I want to define a function in Scheme that will compute the outer product of two vectors.
for example:
(outerProduct '(1 2 3) '(4 5))
the output is supposed to be the following matrix:
((4 5) (8 10) (12 15))
How can I achieve that?
Note that collections used in your example aren't vectors, but lists. But this code with two nested for/lists will work for both:
(define (outer-product v1 v2)
(for/list ((e1 v1))
(for/list ((e2 v2))
(* e1 e2))))
Examples:
> (outer-product '(1 2 3) '(4 5))
'((4 5) (8 10) (12 15))
> (outer-product (vector 1 2 3) (vector 4 5))
'((4 5) (8 10) (12 15))
You can also do it with map if you don't want to use Racket-specific constructs (Assuming you're working with lists like in your code and not vectors like the subject line (Maybe you're thinking of vectors in the math sense, not the scheme sense?); though Racket has a vector-map too so it's easy to adapt:
(define (outerProduct l1 l2)
(map (lambda (x) (map (lambda (y) (* x y)) l2)) l1))
Example:
> (outerProduct '(1 2 3) '(4 5))
'((4 5) (8 10) (12 15))
Or using the math/matrix library that comes with Racket:
(require math/matrix)
(define (outerProduct l1 l2)
(let ((m1 (->col-matrix l1))
(m2 (->row-matrix l2)))
(matrix->list* (matrix* m1 m2))))
(This is a better option if you use its matrix type directly instead of converting to and from lists and are also doing other stuff with the values; also the docs suggest using typed Racket for best performance)
(define outerprod
(lambda (a b)
(map (lambda (a)
(map (lambda(b) (* a b))
b))
a )))
1 ]=> (outerprod '(1 2 3) '(4 5))
;Value: ((4 5) (8 10) (12 15))
Related
I am trying to combine a list of pairs in scheme to get all possible combinations. For example:
((1 2) (3 4) (5 6)) --> ((1 3 5) (1 3 6) (1 4 5) (1 4 6) (2 3 5) (2 3 6) (2 4 5) (2 4 6))
I've been able to solve it (I think) using a "take the first and prepend it to the cdr of the procedure" with the following:
(define (combine-pair-with-list-of-pairs P Lp)
(apply append
(map (lambda (num)
(map (lambda (pair)
(cons num pair)) Lp)) P)))
(define (comb-N Lp)
(if (null? Lp)
'(())
(combine-pair-with-list-of-pairs (car Lp) (comb-N (cdr Lp)))))
(comb-N '((1 2)(3 4)(5 6)))
; ((1 3 5) (1 3 6) (1 4 5) (1 4 6) (2 3 5) (2 3 6) (2 4 5) (2 4 6))
However, I've been having trouble figuring out how I can use a procedure that only takes two and having a wrapper around it to be able to define comb-N by calling that function. Here it is:
(define (combinations L1 L2)
(apply append
(map (lambda (L1_item)
(map (lambda (L2_item)
(list L1_item L2_item))
L2))
L1)))
(combinations '(1) '(1 2 3))
; ((1 1) (1 2) (1 3))
I suppose the difficulty with calling this function is it expects two lists, and the recursive call is expecting a list of lists as the second argument. How could I call this combinations function to define comb-N?
difficulty? recursion? where?
You can write combinations using delimited continuations. Here we represent an ambiguous computation by writing amb. The expression bounded by reset will run once for each argument supplied to amb -
(define (amb . lst)
(shift k (append-map k lst)))
(reset
(list (list (amb 'a 'b) (amb 1 2 3))))
((a 1) (a 2) (a 3) (b 1) (b 2) (b 3))
how it works
The expression is evaluated through the first amb where the continuation is captured to k -
k := (list (list ... (amb 1 2 3)))
Where applying k will supply its argument to the "hole" left by amb's call to shift, represented by ... above. We can effectively think of k in terms of a lambda -
k := (lambda (x) (list (list x (amb 1 2 3)))
amb returns an append-map expression -
(append-map k '(a b))
Where append-map will apply k to each element of the input list, '(a b), and append the results. This effectively translates to -
(append
(k 'a)
(k 'b))
Next expand the continuation, k, in place -
(append
(list (list 'a (amb 1 2 3))) ; <-
(list (list 'b (amb 1 2 3)))) ; <-
Continuing with the evaluation, we evaluate the next amb. The pattern is continued. amb's call to shift captures the current continuation to k, but this time the continuation has evolved a bit -
k := (list (list 'a ...))
