Im trying to learn scheme and Im having trouble with the arithmetic in the Scheme syntax.
Would anyone be able to write out a function in Scheme that represents the Geometric Series?
You have expt, which is Scheme power procedure. (expt 2 8) ; ==> 256 and you have * that does multiplication. eg. (* 2 3) ; ==> 6. From that you should be able to make a procedure that takes a n and produce the nth number in a specific geometric series.
You can also produce a list with the n first if you instead of using expt just muliply in a named let, basically doing the expt one step at a time and accumulate the values in a list. Here is an example of a procedure that makes a list of numbers:
(define (range from to)
(let loop ((n to) (acc '())
(if (< n from)
acc
(loop (- 1 n) (cons n acc)))))
(range 3 10) ; ==> (3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10)
Notice I'm doing them in reverse. If I cannot do it in reverse I would in the base case do (reverse acc) to get the right order as lists are always made from end to beginning. Good luck with your series.
range behaves exactly like Python's range.
(define (range from (below '()) (step 1) (acc '()))
(cond ((null? below) (range 0 from step))
((> (+ from step) below) (reverse acc))
(else (range (+ from step) below step (cons from acc)))))
Python's range can take only one argument (the upper limit).
If you take from and below as required arguments, the definition is shorter:
(define (range from below (step 1) (acc '()))
(cond ((> (+ from step) below) (reverse acc))
(else (range (+ from step) below step (cons from acc)))))
Here is an answer, in Racket, that you probably cannot submit as homework.
(define/contract (geometric-series x n)
;; Return a list of x^k for k from 0 to n (inclusive).
;; This will be questionable if x is not exact.
(-> number? natural-number/c (listof number?))
(let gsl ((m n)
(c (expt x n))
(a '()))
(if (zero? m)
(cons 1 a)
(gsl (- m 1)
(/ c x)
(cons c a)))))
Related
Hi I am trying to implement a program in scheme shifting a list k times to the left.
For example:
(shift-k-left ’(1 2 3) 2)
’(3 1 2)
I have managed to implement a code that do shift left once here:
(define shift-left
(lambda (ls)
(if (null? ls)
'()
(append (cdr ls)
(cons (car ls)
'())))))
I want to use shift left as a function on shift-k-left.
Here is a solution using circular-list from srfi/1.
(require srfi/1)
(define (shift xs k)
(define n (length xs))
(take (drop (apply circular-list xs) k) n))
Using your shift-left to shift k times:
If k is 0: do nothing
If k is not 0: shift k-1 times, and then shift-left the result.
That is,
(define (shift-left-k ls k)
(if (= k 0)
ls
(shift-left (shift-left-k ls (- k 1)))))
You may want to adjust to do something sensible for negative k.
The idea is to count down n while consing the cars of r to p and the cdrs to r then the base case becomes append r to the reverse of p. If we run into a null? r we reverse p and continue this wraps the rotation:
(define (shift-k-left l n)
; assume that n >= 0
(let loop ((n n) (p '()) (r l))
(if (= n 0)
(append r (reverse p))
(if (null? r)
(loop n '() (reverse p))
(loop (- n 1) (cons (car r) p) (cdr r))))))
Here is something similar:
(define (addn value n)
(let loop ((value value) (n n))
(if (zero? n)
value
(loop (add1 value) (- n 1)))))
(addn 5 3)
; ==> 8
Now you could make an abstraction:
(define (repeat proc)
(lambda (v n)
...))
(define addn (repeat add1))
(addn 5 3)
; ==> 8
(define shift-k-left (repeat shift-left))
(shift-k-left ’(1 2 3) 2)
; ==> (3 1 2)
Needless to say repeat looks a lot like add1 does.
NB: The naming is off. Your implementation is more "rotate" than "shift".
shift-left is actually more like cdr than your implemenation.
I want to show the result of my function as a list not as a number.
