How can i write a substring function in ocaml without using any assignments lists and iterations, only recursions? i can only use string.length.
i tried so far is
let substring s s2 start stop=
if(start < stop) then
substring s s2 (start+1) stop
else s2;;
but obviously it is wrong, problem is that how can i pass the string that is being built gradually with recursive calls?
This feels like a homework problem that is intended to teach you think think about recursion. For me it would be easier to think about the recursion part if you decide on the basic operations you're going to use. You can't use assignments, lists, or iterations, okay. You need to extract parts of your input string somehow, but you obviously can't use the built-in substring function to do this, that would defeat the purpose of the exercise. The only other operation I can think of is the one that extracts a single character from a string:
# "abcd".[2];;
- : char = 'c'
You also need a way to add a character to a string, giving a longer string. But you're not allowed to use assignment to do this. It seems to me you're going to have to use String.make to translate your character to a string:
# String.make 1 'a';;
- : string = "a"
Then you can concatenate two strings using the ^ operator:
# "abc" ^ "def"
- : string = "abcdef"
Are you allowed to use these three operations? If so, you can start thinking about the recursion part of the substring problem. If not, then I probably don't understand the problem well enough yet to give advice. (Or maybe whoever set up the restrictions didn't expect you to have to calculate substrings? Usually the restrictions are also a kind of hint as to how you should proceed.)
Moving on to your specific question. In beginning FP programming, you don't generally want to pass the answer down to recursive calls. You want to pass a smaller problem down to the recursive call, and get the answer back from it. For the substring problem, an example of a smaller problem is to ask for the substring that starts one character further along in the containing string, and that is one character shorter.
(Later on, you might want to pass partial answers down to your recursive calls in order to get tail-recursive behavior. I say don't worry about it for now.)
Now I can't give you the answer to this, Partly because it's your homework, and partly because it's been 3 years since I've touched OCaml syntax, but I could try to help you along.
Now the Basic principle behind recursion is to break a problem down into smaller versions of itself.
You don't pass the string that is slowly being built up, instead use your recursive function to generate a string that is almost built up except for a single character, and then you add that character to the end of the string.
Related
Though I have studied and able am able to understand some programs in recursion, I am still not able to intuitively obtain a solution using recursion as I do easily using Iteration. Is there any course or track available in order to build an intuition for recursion? How can one master the concept of recursion?
if you want to gain a thorough understanding of how recursion works, I highly recommend that you start with understanding mathematical induction, as the two are very closely related, if not arguably identical.
Recursion is a way of breaking down seemingly complicated problems into smaller bits. Consider the trivial example of the factorial function.
def factorial(n):
if n < 2:
return 1
return n * factorial(n - 1)
To calculate factorial(100), for example, all you need is to calculate factorial(99) and multiply 100. This follows from the familiar definition of the factorial.
Here are some tips for coming up with a recursive solution:
Assume you know the result returned by the immediately preceding recursive call (e.g. in calculating factorial(100), assume you already know the value of factorial(99). How do you go from there?)
Consider the base case (i.e. when should the recursion come to a halt?)
The first bullet point might seem rather abstract, but all it means is this: a large portion of the work has already been done. How do you go from there to complete the task? In the case of the factorial, factorial(99) constituted this large portion of work. In many cases, you will find that identifying this portion of work simply amounts to examining the argument to the function (e.g. n in factorial), and assuming that you already have the answer to func(n - 1).
Here's another example for concreteness. Let's say we want to reverse a string without using in-built functions. In using recursion, we might assume that string[:-1], or the substring until the very last character, has already been reversed. Then, all that is needed is to put the last remaining character in the front. Using this inspiration, we might come up with the following recursive solution:
def my_reverse(string):
if not string: # base case: empty string
return string # return empty string, nothing to reverse
return string[-1] + my_reverse(string[:-1])
With all of this said, recursion is built on mathematical induction, and these two are inseparable ideas. In fact, one can easily prove that recursive algorithms work using induction. I highly recommend that you checkout this lecture.
The Context
I am climbing the Nearley learning curve and trying to write a grammar for a search query parser.
The Goal
I would like to write grammar that is able to parse a querystring that contains boolean operators (e.g. AND, OR, NOT). Lets use AND for this question as a trivial case.
