterate inc 0))) ; => Still a StackOverflowError
Compare this with the actual source code of iterate:
(defn iterate
"Returns a lazy sequence of x, (f x), (f (f x)) etc. f must be free of side-effects"
{:added "1.0"
:static true}
[f x] (cons x (lazy-seq (iterate f (f x)))))
Putting it together, here's an implementation of mark that works correctly for finite sequences and preserves laziness for infinite sequences. Fixing sieve is left as an exercise for the reader.
(defn mark [[x :as xs] k m]
(lazy-seq
(when (seq xs)
(if (= k m)
(cons 0 (mark (next xs) 1 m))
(cons x (mark (next xs) (inc k) m))))))
(mark (range 4 14) 1 3)
; => (4 5 0 7 8 0 10 11 0 13)
(take 10 (mark (iterate inc 4) 1 3))
; => (4 5 0 7 8 0 10 11 0 13)
Need terminating conditions
The problem here is both your mark and sieve functions have no terminating conditions. There must be some set of inputs for which each function does not call itself, but returns an answer. Additionally, every set of (valid) inputs to these functions should eventually resolve to a non-recursive return value.
But even if you get it right...
I'll add that even if you succeed in creating the correct terminating conditions, there is still the possibility of having a stack overflow if the depth of the recursion in too large. This can be mitigated to some extent by increasing the JVM stack size, but this has it's limits.
A way around this for some functions is to use tail call optimization. Some recursive functions are tail recursive, meaning that all recursive calls to the function being defined within it's definition are in the tail call position (are the final function called in the definition body). For example, in your sieve function's (= x 0) case, sieve is the tail call, since the result of sieve doesn't get passed into any other function. However, in the case that (not (= x 0)), the result of calling sieve gets passed to cons, so this is not a tail call. When a function is fully tail recursive, it is possible to behind the scenes transform the function definition into a looping construct which avoids consuming the stack. In clojure this is possible by using recur in the function definition instead of the function name (there is also a loop construct which can sometimes be helpful). Again, because not all recursive functions are tail recursive, this isn't a panacea. But when they are it's good to know that you can do this.
Thanks to #Alex's answer I managed to come up with a working lazy solution:
;; Helper function for marking mutiples of a number as 0
(defn mark [[x :as xs] k m]
(lazy-seq
(when-not (empty? xs)
(if (= k m)
(cons 0 (mark (rest xs) 1 m))
(cons x (mark (rest xs) (inc k) m))))))
;; Sieve of Eratosthenes
(defn sieve
[[x :as xs]]
(lazy-seq
(when-not (empty? xs)
(if (= x 0)
(sieve (rest xs))
(cons x (sieve (mark (rest xs) 1 x)))))))
I was adviced by someone else to use rest instead of next.
I'm studying for a Christmas test and doing some sample exam questions, I've come across this one that has me a bit stumped
I can do regular recursion fine, but I can't wrap my head around how to write the same thing using tail recursion.
Regular version:
(define (factorial X)
(cond
((eqv? X 1) 1)
((number? X)(* X (factorial (- X 1))))))
For a function to be tail recursive, there must be nothing to do after the function returns except return its value. That is, the last thing that happens in the recursive step is the call to the function itself. This is generally achieved by using an accumulator parameter for keeping track of the answer:
(define (factorial x acc)
(if (zero? x)
acc
(factorial (sub1 x) (* x acc))))
The above procedure will be initially called with 1 as accumulator, like this:
(factorial 10 1)
=> 3628800
Notice that the accumulated value gets returned when the base case is reached, and that the acc parameter gets updated at each point in the recursive call. I had to add one extra parameter to the procedure, but this can be avoided by defining an inner procedure or a named let, for example:
(define (factorial x)
(let loop ((x x)
(acc 1))
(if (zero? x)
acc
(loop (sub1 x) (* x acc)))))
In clojure, I would like to write a tail-recursive function that memoizes its intermediate results for subsequent calls.
