a question on common lisp - common-lisp

I'm getting crazy with a small problem here,
I keep getting an error and I cant seem to figure out why,
the code is supposed to change the range of a list,
so if we give it a list with values (1 2 3 4) and we want to change the range in 11 to fourteen the result would be (11 12 13 14)
the problem is that the last function called scale-list will give back an error saying:
Debugger entered--Lisp error: (wrong-type-argument number-or-marker-p nil)
anybody has a clue why?
I use aquamacs as an editor
thanks in advance
;;finds minimum in a list
(defun minimum (list)
(car (sort list #'<)))
;;finds maximum in a list
(defun maximum (list)
(car (sort list #'>)))
;;calculates the range of a list
(defun range (list)
(- (maximum list) (minimum list)))
;;scales one value to another range
(defun scale-value (list low high n)
(+ (/ (* (- (nth (- n 1) list)
(minimum list))
(- high low))
(range list))
low))
;;is supposed to scale the whole list to another range
(defun scale-list (list low high n)
(unless (= n 0)
(cons (scale-value list low high n)
(scale-list list low high (- n 1)))))
(scale-list '(1 2 3 4) 21 24 4)

The definitions of maximum and minimum need to be improved. SORT is destructive. It is also wrong to call SORT with a literal constant like '(1 2 3 4) - again, SORT is destructive.
Better definitions:
(defun minimum (list)
(reduce #'min list))
(defun maximum (list)
(reduce #'max list))
A more efficient definition of range:
(defun range (list)
(loop for e in list
maximize e into max
minimize e into min
finally (return (- max min))))
SCALE-LIST and SCALE-VALUE are also not Lisp-like.
If you call NTH like this in a recursive function then something is wrong. You should recurse over the list, not the index. SCALE-VALUE calls RANGE and MINIMUM for each call. Why?
Check this variant:
;;scales one value to another range
(defun scale-value (item low high min range)
(+ (/ (* (- item min)
(- high low))
range)
low))
;;is supposed to scale the whole list to another range
(defun scale-list (list low high)
(let ((min (minimum list))
(range (range list)))
(labels ((scale-list-aux (list)
(when list
(cons (scale-value (first list) low high min range)
(scale-list-aux (rest list))))))
(scale-list-aux list))))
(scale-list '(1 2 3 4) 21 24)
What can you improve more? For example I would get rid of the recursion and replace it with MAPCAR.

I re post the code because something went wrong...
;;finds minimum in a list
(defun minimum(list)
(car (sort list #'<)))
;;finds maximum in a list
(defun maximum(list)
(car (sort list #'>)))
;;calculates the range of a list
(defun range(list)
(- (maximum list) (minimum list)))
;;scales one value to another range
(defun scale-value(list low high n)
(+ (/ (* (- (nth (- n 1) list) (minimum list)) (- high low)) (range list)) low))
;;is supposed to scale the whole list to another range
(defun scale-list(list low high n)
(unless (= n 0)
(cons (scale-value list low high n) (scale-list list low high (- n 1)))))
(scale-list '(1 2 3 4) 21 24 4)

Your actual stack trace is something like:
-(nil 0.1)
(* (- (nth ... list) (minimum list)) (- high low))
(/ (* (- ... ...) (- high low)) (range list))
(+ (/ (* ... ...) (range list)) low)
scale-value((0.1) 20 30 3)
I guess you determine a wrong nth element and this returns nil, which messes up the subtraction.