Again, we can think of k in terms of lambda -
k := (lambda (x) (list (list 'a x)))
And amb returns an append-map expression -
(append
(append-map k '(1 2 3)) ; <-
(list (list 'b ...)))
We can continue working like this to resolve the entire computation. append-map applies k to each element of the input and appends the results, effectively translating to -
(append
(append (k 1) (k 2) (k 3)) ; <-
(list (list 'b ...)))
Expand the k in place -
(append
(append
(list (list 'a 1)) ; <-
(list (list 'a 2)) ; <-
(list (list 'a 3))) ; <-
(list (list 'b (amb 1 2 3))))
We can really start to see where this is going now. We can simplify the above expression to -
(append
'((a 1) (a 2) (a 3)) ; <-
(list (list 'b (amb 1 2 3))))
Evaluation now continues to the final amb expression. We will follow the pattern one more time. Here amb's call to shift captures the current continuation as k -
k := (list (list 'b ...))
In lambda terms, we think of k as -
k := (lambda (x) (list (list 'b x)))
amb returns an append-map expression -
(append
'((a 1) (a 2) (a 3))
(append-map k '(1 2 3))) ; <-
append-map applies k to each element and appends the results. This translates to -
(append
'((a 1) (a 2) (a 3))
(append (k 1) (k 2) (k 3))) ; <-
Expand k in place -
(append
'((a 1) (a 2) (a 3))
(append
(list (list 'b 1)) ; <-
(list (list 'b 2)) ; <-
(list (list 'b 3)))) ; <-
This simplifies to -
(append
'((a 1) (a 2) (a 3))
'((b 1) (b 2) (b 3))) ; <-
And finally we can compute the outermost append, producing the output -
((a 1) (a 2) (a 3) (b 1) (b 2) (b 3))
generalizing a procedure
Above we used fixed inputs, '(a b) and '(1 2 3). We could make a generic combinations procedure which applies amb to its input arguments -
(define (combinations a b)
(reset
(list (list (apply amb a) (apply amb b)))))
(combinations '(a b) '(1 2 3))
((a 1) (a 2) (a 3) (b 1) (b 2) (b 3))
Now we can easily expand this idea to accept any number of input lists. We write a variadic combinations procedure by taking a list of lists and map over it, applying amb to each -
(define (combinations . lsts)
(reset
(list (map (lambda (each) (apply amb each)) lsts))))
(combinations '(1 2) '(3 4) '(5 6))
((1 3 5) (1 3 6) (1 4 5) (1 4 6) (2 3 5) (2 3 6) (2 4 5) (2 4 6))
Any number of lists of any length can be used -
(combinations
'(common rare)
'(air ground)
'(electric ice bug)
'(monster))
((common air electric monster)
(common air ice monster)
(common air bug monster)
(common ground electric monster)
(common ground ice monster)
(common ground bug monster)
(rare air electric monster)
(rare air ice monster)
(rare air bug monster)
(rare ground electric monster)
(rare ground ice monster)
(rare ground bug monster))
related reading
In Scheme, we can use Olivier Danvy's original implementation of shift/reset. In Racket, they are supplied via racket/control
(define-syntax reset
(syntax-rules ()
((_ ?e) (reset-thunk (lambda () ?e)))))
(define-syntax shift
(syntax-rules ()
((_ ?k ?e) (call/ct (lambda (?k) ?e)))))
(define *meta-continuation*
(lambda (v)
(error "You forgot the top-level reset...")))
(define abort
(lambda (v)
(*meta-continuation* v)))
(define reset-thunk
(lambda (t)
(let ((mc *meta-continuation*))
(call-with-current-continuation
(lambda (k)
(begin
(set! *meta-continuation* (lambda (v)
(begin
(set! *meta-continuation* mc)
(k v))))
(abort (t))))))))
(define call/ct
(lambda (f)
(call-with-current-continuation
(lambda (k)
(abort (f (lambda (v)
(reset (k v)))))))))
For more insight on the use of append-map and amb, see this answer to your another one of your questions.
See also the Compoasable Continuations Tutorial on the Scheme Wiki.
remarks
I really struggled with functional style at first. I cut my teeth on imperative style and it took me some time to see recursion as the "natural" way of thinking to solve problems in a functional way. However I offer this post in hopes to provoke you to reach for even higher orders of thinking and reasoning. Recursion is the topic I write about most on this site but I'm here saying that sometimes even more creative, imaginative, declarative ways exist to express your programs.
