I'm sorry if this question has been answered before, but I've looked around and I can't really understand the explanation as to why I'm getting this error.
From what I understand I'm asking if a statement is true and then if it is I'm asking it to return an expression. And apparently I'm not allowed to get #t/#f answers and expressions? I'm not sure. Could someone help me understand.
This is my code.
(define (piecewise x)
(define pi 3.142)
(cond
((> x (* pi 2)) (- x (* 2 pi)))
((or ( > x (* pi -1) (= x ( * -1 pi)))) (sin x))
((or ( < x (* 2 pi)) (= x (* 2 pi))) (sin x))
(else (- (- 1 x) pi))))
If I may, if we take all of the suggestions and use them to simplify the code a bit, we might get the following:
(define (piecewise x)
(let* ((pi 3.142)
(tau (* 2 pi)))
(cond
((> x tau)
(- x tau))
((or (>= x (- pi))
(<= x tau))
(sin x))
(else (+ x pi)))))
This runs without errors under both Racket and Guile. Whether it computes the function correctly, only the OP can say for certain.
Related
Can I define a variable inside a procedure? It seems to me I can only define another procedure inside procedures. I came up with this question while doing exercises from SICP and (rand) is not what I want because it generates two different random numbers, while I want a same number in those two positions.
(define (try x)
(define (rand) (+ 1 (random (- x 1))))
(= (rand) (expmod (rand) x x)))
I have included codes of expmod below.
(define % remainder)
(define (square a) (* a a))
(define (even? a) (= (% a 2) 0) )
(define (expmod base pow mod)
(cond
((= pow 0)
1)
((even? pow)
(% (square (expmod base (/ pow 2) mod)) mod))
(else
(% (* base (expmod base (- pow 1) mod) ) mod))))
Yes, of course you can. In particular
(define (x ...) ...)
is just a shorthand for
(define x (lambda (...) ...))
So you are already defining a variable: rand, whose value is a function.
What you probably want is:
(define (try x)
(define rand (+ 1 (random (- x 1)))
(= rand (expmod rand x x)))
Which in turn is the same as
(define (try x)
(let ([rand (+ 1 (random (- x 1)))])
(= rand (expmod rand x x))))
Yes, you can.
(define (try x)
(define rand (+ 1 (random (- x 1))))
(= rand (expmod rand x x)))
You also have to know that = and try also are variables and they evaluate to procedures. Usually a procedure is created like this:
(define double (lambda (n) (+ n n)))
However there is a short way to write itL
(define (double n) (+ n n))
Now look at your code. Aren't you creating a variable rand to a lambda with the short syntax?
(define (rand) (+ 1 (random (- x 1))))
evaluating rand should give you some sort of procedure output like #<procedure: rand> and calling it (rand) will execute (+ 1 (random (- x 1). These kind of procedures are called thunks and are typically used to delay evaluation.
One thing you cannot do in Scheme is to define a top level variable from a procedure. eg.
(define (make-test v)
(define test v))
(make-test 5)
(displayln test) ; unbound variable
The reason is that in a procedure it will always make a local binding that only lives inside that closure. One could define a top level variable and then set it:
(define test 0) ; make a top level variable
(define (update-test v)
;; since no other that top level is named test,
;; that is the binding this is updating.
(set! test v))
(update-test 5)
(display test) : prints 5
(define (try x)
(define rand (+ 1 (random (- x 1))))
(= (rand) (expmod (rand) x x)))
(define (try x)
(let ((rand (+ 1 (random (- x 1)))))
(= (rand) (expmod (rand) x x))))
Either of these works.
I am trying to determine the number of marbles that fall within a given circle (radius 1) given that they have random x and y coordinates.
My overall goal is to find an approximate value for pi by using monte carlo sampling by multiplying by 4 the (number of marbles within the circle)/(total number of marbles).
I intended for my function to count the number of marbles within the circle, but I am having trouble following why it does not work. Any help on following the function here would be appreciated.
Please comment if my above request for help is unclear.