Related

How can I make my average function tail recursive in Lisp

I am simply trying to make this average function to be tail recursive. I have managed to get my function to work and that took some considerable effort. Afterwards I went to ask my professor if my work was satisfactory and he informed me that
my avg function was not tail recursive
avg did not produce the correct output for lists with more than one element
I have been playing around with this code for the past 2 hours and have hit a bit of a wall. Can anyone help me to identify what I am not understanding here.
Spoke to my professor he was != helpful
(defun avg (aList)
(defun sumup (aList)
(if (equal aList nil) 0
; if aList equals nil nothing to sum
(+ (car aList) (sumup (cdr aList)) )
)
)
(if
(equal aList nil) 0
; if aList equals nil length dosent matter
(/ (sumup aList) (list-length aList) )
)
)
(print (avg '(2 4 6 8 19))) ;39/5
my expected results for my test are commented right after it 39/5
So this is what I have now
(defun avg (aList &optional (sum 0) (length 0))
(if aList
(avg (cdr aList) (+ sum (car aList))
(+ length 1))
(/ sum length)))
(print (avg '(2 4 6 8 19))) ;39/5
(defun avg (list &optional (sum 0) (n 0))
(cond ((null list) (/ sum n))
(t (avg (cdr list)
(+ sum (car list))
(+ 1 n)))))
which is the same like:
(defun avg (list &optional (sum 0) (n 0))
(if (null list)
(/ sum n)
(avg (cdr list)
(+ sum (car list))
(+ 1 n))))
or more similar for your writing:
(defun avg (list &optional (sum 0) (n 0))
(if list
(avg (cdr list)
(+ sum (car list))
(+ 1 n))
(/ sum n)))
(defun avg (lst &optional (sum 0) (len 0))
(if (null lst)
(/ sum len)
(avg (cdr lst) (incf sum (car lst)) (1+ len))))
You could improve your indentation here by putting the entire if-then/if-else statement on the same line, because in your code when you call the avg function recursively the indentation bleeds into the next line. In the first function you could say that if the list if null (which is the base case of the recursive function) you can divide the sum by the length of the list. If it is not null, you can obviously pass the cdr of the list, the sum so far by incrementing it by the car of the list, and then increment the length of the list by one. Normally it would not be wise to use the incf or 1+ functions because they are destructive, but in this case they will only have a localized effect because they only impact the optional sum and len parameters for this particular function, and not the structure of the original list (or else I would have passed a copy of the list).
Another option would be to use a recursive local function, and avoid the optional parameters and not have to compute the length of the list on each recursive call. In your original code it looks like you were attempting to use a local function within the context of your avg function, but you should use the "labels" Special operator to do that, and not "defun":
(defun avg (lst)
(if (null lst)
0
(labels ((find-avg (lst sum len)
(if (null lst)
(/ sum len)
(find-avg (cdr lst) (incf sum (car lst)) len))))
(find-avg lst 0 (length lst))))
I'm not 100% sure if your professor would want the local function to be tail-recursive or if he was referring to the global function (avg), but that is how you could also make the local function tail-recursive if that is an acceptable remedy as well. It's actually more efficient in some ways, although it requires more lines of code. In this case a lambda expression could also work, BUT since they do not have a name tail-recursion is not possibly, which makes the labels Special operator is useful for local functions if tail-recursion is mandatory.

