Related
So I'm trying to define a function apply_C :: "('a multiset ⇒ 'a option) ⇒ 'a multiset ⇒ 'a multiset"
It takes in a function C that may convert an 'a multiset into a single element of type 'a. Here we assume that each element in the domain of C is pairwise mutually exclusive and not the empty multiset (I already have another function that checks these things). apply will also take another multiset inp. What I'd like the function to do is check if there is at least one element in the domain of C that is completely contained in inp. If this is the case, then perform a set difference inp - s where s is the element in the domain of C and add the element the (C s) into this resulting multiset. Afterwards, keep running the function until there are no more elements in the domain of C that are completely contained in the given inp multiset.
What I tried was the following:
fun apply_C :: "('a multiset ⇒ 'a option) ⇒ 'a multiset ⇒ 'a multiset" where
"apply_C C inp = (if ∃s ∈ (domain C). s ⊆# inp then apply_C C (add_mset (the (C s)) (inp - s)) else inp)"
However, I get this error:
Variable "s" occurs on right hand side only:
⋀C inp s.
apply_C C inp =
(if ∃s∈domain C. s ⊆# inp
then apply_C C
(add_mset (the (C s)) (inp - s))
else inp)
I have been thinking about this problem for days now, and I haven't been able to find a way to implement this functionality in Isabelle. Could I please have some help?
After thinking more about it, I don't believe there is a simple solutions for that Isabelle.
Do you need that?
I have not said why you want that. Maybe you can reduce your assumptions? Do you really need a function to calculate the result?
How to express the definition?
I would use an inductive predicate that express one step of rewriting and prove that the solution is unique. Something along:
context
fixes C :: ‹'a multiset ⇒ 'a option›
begin
inductive apply_CI where
‹apply_CI (M + M') (add_mset (the (C M)) M')›
if ‹M ∈ dom C›
context
assumes
distinct: ‹⋀a b. a ∈ dom C ⟹ b ∈ dom C ⟹ a ≠ b ⟹ a ∩# b = {#}› and
strictly_smaller: ‹⋀a b. a ∈ dom C ⟹ size a > 1›
begin
lemma apply_CI_determ:
assumes
‹apply_CI⇧*⇧* M M⇩1› and
‹apply_CI⇧*⇧* M M⇩2› and
‹⋀M⇩3. ¬apply_CI M⇩1 M⇩3›
‹⋀M⇩3. ¬apply_CI M⇩2 M⇩3›
shows ‹M⇩1 = M⇩2›
sorry
lemma apply_CI_smaller:
‹apply_CI M M' ⟹ size M' ≤ size M›
apply (induction rule: apply_CI.induct)
subgoal for M M'
using strictly_smaller[of M]
by auto
done
lemma wf_apply_CI:
‹wf {(x, y). apply_CI y x}›
(*trivial but very annoying because not enough useful lemmas on wf*)
sorry
end
end
I have no clue how to prove apply_CI_determ (no idea if the conditions I wrote down are sufficient or not), but I did spend much thinking about it.
After that you can define your definitions with:
definition apply_C where
‹apply_C M = (SOME M'. apply_CI⇧*⇧* M M' ∧ (∀M⇩3. ¬apply_CI M' M⇩3))›
and prove the property in your definition.
How to execute it
I don't see how to write an executable function on multisets directly. The problem you face is that one step of apply_C is nondeterministic.
If you can use lists instead of multisets, you get an order on the elements for free and you can use subseqs that gives you all possible subsets. Rewrite using the first element in subseqs that is in the domain of C. Iterate as long as there is any possible rewriting.
Link that to the inductive predicate to prove termination and that it calculates the right thing.
Remark that in general you cannot extract a list out of a multiset, but it is possible to do so in some cases (e.g., if you have a linorder over 'a).
I'm new to functional programming and I'm trying to implement a basic algorithm using OCAML for course that I'm following currently.
I'm trying to implement the following algorithm :
Entries :
- E : a non-empty set of integers
- s : an integer
- d : a positive float different of 0
Output :
- T : a set of integers included into E
m <- min(E)
T <- {m}
FOR EACH e ∈ sort_ascending(E \ {m}) DO
IF e > (1+d)m AND e <= s THEN
T <- T U {e}
m <- e
RETURN T
let f = fun (l: int list) (s: int) (d: float) ->
List.fold_left (fun acc x -> if ... then (list_union acc [x]) else acc)
[(list_min l)] (list_sort_ascending l) ;;
So far, this is what I have, but I don't know how to handle the modification of the "m" variable mentioned in the algorithm... So I need help to understand what is the best way to implement the algorithm, maybe I'm not gone in the right direction.