My result is:
(define lst (list ))
(define (num->base n b)
(if (zero? n)
(append lst (list 0))
(append lst (list (+ (* 10 (num->base (quotient n b) b)) (modulo n b))))))
The next error appears:
expected: number?
given: '(0)
argument position: 2nd
other arguments...:
10
I think you have to rethink this problem. Appending results to a global variable is definitely not the way to go, let's try a different approach via tail recursion:
(define (num->base n b)
(let loop ((n n) (acc '()))
(if (< n b)
(cons n acc)
(loop (quotient n b)
(cons (modulo n b) acc)))))
It works as expected:
(num->base 12345 10)
=> '(1 2 3 4 5)
I'm trying to print the first 2 numbers in a list coded in Scheme. I'm having a bit of trouble doing this. I get an error when I run the procedure. Any suggestions on how I can get this to work
(define (print-two-nums n nums)
( list-ref nums(+ (cdr nums) n)))
( print-two-nums 2'(5 5 4 4))
It looks like you were wavering between the ideas of "print two numbers" and "print n numbers." If you really want just the two first numbers of a list, you can write:
(define (print-two-nums nums)
(print (list (car nums) (cadr nums))))
But for the more general first n numbers, you can use:
(define (print-n-nums n nums)
(print (take nums n)))
To print the first n numbers, you could use this simple procedure
(define (print-n-nums L n) (cond
((or (= 0 n) (null? L)) '())
(else (cons (car L) (print-n-nums (cdr L) (- n 1))))))
(print-n-nums (list 1 2 3) 2)
;Output: (1 2)
You could further abstract the cons operation and define print-n-nums as a higher order procedure to carry out the desired operation. For example, if we wanted to add the first n numbers of a list, we could define the following procedure. Here OPERATION is a function that we pass to the list-operator function. Thus, here we want to perform the + operation. In the case above, we want to perform the cons operation. The initial parameter is just how we want to handle the edge case.
(define (list-operator L n OPERATION initial) (cond
((or (= 0 n) (null? L)) initial)
(else (OPERATION (car L) (list-operator (cdr L) (- n 1) OPERATION initial)))))
(list-operator (list 1 2 3) 2 + 0)
;Output: 3
Now, if you wanted the product of the first 2 numbers, you would just do
(list-operator (list 1 2 3) 2 * 1)
this is possibly much of an elementary question, but I'm having trouble with a procedure I have to write in Scheme. The procedure should return all the prime numbers less or equal to N (N is from input).
(define (isPrimeHelper x k)
(if (= x k) #t
(if (= (remainder x k) 0) #f
(isPrimeHelper x (+ k 1)))))
(define ( isPrime x )
(cond
(( = x 1 ) #t)
(( = x 2 ) #t)
( else (isPrimeHelper x 2 ) )))
(define (printPrimesUpTo n)
(define result '())
(define (helper x)
(if (= x (+ 1 n)) result
(if (isPrime x) (cons x result) ))
( helper (+ x 1)))
( helper 1 ))
My check for prime works, however the function printPrimesUpTo seem to loop forever. Basically the idea is to check whether a number is prime and put it in a result list.
Thanks :)
You have several things wrong, and your code is very non-idiomatic. First, the number 1 is not prime; in fact, is it neither prime nor composite. Second, the result variable isn't doing what you think it is. Third, your use of if is incorrect everywhere it appears; if is an expression, not a statement as in some other programming languages. And, as a matter of style, closing parentheses are stacked at the end of the line, and don't occupy a line of their own. You need to talk with your professor or teaching assistant to clear up some basic misconceptions about Scheme.
The best algorithm to find the primes less than n is the Sieve of Eratosthenes, invented about twenty-two centuries ago by a Greek mathematician who invented the leap day and a system of latitude and longitude, accurately measured the circumference of the Earth and the distance from Earth to Sun, and was chief librarian of Ptolemy's library at Alexandria. Here is a simple version of his algorithm:
(define (primes n)
(let ((bits (make-vector (+ n 1) #t)))
(let loop ((p 2) (ps '()))
(cond ((< n p) (reverse ps))
((vector-ref bits p)
(do ((i (+ p p) (+ i p))) ((< n i))
(vector-set! bits i #f))
(loop (+ p 1) (cons p ps)))
(else (loop (+ p 1) ps))))))
Called as (primes 50), that returns the list (2 3 5 7 11 13 17 19 23 29 31 37 41 43 47). It is much faster than testing numbers for primality by trial division, as you are attempting to do. If you must, here is a proper primality checker:
(define (prime? n)
(let loop ((d 2))
(cond ((< n (* d d)) #t)
((zero? (modulo n d)) #f)
(else (loop (+ d 1))))))
Improvements are possible for both algorithms. If you are interested, I modestly recommend this essay on my blog.