Representing an amount of money with specific bills

I want to write a function in Racket which takes an amount of money and a list of specific bill-values, and then returns a list with the amount of bills used of every type to make the given amount in total. For example (calc 415 (list 100 10 5 2 1)) should return '(4 1 1 0 0).
I tried it this way but this doesn't work :/ I think I haven't fully understood what you can / can't do with set! in Racket, to be honest.
(define (calc n xs)
(cond ((null? xs) (list))
((not (pair? xs))
(define y n)
(begin (set! n (- n (* xs (floor (/ n xs)))))
(list (floor (/ y xs))) ))
(else (append (calc n (car xs))
(calc n (cdr xs))))))
Your procedure does too much and you use mutation which is uneccesary. If you split the problem up.
(define (calc-one-bill n bill)
...)
;; test
(calc-one-bill 450 100) ; ==> 4
(calc-one-bill 450 50) ; ==> 9
Then you can make:
(define (calc-new-n n bill amount)
...)
(calc-new-n 450 100 4) ; ==> 50
(calc-new-n 450 50 9) ; ==> 0
Then you can reduce your original implememntation like this:
(define (calc n bills)
(if (null? bills)
(if (zero? n)
'()
(error "The unit needs to be the last element in the bills list"))
(let* ((bill (car bills))
(amount (calc-one-bill n bill)))
(cons amount
(calc (calc-new-n n bill amount)
(cdr bills))))))
This will always choose the solution with fewest bills, just as your version seems to do. Both versions requires that the last element in the bill passed is the unit 1. For a more complex method, that works with (calc 406 (list 100 10 5 2)) and that potentially can find all combinations of solutions, see Will's answer.
This problem calls for some straightforward recursive non-deterministic programming.
We start with a given amount, and a given list of bill denominations, with unlimited amounts of each bill, apparently (otherwise, it'd be a different problem).
At each point in time, we can either use the biggest bill, or not.
If we use it, the total sum lessens by the bill's value.
If the total is 0, we've got our solution!
If the total is negative, it is invalid, so we should abandon this path.
The code here will follow another answer of mine, which finds out the total amount of solutions (which are more than one, for your example as well). We will just have to mind the solutions themselves as well, whereas the code mentioned above only counted them.
We can code this one as a recursive-backtracking procedure, calling a callback with each successfully found solution from inside the deepest level of recursion (tantamount to the most deeply nested loop in the nested loops structure created with recursion, which is the essence of recursive backtracking):
(define (change sum bills callback)
(let loop ([sum sum] [sol '()] [bills bills]) ; "sol" for "solution"
(cond
((zero? sum) (callback sol)) ; process a solution found
((< sum 0) #f)
((null? bills) #f)
(else
(apply
(lambda (b . bs) ; the "loop":
;; 1. ; either use the first
(loop (- sum b) (cons b sol) bills) ; denomination,
;; 2. ; or,
(loop sum sol bs)) ; after backtracking, don't!
bills)))))
It is to be called through e.g. one of
;; construct `the-callback` for `solve` and call
;; (solve ...params the-callback)
;; where `the-callback` is an exit continuation
(define (first-solution solve . params)
(call/cc (lambda (return)
(apply solve (append params ; use `return` as
(list return)))))) ; the callback