For instance, the grammar should recognize these example strings as valid:
pants
pants AND socks
jumping jacks
The Attempt
My naive attempt looks something like this:
query ->
statement
| statement "AND" statement
statement -> .:+
The Problem
The above grammar attempt is ambiguous because .:+ will match literally any string.
What I really want is for the first condition to match any string that does not contain AND in it. Once "AND" appears I want to enter the second condition only.
The Question
How can I detect these two distinct cases without having ambiguous grammar?
I am worried I'm missing something fundamental; I can imagine a ton of use cases where we want arbitrary text split up by known operators.
Yeah, if you've got an escape hatch that could be literally anything, you're going to have a problem.
Somewhere you're going to want to define what your base set of tokens are, at least something like \S+ and then how those tokens can be composed.
The place I'd typically start for a parser is trying to figure out where recursion is accounted for in the parser, and what approach to parsing the lib you're relying on takes.
Looks like Nearley is an Earley parser, and as the wikipedia entry for them notes, they're efficient for left-recursion.
This is just hazarding a guess, but something like this might get you to conjunction at least.
CONJUNCTION -> AND | OR
STATEMENT -> TOKENS | (TOKENS CONJUNCTION STATEMENT)
TOKENS -> [^()]+
A structure like this should be unambiguous and bans parentheses in tokens, unless they're surrounded by double quotes.
Question: Can I divide a symbol into two symbols based on a letter or symbol?
Example: For example, let's say I have :symbol1_symbol2, and I want to split it on the _ into :symbol1 and :symbol2. Is this possible?
Motivation: A fairly common recommendation in Julia is to use Symbol in place of String or ASCIIString as it is more efficient for many operations. So I'm interested in situations where this might break down because there is no analogue for Symbol for an operation that we might typically perform on ASCIIString, e.g. anything to do with regular expressions.
No you can't manipulate symbols.
They are not a composite type (in logic, though they maybe in implement).
They are one thing.
Much like an integer is one thing,
or a boolean is one thing.
You can't manipulate the parts of it.
As I understand, it the reason they are fast is because thay are "one thing".
Symbols are not strings.
Symbols are the representation of a parsed token.
They exist for working with macros etc.
They are useful for other things.
Though one fo there most common alterate uses in 0.3 was as a standin for enumerations. Now that Enum is in 0.4, that use will decline.
They are still logically good for dictionary keys etc.
--
If for some reason you must.
Eg for interop with a 3rd party library, or for some kind of dynamic dispatch:
You can convert it to a String,
with string(:abc), (There is not currently a convert),
and back with Symbol("abc").
so
function symsplit(s_s::Symbol)
combined_string_from=string(s_s)
strings= split(combined_string_from, '_')
map(Symbol,strings)
end
#show symsplit(:a)
#show symsplit(:a_b)
#show symsplit(:a_b_c);
but please don't.
You can find all the methods that operate on symbols by calling methodswith(Symbol) (though most just use the symbol as a marker/enum)
See also:
What is a "symbol" in Julia?
am making a function that will send me a list of all possible elemnts .. in each iteration its giving me the last answer .. but after the recursion am only getting the last answer back .. how can i make it give back every single answer ..
thank you
the problem is that am trying to find all possible distributions for a list into other lists .. the code
addIn(_,[],Result,Result).
addIn(C,[Element|Rest],[F|R],Result):-
member( Members , [F|R]),
sumlist( Members, Sum),
sumlist([Element],ElementLength),
Cap is Sum + ElementLength,
(Cap =< Ca,
append([Element], Members,New)....
by calling test .. am getting back all the list of possible answers .. now if i tried to do something that will fail like
bp(3,11,[8,2,4,6,1,8,4],Answer).
it will just enter a while loop .. more over if i changed the
bp(NB,C,OL,A):-
addIn(C,OL,[[],[],[]],A);
bp(NB,C,_,A).
to and instead of Or .. i get error :
ERROR: is/2: Arguments are not
sufficiently instantiated
appreciate the help ..
Thanks alot #hardmath
It sounds like you are trying to write your own version of findall/3, perhaps limited to a special case of an underlying goal. Doing it generally (constructing a list of all solutions to a given goal) in a user-defined Prolog predicate is not possible without resorting to side-effects with assert/retract.