First, it is good style to express nested structure by indentation, so it is visually apparent; and also to put each of if's clauses, the consequent and the alternative, on its own line:
(define (isPrimeHelper x k)
(if (= x k)
#t ; consequent
(if (= (remainder x k) 0) ; alternative
;; ^^ indentation
#f ; consequent
(isPrimeHelper x (+ k 1))))) ; alternative
(define (printPrimesUpTo n)
(define result '())
(define (helper x)
(if (= x (+ 1 n))
result ; consequent
(if (isPrime x) ; alternative
(cons x result) )) ; no alternative!
;; ^^ indentation
( helper (+ x 1)))
( helper 1 ))
Now it is plainly seen that the last thing that your helper function does is to call itself with an incremented x value, always. There's no stopping conditions, i.e. this is an infinite loop.
Another thing is, calling (cons x result) does not alter result's value in any way. For that, you need to set it, like so: (set! result (cons x result)). You also need to put this expression in a begin group, as it is evaluated not for its value, but for its side-effect:
(define (helper x)
(if (= x (+ 1 n))
result
(begin
(if (isPrime x)
(set! result (cons x result)) ) ; no alternative!
(helper (+ x 1)) )))
Usually, the explicit use of set! is considered bad style. One standard way to express loops is as tail-recursive code using named let, usually with the canonical name "loop" (but it can be any name whatever):
(define (primesUpTo n)
(let loop ((x n)
(result '()))
(cond
((<= x 1) result) ; return the result
((isPrime x)
(loop (- x 1) (cons x result))) ; alter the result being built
(else (loop (- x 1) result))))) ; go on with the same result
which, in presence of tail-call optimization, is actually equivalent to the previous version.
The (if) expression in your (helper) function is not the tail expression of the function, and so is not returned, but control will always continue to (helper (+ x 1)) and recurse.
The more efficient prime?(from Sedgewick's "Algorithms"):
(define (prime? n)
(define (F n i) "helper"
(cond ((< n (* i i)) #t)
((zero? (remainder n i)) #f)
(else
(F n (+ i 1)))))
"primality test"
(cond ((< n 2) #f)
(else
(F n 2))))
You can do this much more nicely. I reformated your code:
(define (prime? x)
(define (prime-helper x k)
(cond ((= x k) #t)
((= (remainder x k) 0) #f)
(else
(prime-helper x (+ k 1)))))
(cond ((= x 1) #f)
((= x 2) #t)
(else
(prime-helper x 2))))
(define (primes-up-to n)
(define (helper x)
(cond ((= x 0) '())
((prime? x)
(cons x (helper (- x 1))))
(else
(helper (- x 1)))))
(reverse
(helper n)))
scheme#(guile-user)> (primes-up-to 20)
$1 = (2 3 5 7 11 13 17 19)
Please don’t write Scheme like C or Java – and have a look at these style rules for languages of the lisp-family for the sake of readability: Do not use camel-case, do not put parentheses on own lines, mark predicates with ?, take care of correct indentation, do not put additional whitespace within parentheses.
A k-ary necklace of length n is an ordered list of length n whose items are drawn from an alphabet of length k, which is the lexicographically first list in a sort of all lists sharing an ordering under rotation.
Example:
(1 2 3) and (1 3 2) are the necklaces of length 3 from the alphabet {1 2 3}.
More info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necklace_(combinatorics)
I'd like to generate these in Scheme (or a Lisp of your choice). I've found some papers...
Savage - A New Algorithm for Generating Necklaces
Sawada - Generating Bracelets in Constant Amortized Time
Sawada - Generating Necklaces with Forbidden Substrings
...but the code presented in them is opaque to me. Mainly because they don't seem to be passing in either the alphabet or the length (n) desired. The scheme procedure I'm looking for is of the form (necklaces n '(a b c...)).
I can generate these easy enough by first generating k^n lists and then filtering out the rotations. But it's terribly memory-inefficient...
Thanks!