(define (n-solutions n solve . params) ; n assumed an integer
(let ([res '()]) ; n <= 0 gets ALL solutions
(call/cc (lambda (break)
(apply solve (append params
(list (lambda (sol)
(set! res (cons sol res))
(set! n (- n 1))
(cond ((zero? n) (break)))))))))
(reverse res)))
Testing,
> (first-solution change 406 (list 100 10 5 2))
'(2 2 2 100 100 100 100)
> (n-solutions 7 change 415 (list 100 10 5 2 1))
'((5 10 100 100 100 100)
(1 2 2 10 100 100 100 100)
(1 1 1 2 10 100 100 100 100)
(1 1 1 1 1 10 100 100 100 100)
(5 5 5 100 100 100 100)
(1 2 2 5 5 100 100 100 100)
(1 1 1 2 5 5 100 100 100 100))
Regarding how this code is structured, cf. How to generate all the permutations of elements in a list one at a time in Lisp? It creates nested loops with the solution being accessible in the innermost loop's body.
Regarding how to code up a non-deterministic algorithm (making all possible choices at once) in a proper functional way, see How to do a powerset in DrRacket? and How to find partitions of a list in Scheme.
I solved it this way now :)
(define (calc n xs)
(define (calcAssist n xs usedBills)
(cond ((null? xs) usedBills)
((pair? xs)
(calcAssist (- n (* (car xs) (floor (/ n (car xs)))))
(cdr xs)
(append usedBills
(list (floor (/ n (car xs)))))))
(else
(if ((= (- n (* xs (floor (/ n xs)))) 0))
(append usedBills (list (floor (/ n xs))))
(display "No solution")))))
(calcAssist n xs (list)))
Testing:
> (calc 415 (list 100 10 5 2 1))
'(4 1 1 0 0)
I think this is the first program I wrote when learning FORTRAN! Here is a version which makes no bones about using everything Racket has to offer (or, at least, everything I know about). As such it's probably a terrible homework solution, and it's certainly prettier than the FORTRAN I wrote in 1984.
Note that this version doesn't search, so it will get remainders even when it does not need to. It never gets a remainder if the lowest denomination is 1, of course.
(define/contract (denominations-of amount denominations)
;; split amount into units of denominations, returning the split
;; in descending order of denomination, and any remainder (if there is
;; no 1 denomination there will generally be a remainder).
(-> natural-number/c (listof (integer-in 1 #f))
(values (listof natural-number/c) natural-number/c))
(let handle-one-denomination ([current amount]
[remaining-denominations (sort denominations >)]
[so-far '()])
;; handle a single denomination: current is the balance,
;; remaining-denominations is the denominations left (descending order)
;; so-far is the list of amounts of each denomination we've accumulated
;; so far, which is in ascending order of denomination
(if (null? remaining-denominations)
;; we are done: return the reversed accumulator and anything left over
(values (reverse so-far) current)
(match-let ([(cons first-denomination rest-of-the-denominations)
remaining-denominations])
(if (> first-denomination current)
;; if the first denomination is more than the balance, just
;; accumulate a 0 for it and loop on the rest
(handle-one-denomination current rest-of-the-denominations
(cons 0 so-far))
;; otherwise work out how much of it we need and how much is left
(let-values ([(q r)
(quotient/remainder current first-denomination)])
;; and loop on the remainder accumulating the number of bills
;; we needed
(handle-one-denomination r rest-of-the-denominations
(cons q so-far))))))))