(define(monte-carlo-sampling n)
(let ((x (- (* 2 (random)) 1))
(y (- (* 2 (random)) 1)))
(cond((= 0 n)
* 4 (/ monte-carlo-sampling(+ n 1) n)
((> 1 n)
(cond((< 1 (sqrt(+ (square x) (square y))) (+ 1 (monte-carlo-sampling(- n 1)))))
((> 1 (sqrt(+ (square x) (square y))) (monte-carlo-sampling(- n 1))))
)))))
Your parentheses are all messed up, and your argument order for < is wrong. Here's how the code should look like after it's corrected:
(define (monte-carlo-sampling n)
(let ((x (- (* 2 (random)) 1))
(y (- (* 2 (random)) 1)))
(cond ((= n 0)
0)
(else
(cond ((< (sqrt (+ (square x) (square y))) 1)
(+ 1 (monte-carlo-sampling (- n 1))))
(else
(monte-carlo-sampling (- n 1))))))))
This returns the number of hits. You'd have to convert the number of hits into a pi estimate using an outer function, such as:
(define (estimate-pi n)
(* 4 (/ (monte-carlo-sampling n) n)))
Here's how I'd write the whole thing, if it were up to me:
(define (estimate-pi n)
(let loop ((i 0)
(hits 0))
(cond ((>= i n)
(* 4 (/ hits n)))
((<= (hypot (sub1 (* 2 (random)))
(sub1 (* 2 (random)))) 1)
(loop (add1 i) (add1 hits)))
(else
(loop (add1 i) hits)))))
(Tested on Racket, using the definition of hypot I gave in my last answer. If you're not using Racket, you have to change add1 and sub1 to something appropriate.)
I wrote a solution to this problem at my blog; the inner function is called sand because I was throwing grains of sand instead of marbles:
(define (pi n)
(define (sand?) (< (+ (square (rand)) (square (rand))) 1))
(do ((i 0 (+ i 1)) (p 0 (+ p (if (sand?) 1 0))))
((= i n) (exact->inexact (* 4 p (/ n))))))
This converges very slowly; after a hundred thousand iterations I had 3.14188. The blog entry also discusses a method for estimating pi developed by Archimedes over two hundred years before Christ that converges very quickly, with 27 iterations taking us to the bound of double-precision arithmetic.
Here's a general method of doing monte-carlo it accepts as arguments the number of iterations, and a thunk (procedure with no arguments) that should return #t or #f which is the experiment to be run each iteration
(define (monte-carlo trials experiment)
(define (iter trials-remaining trials-passed)
(cond ((= trials-remaining 0)
(/ trials-passed trials))
((experiment)
(iter (- trials-remaining 1) (+ trials-passed 1)))
(else
(iter (- trials-remaining 1) trials-passed))))
(iter trials 0))
Now it's just a mater of writing the specific experiment
You could write in your experiment where experiment is invoked in monte-carlo, but abstracting here gives you a much more flexible and comprehensible function. If you make a function do too many things at once it becomes hard to reason about and debug.
(define (marble-experiment)
(let ((x ...) ;;assuming you can come up with
(y ...)) ;;a way to get a random x between 0 and 1
;;with sufficient granularity for your estimate)
(< (sqrt (+ (* x x) (* y y))) 1)))
(define pi-estimate
(* 4 (monte-carlo 1000 marble-experiment)))
I am currently trying to learn Scheme to run FDTD simulations and I am having trouble building a Gaussian function in 2 dimensions.
In a forum I found this possibility for 1D:
(define ( (gaussx sigma) x)
(exp (- (/ (vector3-dot x x) (* 2 sigma sigma)))))
which if I understood currying correctly is equivalent to:
(define (gauss sigma)
(lambda(x)
(exp (- (/ (vector3-dot x x) (* 2 sigma sigma))))))
Now I would like the function to be gaussian along both x and y directions but I don't understand why this doesn't work:
(define (gauss sigma)
(lambda(x)
(lambda(y)
(exp (- (/ (+ (vector3-dot y y) (vector3-dot x x)) (* 2 sigma sigma))))
When I call
(gauss 1)
I get the following message:
ERROR: Wrong type (expecting real number): # <procedure> #f (y)
Does someone see what I am doing wrong? I also tried other solutions but I don't seem to get the logics here...