[EDIT: this question has been rewritten using gcd as an example instead of factorial.]
The memoized gcd (greatest common divisor) could be implemented like this:
(def gcd (memoize (fn [a b]
(if (zero? b)
a
(recur b (mod a b))))
In this implementation, intermediate results are not memoized for subsequent calls. For example, in order to calculate gcd(9,6), gcd(6,3) is called as an intermediate result. However, gcd(6,3) is not stored in the cache of the memoized function because the recursion point of recur is the anonymous function that is not memoized.
Therefore, if after having called gcd(9,6), we call gcd(6,3) we won't benefit from the memoization.
The only solution I can think about will be to use mundane recursion (explicitely call gcd instead of recur) but then we will not benefit from Tail Call Optimization.
Bottom Line
Is there a way to achieve both:
Tail call optimization
Memoization of intermediate results for subsequent calls
Remarks
This question is similar to Combine memoization and tail-recursion. But all the answers there are related to F#. Here, I am looking for an answer in clojure.
This question has been left as an exercise for the reader by The Joy of Clojure (chap 12.4). You can consult the relevant page of the book at http://bit.ly/HkQrio.
in your case it's hard to show memoize do anything with factorial because the intermediate calls are unique, so I'll rewrite a somewhat contrived example assuming the point is to explore ways to avoid blowing the stack:
(defn stack-popper [n i]
(if (< i n) (* i (stack-popper n (inc i))) 1))
which can then get something out of a memoize:
(def stack-popper
(memoize (fn [n i] (if (< i n) (* i (stack-popper n (inc i))) 1))))
the general approaches to not blowing the stack are:
use tail calls
(def stack-popper
(memoize (fn [n acc] (if (> n 1) (recur (dec n) (* acc (dec n))) acc))))
use trampolines
(def stack-popper
(memoize (fn [n acc]
(if (> n 1) #(stack-popper (dec n) (* acc (dec n))) acc))))
(trampoline (stack-popper 4 1))
use a lazy sequence
(reduce * (range 1 4))
None of these work all the time, though I have yet to hit a case where none of them work. I almost always go for the lazy ones first because I find them to be most clojure like, then I head for tail calling with recur or tramplines
(defmacro memofn
[name args & body]
`(let [cache# (atom {})]
(fn ~name [& args#]
(let [update-cache!# (fn update-cache!# [state# args#]
(if-not (contains? state# args#)
(assoc state# args#
(delay
(let [~args args#]
~#body)))
state#))]
(let [state# (swap! cache# update-cache!# args#)]
(-> state# (get args#) deref))))))
This will allow a recursive definition of a memoized function, which also caches intermediate results. Usage:
(def fib (memofn fib [n]
(case n
1 1
0 1
(+ (fib (dec n)) (fib (- n 2))))))
(def gcd
(let [cache (atom {})]
(fn [a b]
#(or (#cache [a b])
(let [p (promise)]
(deliver p
(loop [a a b b]
(if-let [p2 (#cache [a b])]
#p2
(do
(swap! cache assoc [a b] p)
(if (zero? b)
a
(recur b (mod a b))))))))))))
There is some concurrency issues (double evaluation, the same problem as with memoize, but worse because of the promises) which may be fixed using #kotarak's advice.
Turning the above code into a macro is left as an exercise to the reader. (Fogus's note was imo tongue-in-cheek.)
Turning this into a macro is really a simple exercise in macrology, please remark that the body (the 3 last lines) remain unchanged.
Using Clojure's recur you can write factorial using an accumulator that has no stack growth, and just memoize it:
(defn fact
([n]
(fact n 1))
([n acc]
(if (= 1 n)
acc
(recur (dec n)
(* n acc)))))
This is factorial function implemented with anonymous recursion with tail call and memoization of intermediate results. The memoization is integrated with the function and a reference to shared buffer (implemented using Atom reference type) is passed by a lexical closure.