Thanks by advance to anyone who will take time to help me !
The basic trick of functional programming is that although you can't modify the values of any variables, you can call a function with different arguments. In the initial stages of switching away from imperative ways of thinking, you can imagine making every variable you want to modify into the parameters of your function. To modify the variables, you call the function recursively with the desired new values.
This technique will work for "modifying" the variable m. Think of m as a function parameter instead.
You are already using this technique with acc. Each call inside the fold gets the old value of acc and returns the new value, which is then passed to the function again. You might imagine having both acc and m as parameters of this inner function.
Assuming list_min is defined you should think the problem methodically. Let's say you represent a set with a list. Your function takes this set and some arguments and returns a subset of the original set, given the elements meet certain conditions.
Now, when I read this for the first time, List.filter automatically came to my mind.
List.filter : ('a -> bool) -> 'a list -> 'a list
But you wanted to modify the m so this wouldn't be useful. It's important to know when you can use library functions and when you really need to create your own functions from scratch. You could clearly use filter while handling m as a reference but it wouldn't be the functional way.
First let's focus on your predicate:
fun s d m e -> (float e) > (1. +. d)*.(float m) && (e <= s)
Note that +. and *. are the plus and product functions for floats, and float is a function that casts an int to float.
Let's say the function predicate is that predicate I just mentioned.
Now, this is also a matter of opinion. In my experience I wouldn't use fold_left just because it's just complicated and not necessary.
So let's begin with my idea of the code:
let m = list_min l;;
So this is the initial m
Then I will define an auxiliary function that reads the m as an argument, with l as your original set, and s, d and m the variables you used in your original imperative code.
let rec f' l s d m =
match l with
| [] -> []
| x :: xs -> if (predicate s d m x) then begin
x :: (f' xs s d x)
end
else
f' xs s d m in
f' l s d m
Then for each element of your set, you check if it satisfies the predicate, and if it does, you call the function again but you replace the value of m with x.
Finally you could just call f' from a function f:
let f (l: int list) (s: int) (d: float) =
let m = list_min l in
f' l s d m
Be careful when creating a function like your list_min, what would happen if the list was empty? Normally you would use the Option type to handle those cases but you assumed you're dealing with a non-empty set so that's great.
When doing functional programming it's important to think functional. Pattern matching is super recommended, while pointers/references should be minimal. I hope this is useful. Contact me if you any other doubt or recommendation.
I was wondering if any algorithm of that kind does exist, I don't have the slightest idea on how to program it...
For exemple if you give it [1;5;7]
it should returns [(1,5);(1,7);(5,1);(5,7);(7,1);(7,5)]
I don't want to use any for loop.
Do you have any clue on how to achieve this ?
You have two cases: list is empty -> return empty list; list is not empty -> take first element x, for each element y yield (x, y) and make a recursive call on the tail of the list. Haskell:
pairs :: [a] -> [(a, a)]
pairs [] = []
pairs (x:xs) = [(x, x') | x' <- xs] ++ pairs xs
--*Main> pairs [1..10]
--[(1,2),(1,3),(1,4),(1,5),(1,6),(1,7),(1,8),(1,9),(1,10),(2,3),(2,4),(2,5),(2,6),(2,7),(2,8),(2,9),(2,10),(3,4),(3,5),(3,6),(3,7),(3,8),(3,9),(3,10),(4,5),(4,6),(4,7),(4,8),(4,9),(4,10),(5,6),(5,7),(5,8),(5,9),(5,10),(6,7),(6,8),(6,9),(6,10),(7,8),(7,9),(7,10),(8,9),(8,10),(9,10)]
I don't know is the algorithm used is a recursive one or not, but what are you asking for is the itertools.combinations('ABCD', 2) method from Python and I suppose the same thing is implemented in other programming language, so you can probably use the native method.
But if you need to write your own, then you can take a look at Algorithm to return all combinations of k elements from n (on this site) for some ideas
There is a basic monad question in here, unrelated to Repa, plus several Repa-specific questions.
I am working on a library using Repa3. I am having trouble getting efficient parallel code. If I make my functions return delayed arrays, I get excruciatingly slow code that scales very well up to 8 cores. This code takes over 20GB of memory per the GHC profiler, and runs several orders of magnitude slower than the basic Haskell unboxed vectors.