Thanks a lot for your help!
Best regards
Mei
I don't think there's need for a double currying here, try this:
(define (gauss sigma)
(lambda (x y)
(exp (- (/ (+ (vector3-dot y y) (vector3-dot x x)) (* 2 sigma sigma))))))
Call it like this:
(define gauss-1 (gauss 1))
(gauss-1 some-x some-y)
But if you definitely need the double currying, this should work:
(define (gauss sigma)
(lambda (x)
(lambda (y)
(exp (- (/ (+ (vector3-dot y y) (vector3-dot x x)) (* 2 sigma sigma)))))))
Using it like this:
(define gauss-1 (gauss 1))
((gauss-1 some-x) some-y)
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.
I'm trying to learn scheme via SICP. Exercise 1.3 reads as follow: Define a procedure that takes three numbers as arguments and returns the sum of the squares of the two larger numbers. Please comment on how I can improve my solution.
(define (big x y)
(if (> x y) x y))
(define (p a b c)
(cond ((> a b) (+ (square a) (square (big b c))))
(else (+ (square b) (square (big a c))))))
Using only the concepts presented at that point of the book, I would do it:
(define (square x) (* x x))
(define (sum-of-squares x y) (+ (square x) (square y)))
(define (min x y) (if (< x y) x y))
(define (max x y) (if (> x y) x y))
(define (sum-squares-2-biggest x y z)
(sum-of-squares (max x y) (max z (min x y))))
big is called max. Use standard library functionality when it's there.
My approach is different. Rather than lots of tests, I simply add the squares of all three, then subtract the square of the smallest one.
(define (exercise1.3 a b c)
(let ((smallest (min a b c))
(square (lambda (x) (* x x))))
(+ (square a) (square b) (square c) (- (square smallest)))))
Whether you prefer this approach, or a bunch of if tests, is up to you, of course.
Alternative implementation using SRFI 95:
(define (exercise1.3 . args)
(let ((sorted (sort! args >))
(square (lambda (x) (* x x))))
(+ (square (car sorted)) (square (cadr sorted)))))
As above, but as a one-liner (thanks synx # freenode #scheme); also requires SRFI 1 and SRFI 26:
(define (exercise1.3 . args)
(apply + (map! (cut expt <> 2) (take! (sort! args >) 2))))
What about something like this?
(define (p a b c)
(if (> a b)
(if (> b c)
(+ (square a) (square b))
(+ (square a) (square c)))
(if (> a c)
(+ (square a) (square b))
(+ (square b) (square c)))))
I did it with the following code, which uses the built-in min, max, and square procedures. They're simple enough to implement using only what's been introduced in the text up to that point.
(define (sum-of-highest-squares x y z)
(+ (square (max x y))
(square (max (min x y) z))))
Using only the concepts introduced up to that point of the text, which I think is rather important, here is a different solution:
(define (smallest-of-three a b c)
(if (< a b)
(if (< a c) a c)
(if (< b c) b c)))
(define (square a)
(* a a))
(define (sum-of-squares-largest a b c)
(+ (square a)
(square b)
(square c)
(- (square (smallest-of-three a b c)))))
(define (sum-sqr x y)
(+ (square x) (square y)))
(define (sum-squares-2-of-3 x y z)
(cond ((and (<= x y) (<= x z)) (sum-sqr y z))
((and (<= y x) (<= y z)) (sum-sqr x z))
((and (<= z x) (<= z y)) (sum-sqr x y))))
(define (f a b c)
(if (= a (min a b c))
(+ (* b b) (* c c))
(f b c a)))
Looks ok to me, is there anything specific you want to improve on?
You could do something like:
(define (max2 . l)
(lambda ()
(let ((a (apply max l)))
(values a (apply max (remv a l))))))
(define (q a b c)
(call-with-values (max2 a b c)
(lambda (a b)
(+ (* a a) (* b b)))))
(define (skip-min . l)
(lambda ()
(apply values (remv (apply min l) l))))
(define (p a b c)
(call-with-values (skip-min a b c)
(lambda (a b)
(+ (* a a) (* b b)))))
And this (proc p) can be easily converted to handle any number of arguments.