However a number of useful special cases can be implemented without such "tricks". So it would be helpful to know what predicate defines your "all possible elements". [It may also be helpful to state which Prolog implementation you are using, if only so that responses may include links to documentation for that version.]
One important special case is where the "universe" of potential candidates already exists as a list. In that case we are really asking to find the sublist of "all possible elements" that satisfy a particular goal.
findSublist([ ],_,[ ]).
findSublist([H|T],Goal,[H|S]) :-
Goal(H),
!,
findSublist(T,Goal,S).
findSublist([_|T],Goal,S) :-
findSublist(T,Goal,S).
Many Prologs will allow you to pass the name of a predicate Goal around as an "atom", but if you have a specific goal in mind, you can leave out the middle argument and just hardcode your particular condition into the middle clause of a similar implementation.
Added in response to code posted:
I think I have a glimmer of what you are trying to do. It's hard to grasp because you are not going about it in the right way. Your predicate bp/4 has a single recursive clause, variously attempted using either AND or OR syntax to relate a call to addIn/4 to a call to bp/4 itself.
Apparently you expect wrapping bp/4 around addIn/4 in this way will somehow cause addIn/4 to accumulate or iterate over its solutions. It won't. It might help you to see this if we analyze what happens to the arguments of bp/4.
You are calling the formal arguments bp(NB,C,OL,A) with simple integers bound to NB and C, with a list of integers bound to OL, and with A as an unbound "output" Answer. Note that nothing is ever done with the value NB, as it is not passed to addIn/4 and is passed unchanged to the recursive call to bp/4.
Based on the variable names used by addIn/4 and supporting predicate insert/4, my guess is that NB was intended to mean "number of bins". For one thing you set NB = 3 in your test/0 clause, and later you "hardcode" three empty lists in the third argument in calling addIn/4. Whatever Answer you get from bp/4 comes from what addIn/4 is able to do with its first two arguments passed in, C and OL, from bp/4. As we noted, C is an integer and OL a list of integers (at least in the way test/0 calls bp/4).
So let's try to state just what addIn/4 is supposed to do with those arguments. Superficially addIn/4 seems to be structured for self-recursion in a sensible way. Its first clause is a simple termination condition that when the second argument becomes an empty list, unify the third and fourth arguments and that gives "answer" A to its caller.
The second clause for addIn/4 seems to coordinate with that approach. As written it takes the "head" Element off the list in the second argument and tries to find a "bin" in the third argument that Element can be inserted into while keeping the sum of that bin under the "cap" given by C. If everything goes well, eventually all the numbers from OL get assigned to a bin, all the bins have totals under the cap C, and the answer A gets passed back to the caller. The way addIn/4 is written leaves a lot of room for improvement just in basic clarity, but it may be doing what you need it to do.
Which brings us back to the question of how you should collect the answers produced by addIn/4. Perhaps you are happy to print them out one at a time. Perhaps you meant to collect all the solutions produced by addIn/4 into a single list. To finish up the exercise I'll need you to clarify what you really want to do with the Answers from addIn/4.
Let's say you want to print them all out and then stop, with a special case being to print nothing if the arguments being passed in don't allow a solution. Then you'd probably want something of this nature:
newtest :-
addIn(12,[7, 3, 5, 4, 6, 4, 5, 2], Answer),
format("Answer = ~w\n",[Answer]),
fail.
newtest.
This is a standard way of getting predicate addIn/4 to try all possible solutions, and then stop with the "fall-through" success of the second clause of newtest/0.
(Added) Suggestions about coding addIn/4:
It will make the code more readable and maintainable if the variable names are clear. I'd suggest using Cap instead of C as the first argument to addIn/4 and BinSum when you take the sum of items assigned to a "bin". Likewise Bin would be better where you used Members. In the third argument to addIn/4 (in the head of the second clause) you don't need an explicit list structure [F|R] since you never refer to either part F or R by itself. So there I'd use Bins.