The FKM algorithm for generating necklaces. PLT Scheme. Not so hot on the performance. It'll take anything as an alphabet and maps the internal numbers onto whatever you provided. Seems to be correct; no guarantees. I was lazy when translating the loops, so you get this weird mix of for loops and escape continuations.
(require srfi/43)
(define (gennecklaces n alphabet)
(let* ([necklaces '()]
[alphavec (list->vector alphabet)]
[convert-necklace
(lambda (vec)
(map (lambda (x) (vector-ref alphavec x)) (cdr (vector->list vec))))]
[helper
(lambda (n k)
(let ([a (make-vector (+ n 1) 0)]
[i n])
(set! necklaces (cons (convert-necklace a) necklaces))
(let/ec done
(for ([X (in-naturals)])
(vector-set! a i (add1 (vector-ref a i)))
(for ([j (in-range 1 (add1 (- n i)))])
(vector-set! a (+ j i)
(vector-ref a j)))
(when (= 0 (modulo n i))
(set! necklaces (cons (convert-necklace a) necklaces)))
(set! i n)
(let/ec done
(for ([X (in-naturals)])
(unless (= (vector-ref a i)
(- k 1))
(done))
(set! i (- i 1))))
(when (= i 0)
(done))))))])
(helper n (length alphabet))
necklaces))
I would do a two step process. First, find each combination of n elements from the alphabet. Then, for each combination, pick the lowest value, and generate all permutations of the remaining items.
Edit: Here is some code. It assumes that the input list is already sorted and that it contains no duplicates.
(define (choose n l)
(let ((len (length l)))
(cond ((= n 0) '(()))
((> n len) '())
((= n len) (list l))
(else (append (map (lambda (x) (cons (car l) x))
(choose (- n 1) (cdr l)))
(choose n (cdr l)))))))
(define (filter pred l)
(cond ((null? l) '())
((pred (car l)) (cons (car l) (filter pred (cdr l))))
(else (filter pred (cdr l)))))
(define (permute l)
(cond ((null? l) '(()))
(else (apply append
(map (lambda (x)
(let ((rest (filter (lambda (y) (not (= x y))) l)))
(map (lambda (subperm) (cons x subperm))
(permute rest))))
l)))))
(define (necklaces n l)
(apply
append
(map
(lambda (combination)
(map (lambda (permutation)
(cons (car combination) permutation))
(permute (cdr combination))))
(choose n l))))
(display (choose 1 '(1 2 3 4 5))) (newline)
(display (choose 2 '(1 2 3 4 5))) (newline)
(display (permute '(1 2))) (newline)
(display (permute '(1 2 3))) (newline)
(display (necklaces 3 '(1 2 3 4))) (newline)
(display (necklaces 2 '(1 2 3 4))) (newline)
Example: (1 2 3) and (1 3 2) are the necklaces of length 3 from the alphabet {1 2 3}.
You forgot (1 1 1) (1 1 2) (1 1 3) (1 2 2) (1 3 3) (2 2 2) (2 2 3) (2 3 3) (3 3 3). Necklaces can contain duplicates.
If you were only looking for necklaces of length N, drawn from an alphabet of size N, that contain no duplicates, then it's pretty easy: there will be (N-1)! necklaces, and each necklace will be of the form (1 :: perm) where perm is any permutation of {2 .. N}. For example, the necklaces of {1 .. 4} would be (1 2 3 4) (1 2 4 3) (1 3 2 4) (1 3 4 2) (1 4 2 3) (1 4 3 2). Extending this method to deal with no-duplicates necklaces of length K < N is left as an exercise for the reader.
But if you want to find real necklaces, which may contain duplicate elements, then it's not so simple.
As a first idea, you can do the obvious, but inefficient: step through all combinations and check if they are a necklace, i.e. if they are the lexically smallest rotation of the elements (formal definition on p 5 in above paper). This would be like the way you proposed, but you would throw away all non-necklaces as soon as they are generated.
Other than that, I think that you will have to understand this article (http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/old/wang90new.html):
T. Wang and C. Savage, "A new algorithm for generating necklaces," Report
TR-90-20, Department of Computer Science, North Carolina State University
(1990).
It is not too hard, you can break it down by implementing the tau and sigma functions as described and then applying them in the order outlined in the article.