Since the factorial function operates on natural numbers and the arguments for succesive results are incremental, Vector seems more tailored data structure to store buffered results.
Instead of passing the result of a previous computation as an argument (accumulator) we're getting it from the buffer.
(def ! ; global variable referring to a function
(let [m (atom [1 1 2 6 24])] ; buffer of results
(fn [n] ; factorial function definition
(let [m-count (count #m)] ; number of results in a buffer
(if (< n m-count) ; do we have buffered result for n?
(nth #m n) ; · yes: return it
(loop [cur m-count] ; · no: compute it recursively
(let [r (*' (nth #m (dec cur)) cur)] ; new result
(swap! m assoc cur r) ; store the result
(if (= n cur) ; termination condition:
r ; · base case
(recur (inc cur)))))))))) ; · recursive case
(time (do (! 8000) nil)) ; => "Elapsed time: 154.280516 msecs"
(time (do (! 8001) nil)) ; => "Elapsed time: 0.100222 msecs"
(time (do (! 7999) nil)) ; => "Elapsed time: 0.090444 msecs"
(time (do (! 7999) nil)) ; => "Elapsed time: 0.055873 msecs"
For my prime numbers lazy seq, I am checking to see if an index value is divisible by all the primes below that current index (prime?). The problem is, when I call primes within itself (primes within shr-primes line), it only returns the initial value. Is it possible to keep the lazy-seq updated while building it lazily? It seems counter-intuitive to the lazy-seq concept.
(def primes
(cons 2 (for [x (range)
:let [y (-> x (* 2) (+ 3))
root (math/floor (math/sqrt y))
shr-primes (take-while (partial >= root) primes) ;; primes stuck at init value
prime? (every? #(not= % 0) (pmap #(rem y %) shr-primes))]
:when prime?]
y)))
If you're doing the Project Euler problems, I don't want to spoil the exercise for you, but here's how you would define a Fibonacci sequence so that the lazy-seq keeps "updating" itself as it goes:
(defn fib-maker
([] (concat [0 1] (fib 0 1)))
([a b] (lazy-seq (cons b (fib b (+ a b))))))
(def fib (fib-maker))
I've used the above approach to implement the prime number sequence you've outlined above, so if you want more details let me know. Meanwhile, this will hopefully be a helpful hint.
What am I doing wrong? Simple recursion a few thousand calls deep throws a StackOverflowError.
If the limit of Clojure recursions is so low, how can I rely on it?
(defn fact[x]
(if (<= x 1) 1 (* x (fact (- x 1)) )))
user=> (fact 2)
2
user=> (fact 4)
24
user=> (fact 4000)
java.lang.StackOverflowError (NO_SOURCE_FILE:0)
Here's another way:
(defn factorial [n]
(reduce * (range 1 (inc n))))
This won't blow the stack because range returns a lazy seq, and reduce walks across the seq without holding onto the head.
reduce makes use of chunked seqs if it can, so this can actually perform better than using recur yourself. Using Siddhartha Reddy's recur-based version and this reduce-based version:
user> (time (do (factorial-recur 20000) nil))
"Elapsed time: 2905.910426 msecs"
nil
user> (time (do (factorial-reduce 20000) nil))
"Elapsed time: 2647.277182 msecs"
nil
Just a slight difference. I like to leave my recurring to map and reduce and friends, which are more readable and explicit, and use recur internally a bit more elegantly than I'm likely to do by hand. There are times when you need to recur manually, but not that many in my experience.
The stack size, I understand, depends on the JVM you are using as well as the platform. If you are using the Sun JVM, you can use the -Xss and -XThreadStackSize parameters to set the stack size.
The preferred way to do recursion in Clojure though is to use loop/recur:
(defn fact [x]
(loop [n x f 1]
(if (= n 1)
f
(recur (dec n) (* f n)))))
Clojure will do tail-call optimization for this; that ensures that you’ll never run into StackOverflowErrors.