Scheme Tail Recursion (BitsOn count)

I need some help to implement a function that receives a number and returns the number of bits that would have been required to be “on” in order to represent the input number in binary base.
For example, the number 5 is represented as 101 in binary and therefore requires two bits to be “on”.
Example:
(numOfBitsOn 5) will return 2 because 5 in binary is 101
(numOfBitsOn 101) will return 4 because 101 in binary is 1100101
The function must be written as tail recursion.
This is m first time learning Scheme. Up to now this is all I wrote:
(define (numOfBitsOn number)
(define (numOfBitsOn-2 number acc)
(cond ((eq? number 0)acc)
(not(eq? (modulo number 2)0) (+ acc 1))
(numOfBitsOn-2 (/ number 2) acc))))
And it gives me that:
begin (possibly implicit): no expression after a sequence of internal definitions in: (begin (define (numofbitson-2 number acc) (cond ((eq? number 0) acc) (not (eq? (modulo number 2) 0) (+ acc 1)) (numofbitson-2 (number) acc))))
I'm sure it doesn't even close to the solution =\
Can you help me please?
Thanks!
(define (slow-popcount n)
(do ((n n (quotient n 2))
(count 0 (+ count (modulo n 2))))
((zero? n) count)))

Can't seem to get this function to work in scheme

Here is what I have done so far:
(define sumOdd
(lambda(n)
(cond((> n 0)1)
((odd? n) (* (sumOdd n (-(* 2 n) 1)
output would look something like this:
(sumOdd 1) ==> 1
(sumOdd 4) ==> 1 + 3 + 5 + 7 ==> 16
(sumOdd 5) ==> 1 + 3 + 5 + 7 + 9 ==> 25
This is what I am trying to get it to do: find the sum of the first N odd positive integers
I can not think of a way to only add the odd numbers.
To elaborate further on the sum-odds problem, you might solve it in terms of more abstract procedures that in combination accumulates the desired answer. This isn't necessarily the easiest solution, but it is interesting and captures some more general patterns that are common when processing list structures:
; the list of integers from n to m
(define (make-numbers n m)
(if (= n m) (list n) ; the sequence m..m is (m)
(cons n ; accumulate n to
(make-numbers (+ n 1) m)))) ; the sequence n+1..m
; the list of items satisfying predicate
(define (filter pred lst)
(if (null? lst) '() ; nothing filtered is nothing
(if (pred (car lst)) ; (car lst) is satisfactory
(cons (car lst) ; accumulate item (car lst)
(filter pred (cdr lst))) ; to the filtering of rest
(filter pred (cdr lst))))) ; skip item (car lst)
; the result of combining list items with procedure
(define (build-value proc base lst)
(if (null? lst) base ; building nothing is the base
(proc (car lst) ; apply procedure to (car lst)
(build-value proc base (cdr lst))))) ; and to the building of rest
; the sum of n first odds
(define (sum-odds n)
(if (negative? n) #f ; negatives aren't defined
(build-value + ; build values with +
0 ; build with 0 in base case
(filter odd? ; filter out even numbers
(make-numbers 1 n))))) ; make numbers 1..n
Hope this answer was interesting and not too confusing.
Let's think about a couple of cases:
1) What should (sumOdd 5) return? Well, it should return 5 + 3 + 1 = 9.
2) What should (sumOdd 6) return? Well, that also returns 5 + 3 + 1 = 9.
Now, we can write this algorithm a lot of ways, but here's one way I've decided to think about it:
We're going to write a recursive function, starting at n, and counting down. If n is odd, we want to add n to our running total, and then count down by 2. Why am I counting down by 2? Because if n is odd, n - 2 is also odd. Otherwise, if n is even, I do not want to add anything. I want to make sure that I keep recursing, however, so that I get to an odd number. How do I get to the next odd number, counting down from an even number? I subtract 1. And I do this, counting down until n is <= 0. I do not want to add anything to my running total then, so I return 0. Here is what that algorithm looks like:
(define sumOdd
(lambda (n)
(cond ((<= n 0) 0)
((odd? n) (+ n (sumOdd (- n 2))))
(else (sumOdd (- n 1))))))
If it helps you, here is a more explicit example of a slightly different algorithm:
(define sumOdd
(lambda (n)
(cond ((<= n 0) 0)
((odd? n) (+ n (sumOdd (- n 1))))
((even? n) (+ 0 (sumOdd (- n 1))))))) ; note that (even? n) can be replaced by `else' (if its not odd, it is even), and that (+ 0 ..) can also be left out
EDIT:
I see that the problem has changed just a bit. To sum the first N positive odd integers, there are a couple of options.
First option: Math!
(define sumOdd (lambda (n) (* n n)))
Second option: Recursion. There are lots of ways to accomplish this. You could generate a list of 2*n and use the procedures above, for example.
You need to have 2 variables, one which keep counter of how many odd numbers are still to be added and another to hold the current odd number which gets increment by 2 after being used in addition:
(define (sum-odd n)
(define (proc current start)
(if (= current 0)
0
(+ start (proc (- current 1) (+ start 2)) )))
(proc n 1))
Here is a nice tail recursive implementation:
(define (sumOdd n)
(let summing ((total 0) (count 0) (next 1))
(cond ((= count n) total)
((odd? next) (summing (+ total next)
(+ count 1)
(+ next 1)))
(else (summing total count (+ next 1))))))
Even shorter tail-recursive version:
(define (sumOdd n)
(let loop ((sum 0) (n n) (val 1))
(if (= n 0)
sum
(loop (+ sum val) (- n 1) (+ val 2)))))