With Scott Hoffman's and some irc help I corrected my faulty code, here it is
(define (p a b c)
(cond ((> a b)
(cond ((> b c)
(+ (square a) (square b)))
(else (+ (square a) (square c)))))
(else
(cond ((> a c)
(+ (square b) (square a))))
(+ (square b) (square c)))))
You can also sort the list and add the squares of the first and second element of the sorted list:
(require (lib "list.ss")) ;; I use PLT Scheme
(define (exercise-1-3 a b c)
(let* [(sorted-list (sort (list a b c) >))
(x (first sorted-list))
(y (second sorted-list))]
(+ (* x x) (* y y))))
Here's yet another way to do it:
#!/usr/bin/env mzscheme
#lang scheme/load
(module ex-1.3 scheme/base
(define (ex-1.3 a b c)
(let* ((square (lambda (x) (* x x)))
(p (lambda (a b c) (+ (square a) (square (if (> b c) b c))))))
(if (> a b) (p a b c) (p b a c))))
(require scheme/contract)
(provide/contract [ex-1.3 (-> number? number? number? number?)]))
;; tests
(module ex-1.3/test scheme/base
(require (planet "test.ss" ("schematics" "schemeunit.plt" 2))
(planet "text-ui.ss" ("schematics" "schemeunit.plt" 2)))
(require 'ex-1.3)
(test/text-ui
(test-suite
"ex-1.3"
(test-equal? "1 2 3" (ex-1.3 1 2 3) 13)
(test-equal? "2 1 3" (ex-1.3 2 1 3) 13)
(test-equal? "2 1. 3.5" (ex-1.3 2 1. 3.5) 16.25)
(test-equal? "-2 -10. 3.5" (ex-1.3 -2 -10. 3.5) 16.25)
(test-exn "2+1i 0 0" exn:fail:contract? (lambda () (ex-1.3 2+1i 0 0)))
(test-equal? "all equal" (ex-1.3 3 3 3) 18))))
(require 'ex-1.3/test)
Example:
$ mzscheme ex-1.3.ss
6 success(es) 0 failure(s) 0 error(s) 6 test(s) run
0
It's nice to see how other people have solved this problem. This was my solution:
(define (isGreater? x y z)
(if (and (> x z) (> y z))
(+ (square x) (square y))
0))
(define (sumLarger x y z)
(if (= (isGreater? x y z) 0)
(sumLarger y z x)
(isGreater? x y z)))
I solved it by iteration, but I like ashitaka's and the (+ (square (max x y)) (square (max (min x y) z))) solutions better, since in my version, if z is the smallest number, isGreater? is called twice, creating an unnecessarily slow and circuitous procedure.
(define (sum a b) (+ a b))
(define (square a) (* a a))
(define (greater a b )
( if (< a b) b a))
(define (smaller a b )
( if (< a b) a b))
(define (sumOfSquare a b)
(sum (square a) (square b)))
(define (sumOfSquareOfGreaterNumbers a b c)
(sumOfSquare (greater a b) (greater (smaller a b) c)))
I've had a go:
(define (procedure a b c)
(let ((y (sort (list a b c) >)) (square (lambda (x) (* x x))))
(+ (square (first y)) (square(second y)))))
;exercise 1.3
(define (sum-square-of-max a b c)
(+ (if (> a b) (* a a) (* b b))
(if (> b c) (* b b) (* c c))))
I think this is the smallest and most efficient way:
(define (square-sum-larger a b c)
(+
(square (max a b))
(square (max (min a b) c))))
Below is the solution that I came up with. I find it easier to reason about a solution when the code is decomposed into small functions.
; Exercise 1.3
(define (sum-square-largest a b c)
(+ (square (greatest a b))
(square (greatest (least a b) c))))
(define (greatest a b)
(cond (( > a b) a)
(( < a b) b)))
(define (least a b)
(cond ((> a b) b)
((< a b) a)))
(define (square a)
(* a a))