And due defn implies a loop binding, you could omit the loop expression, and use its arguments as the function argument. And to make it a 1 argument function, use the multiary caracteristic of functions:
(defn fact
([n] (fact n 1))
([n f]
(if (<= n 1)
f
(recur (dec n) (* f n)))))
Edit: For the record, here is a Clojure function that returns a lazy sequence of all the factorials:
(defn factorials []
(letfn [(factorial-seq [n fact]
(lazy-seq
(cons fact (factorial-seq (inc n) (* (inc n) fact)))))]
(factorial-seq 1 1)))
(take 5 (factorials)) ; will return (1 2 6 24 120)
Clojure has several ways of busting recursion
explicit tail calls with recur. (they must be truely tail calls so this wont work)
Lazy sequences as mentioned above.
trampolining where you return a function that does the work instead of doing it directly and then call a trampoline function that repeatedly calls its result until it turnes into a real value instead of a function.
(defn fact ([x] (trampoline (fact (dec x) x)))
([x a] (if (<= x 1) a #(fact (dec x) (*' x a)))))
(fact 42)
620448401733239439360000N
memoizing the the case of fact this can really shorten the stack depth, though it is not generally applicable.
ps: I dont have a repl on me so would someone kindly test-fix the trapoline fact function?
As I was about to post the following, I see that it's almost the same as the Scheme example posted by JasonTrue... Anyway, here's an implementation in Clojure:
user=> (defn fact[x]
((fn [n so_far]
(if (<= n 1)
so_far
(recur (dec n) (* so_far n)))) x 1))
#'user/fact
user=> (fact 0)
1
user=> (fact 1)
1
user=> (fact 2)
2
user=> (fact 3)
6
user=> (fact 4)
24
user=> (fact 5)
120
etc.
As l0st3d suggested, consider using recur or lazy-seq.
Also, try to make your sequence lazy by building it using the built-in sequence forms as a opposed to doing it directly.
Here's an example of using the built-in sequence forms to create a lazy Fibonacci sequence (from the Programming Clojure book):
(defn fibo []
(map first (iterate (fn [[a b]] [b (+ a b)]) [0 1])))
=> (take 5 (fibo))
(0 1 1 2 3)
The stack depth is a small annoyance (yet configurable), but even in a language with tail recursion like Scheme or F# you'd eventually run out of stack space with your code.
As far as I can tell, your code is unlikely to be tail recursion optimized even in an environment that supports tail recursion transparently. You would want to look at a continuation-passing style to minimize stack depth.
Here's a canonical example in Scheme from Wikipedia, which could be translated to Clojure, F# or another functional language without much trouble:
(define factorial
(lambda (n)
(let fact ([i n] [acc 1])
(if (zero? i)
acc
(fact (- i 1) (* acc i))))))
Another, simple recursive implementation simple could be this:
(defn fac [x]
"Returns the factorial of x"
(if-not (zero? x) (* x (fac (- x 1))) 1))
To add to Siddhartha Reddy's answer, you can also borrow the Factorial function form Structure And Interpretation of Computer Programs, with some Clojure-specific tweaks. This gave me pretty good performance even for very large factorial calculations.
(defn fac [n]
((fn [product counter max-count]
(if (> counter max-count)
product
(recur (apply *' [counter product])
(inc counter)
max-count)))
1 1 n))
Factorial numbers are by their nature very big. I'm not sure how Clojure deals with this (but I do see it works with java), but any implementation that does not use big numbers will overflow very fast.
Edit: This is without taking into consideration the fact that you are using recursion for this, which is also likely to use up resources.
Edit x2: If the implementation is using big numbers, which, as far as I know, are usually arrays, coupled with recursion (one big number copy per function entry, always saved on the stack due to the function calls) would explain a stack overflow. Try doing it in a for loop to see if that is the problem.