First-class continuations can turn your program inside-out, allowing you to write a program which manipulates, consumes, and multiplies itself. It's a sophisticated level of control that's part of the Scheme spec but only fully supported in a few other languages. Like recursion, continuations are a tough nut to crack, but once you "see", you wish you would've learned them earlier.
As suggested in the comments you can use recursion, specifically, right fold:
(define (flatmap foo xs)
(apply append
(map foo xs)))
(define (flatmapOn xs foo)
(flatmap foo xs))
(define (mapOn xs foo)
(map foo xs))
(define (combs L1 L2) ; your "combinations", shorter name
(flatmapOn L1 (lambda (L1_item)
(mapOn L2 (lambda (L2_item) ; changed this:
(cons L1_item L2_item)))))) ; cons NB!
(display
(combs '(1 2)
(combs '(3 4)
(combs '(5 6) '( () )))))
; returns:
; ((1 3 5) (1 3 6) (1 4 5) (1 4 6) (2 3 5) (2 3 6) (2 4 5) (2 4 6))
So you see, the list that you used there wasn't quite right, I changed it back to cons (and thus it becomes fully the same as combine-pair-with-list-of-pairs). That way it becomes extensible: (list 3 (list 2 1)) isn't nice but (cons 3 (cons 2 (cons 1 '()))) is nicer.
With list it can't be used as you wished: such function receives lists of elements, and produces lists of lists of elements. This kind of output can't be used as the expected kind of input in another invocation of that function -- it would produce different kind of results. To build many by combining only two each time, that combination must produce the same kind of output as the two inputs. It's like +, with numbers. So either stay with the cons, or change the combination function completely.
As to my remark about right fold: that's the structure of the nested calls to combs in my example above. It can be used to define this function as
(define (sequence lists)
(foldr
(lambda (list r) ; r is the recursive result
(combs list r))
'(()) ; using `()` as the base
lists))
Yes, the proper name of this function is sequence (well, it's the one used in Haskell).
I've asked a few questions here about Scheme/SICP, and quite frequently the answers involve using the apply procedure, which I haven't seen in SICP, and in the book's Index, it only lists it one time, and it turns out to be a footnote.
Some examples of usage are basically every answer to this question: Going from Curry-0, 1, 2, to ...n.
I am interested in how apply works, and I wonder if some examples are available. How could the apply procedure be re-written into another function, such as rewriting map like this?
#lang sicp
(define (map func sequence)
(if (null? sequence) nil
(cons (func (car sequence)) (map func (cdr sequence)))))
It seems maybe it just does a function call with the first argument? Something like:
(apply list '(1 2 3 4 5)) ; --> (list 1 2 3 4 5)
(apply + '(1 2 3)) ; --> (+ 1 2 3)
So maybe something similar to this in Python?
>>> args=[1,2,3]
>>> func='max'
>>> getattr(__builtins__, func)(*args)
3
apply is used when you want to call a function with a dynamic number of arguments.
Your map function only allows you to call functions that take exactly one argument. You can use apply to map functions with different numbers of arguments, using a variable number of lists.
(define (map func . sequences)
(if (null? (car sequences))
'()
(cons (apply func (map car sequences))
(apply map func (map cdr sequences)))))
(map + '(1 2 3) '(4 5 6))
;; Output: (5 7 9)
You asked to see how apply could be coded, not how it can be used.
It can be coded as
#lang sicp
; (define (appl f xs) ; #lang racket
; (eval
; (cons f (map (lambda (x) (list 'quote x)) xs))))
(define (appl f xs) ; #lang r5rs, sicp
(eval
(cons f (map (lambda (x) (list 'quote x))
xs))
(null-environment 5)))
Trying it out in Racket under #lang sicp:
> (display (appl list '(1 2 3 4 5)))
(1 2 3 4 5)
> (display ( list 1 2 3 4 5 ))
(1 2 3 4 5)
> (appl + (list (+ 1 2) 3))
6
> ( + (+ 1 2) 3 )
6
> (display (appl map (cons list '((1 2 3) (10 20 30)))))
((1 10) (2 20) (3 30))
> (display ( map list '(1 2 3) '(10 20 30) ))
((1 10) (2 20) (3 30))
Here's the link to the docs about eval.
It requires an environment as the second argument, so we supply it with (null-environment 5) which just returns an empty environment, it looks like it. We don't actually need any environment here, as the evaluation of the arguments has already been done at that point.