Scheme / Racket Best Practice - Recursion vs Variable Accumulation

I'm new to Scheme (via Racket) and (to a lesser extent) functional programming, and could use some advise on the pros and cons of accumulation via variables vs recursion. For the purposes of this example, I'm trying to calculate a moving average. So, for a list '(1 2 3 4 5), the 3 period moving average would be '(1 2 2 3 4). The idea is that any numbers before the period are not yet part of the calculation, and once we reach the period length in the set, we start averaging the subset of the list according the chosen period.
So, my first attempt looked something like this:
(define (avg lst)
(cond
[(null? lst) '()]
[(/ (apply + lst) (length lst))]))
(define (make-averager period)
(let ([prev '()])
(lambda (i)
(set! prev (cons i prev))
(cond
[(< (length prev) period) i]
[else (avg (take prev period))]))))
(map (make-averager 3) '(1 2 3 4 5))
> '(1 2 2 3 4)
This works. And I like the use of map. It seems composible and open to refactoring. I could see in the future having cousins like:
(map (make-bollinger 5) '(1 2 3 4 5))
(map (make-std-deviation 2) '(1 2 3 4 5))
etc.
But, it's not in the spirit of Scheme (right?) because I'm accumulating with side effects. So I rewrote it to look like this:
(define (moving-average l period)
(let loop ([l l] [acc '()])
(if (null? l)
l
(let* ([acc (cons (car l) acc)]
[next
(cond
[(< (length acc) period) (car acc)]
[else (avg (take acc period))])])
(cons next (loop (cdr l) acc))))))
(moving-average '(1 2 3 4 5) 3)
> '(1 2 2 3 4)
Now, this version is more difficult to grok at first glance. So I have a couple questions:
Is there a more elegant way to express the recursive version using some of the built in iteration constructs of racket (like for/fold)? Is it even tail recursive as written?
Is there any way to write the first version without the use of an accumulator variable?
Is this type of problem part of a larger pattern for which there are accepted best practices, especially in Scheme?
It's a little strange to me that you're starting before the first of the list but stopping sharply at the end of it. That is, you're taking the first element by itself and the first two elements by themselves, but you don't do the same for the last element or the last two elements.
That's somewhat orthogonal to the solution for the problem. I don't think the accumulator is making your life any easier here, and I would write the solution without it:
#lang racket
(require rackunit)
;; given a list of numbers and a period,
;; return a list of the averages of all
;; consecutive sequences of 'period'
;; numbers taken from the list.
(define ((moving-average period) l)
(cond [(< (length l) period) empty]
[else (cons (mean (take l period))
((moving-average period) (rest l)))]))
;; compute the mean of a list of numbers
(define (mean l)
(/ (apply + l) (length l)))
(check-equal? (mean '(4 4 1)) 3)
(check-equal? ((moving-average 3) '(1 3 2 7 6)) '(2 4 5))
Well, as a general rule, you want to separate the manner in which you recurse and/or iterate from the content of the iteration steps. You mention fold in your question, and this points in the right step: you want some form of higher-order function that will handle the list traversal mechanics, and call a function you supply with the values in the window.
I cooked this up in three minutes; it's probably wrong in many ways, but it should give you an idea:
;;;
;;; Traverse a list from left to right and call fn with the "windows"
;;; of the list. fn will be called like this:
;;;
;;; (fn prev cur next accum)
;;;
;;; where cur is the "current" element, prev and next are the
;;; predecessor and successor of cur, and accum either init or the
;;; accumulated result from the preceeding call to fn (like
;;; fold-left).
;;;
;;; The left-edge and right-edge arguments specify the values to use
;;; as the predecessor of the first element of the list and the
;;; successor of the last.
;;;
;;; If the list is empty, returns init.
;;;
(define (windowed-traversal fn left-end right-end init list)
(if (null? list)
init
(windowed-traversal fn
(car list)
right-end
(fn left-end
(car list)
(if (null? (cdr list))
right-end
(second list))
init)
(cdr list))))
(define (moving-average list)
(reverse!
(windowed-traversal (lambda (prev cur next list-accum)
(cons (avg (filter true? (list prev cur next)))
list-accum))
#f
#f
'()
list)))
Alternately, you could define a function that converts a list into n-element windows and then map average over the windows.
(define (partition lst default size)
(define (iter lst len result)
(if (< len 3)
(reverse result)
(iter (rest lst)
(- len 1)
(cons (take lst 3) result))))
(iter (cons default (cons default lst))
(+ (length lst) 2)
empty))
(define (avg lst)
(cond
[(null? lst) 0]
[(/ (apply + lst) (length lst))]))
(map avg (partition (list 1 2 3 4 5) 0 3))
Also notice that the partition function is tail-recursive, so it doesn't eat up stack space -- this is the point of result and the reverse call. I explicitly keep track of the length of the list to avoid either repeatedly calling length (which would lead to O(N^2) runtime) or hacking together a at-least-size-3 function. If you don't care about tail recursion, the following variant of partition should work:
(define (partition lst default size)
(define (iter lst len)
(if (< len 3)
empty
(cons (take lst 3)
(iter (rest lst)
(- len 1)))))
(iter (cons default (cons default lst))
(+ (length lst) 2)))
Final comment - using '() as the default value for an empty list could be dangerous if you don't explicitly check for it. If your numbers are greater than 0, 0 (or -1) would probably work better as a default value - they won't kill whatever code is using the value, but are easy to check for and can't appear as a legitimate average

Resources