Some of your predicate calls don't accomplish much that you cannot do more easily. For example, your second call to sumlist/2 involves a list with one item. Thus the sum is just the same as that item, i.e. ElementLength is the same as Element. Here you could just replace both calls to sumlist/2 with one such call:
sumlist([Element|Bin],BinSum)
and then do your test comparing BinSum with Cap. Similarly your call to append/3 just adjoins the single item Element to the front of the list (I'm calling) Bin, so you could just replace what you have called New with [Element|Bin].
You have used an extra pair of parentheses around the last four subgoals (in the second clause for addIn/4). Since AND is implied for all the subgoals of this clause, using the extra pair of parentheses is unnecessary.
The code for insert/4 isn't shown now, but it could be a source of some unintended "backtracking" in special cases. The better approach would be to have the first call (currently to member/2) be your only point of indeterminacy, i.e. when you choose one of the bins, do it by replacing it with a free variable that gets unified with [Element|Bin] at the next to last step.
Original question:
I know Mathematica has a built in map(f, x), but what does this function look like? I know you need to look at every element in the list.
Any help or suggestions?
Edit (by Jefromi, pieced together from Mike's comments):
I am working on a program what needs to move through a list like the Map, but I am not allowed to use it. I'm not allowed to use Table either; I need to move through the list without help of another function. I'm working on a recursive version, I have an empty list one down, but moving through a list with items in it is not working out. Here is my first case: newMap[#, {}] = {} (the map of an empty list is just an empty list)
I posted a recursive solution but then decided to delete it, since from the comments this sounds like a homework problem, and I'm normally a teach-to-fish person.
You're on the way to a recursive solution with your definition newMap[f_, {}] := {}.
Mathematica's pattern-matching is your friend. Consider how you might implement the definition for newMap[f_, {e_}], and from there, newMap[f_, {e_, rest___}].
One last hint: once you can define that last function, you don't actually need the case for {e_}.
UPDATE:
Based on your comments, maybe this example will help you see how to apply an arbitrary function:
func[a_, b_] := a[b]
In[4]:= func[Abs, x]
Out[4]= Abs[x]
SOLUTION
Since the OP caught a fish, so to speak, (congrats!) here are two recursive solutions, to satisfy the curiosity of any onlookers. This first one is probably what I would consider "idiomatic" Mathematica:
map1[f_, {}] := {}
map1[f_, {e_, rest___}] := {f[e], Sequence##map1[f,{rest}]}
Here is the approach that does not leverage pattern matching quite as much, which is basically what the OP ended up with:
map2[f_, {}] := {}
map2[f_, lis_] := {f[First[lis]], Sequence##map2[f, Rest[lis]]}
The {f[e], Sequence##map[f,{rest}]} part can be expressed in a variety of equivalent ways, for example:
Prepend[map[f, {rest}], f[e]]
Join[{f[e]}, map[f, {rest}] (#Mike used this method)
Flatten[{{f[e]}, map[f, {rest}]}, 1]
I'll leave it to the reader to think of any more, and to ponder the performance implications of most of those =)
Finally, for fun, here's a procedural version, even though writing it made me a little nauseous: ;-)
map3[f_, lis_] :=
(* copy lis since it is read-only *)
Module[{ret = lis, i},
For[i = 1, i <= Length[lis], i++,
ret[[i]] = f[lis[[i]]]
];
ret
]
To answer the question you posed in the comments, the first argument in Map is a function that accepts a single argument. This can be a pure function, or the name of a function that already only accepts a single argument like
In[1]:=f[x_]:= x + 2
Map[f, {1,2,3}]
Out[1]:={3,4,5}
As to how to replace Map with a recursive function of your own devising ... Following Jefromi's example, I'm not going to give to much away, as this is homework. But, you'll obviously need some way of operating on a piece of the list while keeping the rest of the list intact for the recursive part of you map function. As he said, Part is a good starting place, but I'd look at some of the other functions it references and see if they are more useful, like First and Rest. Also, I can see where Flatten would be useful. Finally, you'll need a way to end the recursion, so learning how to constrain patterns may be useful. Incidentally, this can be done in one or two lines depending on if you create a second definition for your map (the easier way), or not.
Hint: Now that you have your end condition, you need to answer three questions:
how do I extract a single element from my list,
how do I reference the remaining elements of the list, and
how do I put it back together?
It helps to think of a single step in the process, and what do you need to accomplish in that step.