I have the following function to scale a (2-col) matrix:
(define (scale-matrix matrix scale)
(map (lambda (row)
(list (* scale (car row))
(* scale (cadr row))))
matrix))
(scale-matrix '((1 2) (3 4)) 3)
; ((3 6) (9 12))
However, I'm having a hard time converting it into an inline curried call. Here is where I am at so far:
(map
(lambda (row)
(lambda (scale)
(list (* scale (car row))
(* scale (cadr row)))))
'((1 2) (3 4)))
; (#<procedure:...esktop/sicp/021.scm:54:3> #<procedure:...esktop/sicp/021.scm:54:3>)
What would be the proper way to pass both the scale and matrix here? In other words, where to put the 3 ?
The closest I've gotten thus far is to sort of hardocde the 3 in there:
(map
(lambda (row)
((lambda (scale)
; 3 hardcoded, nil placeholder. How to actually 'call' with 3?
(list (* 3 (car row)) (* 3 (cadr row)))) nil))
'((1 2) (3 4)))
Or, is it required that I pass the scale as the first argument? It seems to work that way, though not sure if that's required (or even why that works!)
((lambda (scale)
(map (lambda (row)
(list (* scale (car row)) (* scale (cadr row))))
'((1 2) (3 4)))) 3)
; ((3 6) (9 12))
Your last attempt is correct: you'll have to extract the lambda used for scale outside the map call. You can't modify the innermost lambda, map expects a lambda with one argument, you can't pass a nested lambda there. So if you want to curry the scale there's no option but:
((lambda (scale)
(map (lambda (row)
(list (* scale (car row))
(* scale (cadr row))))
'((1 2) (3 4))))
3)
=> '((3 6) (9 12))
As to why it works, it's like any other anonymous lambda call. Let's see a simpler example, this:
(define (add1 n)
(+ 1 n))
(add1 41)
When evaluated is equivalent to this:
((lambda (n)
(+ 1 n))
41)
Incidentally, the above is also how a let is expanded and evaluated:
(let ((n 41))
(+ 1 n))
So you could also inline the code as shown below; but why do you want to curry it, anyway? the original code with the procedure is just right.
(let ((scale 3))
(map (lambda (row)
(list (* scale (car row))
(* scale (cadr row))))
'((1 2) (3 4))))
I am new to Racket programming, and I am working on a problem where I am given a list of numbers, and I have to make a list of list, of different combinations of numbers.
Something like :
(combine (list 3 1 2)) => (list
(list 31 32 33)
(list 21 22 3)
(list 11 12 13))
How do I achieve this in Racket?
Thank You
Just play with iterators and comprehension to implement a cartesian product that returns lists of lists, and a bit of arithmetic to obtain the right results. Try this:
(for/list ((i '(3 2 1)))
(for/list ((j '(1 2 3)))
(+ (* 10 i) j)))
Or alternatively, using more standard constructs (available in student languages):
(map (lambda (i)
(map (lambda (j)
(+ (* 10 i) j))
'(1 2 3)))
'(3 2 1))
Either way, it works as expected:
=> '((31 32 33) (21 22 23) (11 12 13))
I am new to racket and scheme and I am attempting to map the combination of a list to the plus funtion which take each combination of the list and add them together like follows:
;The returned combinations
((1 3) (2 3) (1 4) (2 4) (3 4) (1 5) (2 5) (3 5) (4 5) (1 6) (2 6) (3 6) (4 6) (5 6) (1 2) (2 2) (3 2) (4 2) (5 2) (6 2))
; expected results
((2) (5) (5).....)
Unfortunately I am receiving the contract violation expected error from the following code:
;list of numbers
(define l(list 1 2 3 4 5 6 2))
(define (plus l)
(+(car l)(cdr l)))
(map (plus(combinations l 2)))
There are a couple of additional issues with your code, besides the error pointed out by #DanD. This should fix them:
(define lst (list 1 2 3 4 5 6 2))
(define (plus lst)
(list (+ (car lst) (cadr lst))))
(map plus (combinations lst 2))
It's not a good idea to call a variable l, at first sight I thought it was a 1. Better call it lst (not list, please - that's a built-in procedure)
In the expected output, weren't you supposed to produce a list of lists? add a call to list to plus
You're not passing plus in the way that map expects it
Do notice the proper way to indent and format your code, it'll help you in finding bugs
You want (cadr l). Not (cdr l) in your plus function:
(define (plus l)
(+ (car l) (cadr l)))
Where x is (cons 1 (cons 2 '())):
(car x) => 1
(cdr x) => (cons 2 '())
(cadr x) == (car (cdr x)) => 2