Alternatively, if I make all of my functions return Unboxed manifest arrays (still attempting to use fusion within the functions, for example when I do a 'map'), I get MUCH faster code (still slower than using Haskell unboxed vectors) that doesn't scale at all, and in fact tends to get slightly slower with more cores.
Based on the FFT example code in Repa-Algorithms, it seems the correct approach is to always return manifest arrays. Is there ever a case where I should be returning delayed arrays?
The FFT code also makes plentiful use of the 'now' function. However, I get a type error when I try to use it in my code:
type Arr t r = Array t DIM1 r
data CycRingRepa m r = CRTBasis (Arr U r)
| PowBasis (Arr U r)
fromArray :: forall m r t. (BaseRing m r, Unbox r, Repr t r) => Arr t r -> CycRingRepa m r
fromArray =
let mval = reflectNum (Proxy::Proxy m)
in \x ->
let sh:.n = extent x
in assert (mval == 2*n) PowBasis $ now $ computeUnboxedP $ bitrev x
The code compiles fine without the 'now'. With the 'now', I get the following error:
Couldn't match type r' withArray U (Z :. Int) r'
`r' is a rigid type variable bound by
the type signature for
fromArray :: (BaseRing m r, Unbox r, Repr t r) =>
Arr t r -> CycRingRepa m r
at C:\Users\crockeea\Documents\Code\LatticeLib\CycRingRepa.hs:50:1
Expected type: CycRingRepa m r
Actual type: CycRingRepa m (Array U DIM1 r)
I don't think this is my problem. It would be helpful if someone could explain the how the Monad works in 'now'. By my best estimation, the monad seems to be creating a 'Arr U (Arr U r)'. I'm expecting a 'Arr U r', which would then match the data constructor pattern. What is going on and how do I fix this?
The type signatures are:
computeUnboxedP :: Fill r1 U sh e => Array r1 sh e -> Array U sh e
now :: (Shape sh, Repr r e, Monad m) => Array r sh e -> m (Array r sh e)
It would be helpful to have a better idea of when it is appropriate to use 'now'.
A couple other Repa questions:
Should I explicitly call computeUnboxedP (as in the FFT example code), or should I use the more general computeP (because the unbox part is inferred by my data type)?
Should I store delayed or manifest arrays in the data type CycRingRepa?
Eventually I would also like this code to work with Haskell Integers. Will this require me to write new code that uses something other than U arrays, or could I write polymorphic code that creates U arrays for unbox types and some other array for Integers/boxed types?
I realize there are a lot of questions in here, and I appreciate any/all answers!
Here's the source code for now:
now arr = do
arr `deepSeqArray` return ()
return arr
So it's really just a monadic version of deepSeqArray. You can use either of these to force evaluation, rather than hanging on to a thunk. This "evalulation" is different than the "computation" forced when computeP is called.
In your code, now doesn't apply, since you're not in a monad. But in this context deepSeqArray wouldn't help either. Consider this situation:
x :: Array U Int Double
x = ...
y :: Array U Int Double
y = computeUnboxedP $ map f x
Since y refers to x, we'd like to be sure x is computed before starting to compute y. If not, the available work won't be distributed correctly among the gang of threads. To get this to work out, it's better to write y as
y = deepSeqArray x . computeUnboxedP $ map f x
Now, for a delayed array, we have
deepSeqArray (ADelayed sh f) y = sh `deepSeq` f `seq` y
Rather than computing all the elements, this just makes sure the shape is computed, and reduces f to weak-head normal form.
As for manifest vs delayed arrays, there are certainly time delayed arrays are preferable.
multiplyMM arr brr
= [arr, brr] `deepSeqArrays`
A.sumP (A.zipWith (*) arrRepl brrRepl)
where trr = computeUnboxedP $ transpose2D brr
arrRepl = trr `deepSeqArray` A.extend (Z :. All :. colsB :. All) arr
brrRepl = trr `deepSeqArray` A.extend (Z :. rowsA :. All :. All) trr
(Z :. _ :. rowsA) = extent arr
(Z :. colsB :. _ ) = extent brr
Here "extend" generates a new array by copying the values across some set of new dimensions. In particular, this means that
arrRepl ! (Z :. i :. j :. k) == arrRepl ! (Z :. i :. j' :. k)
Thankfully, extend produces a delayed array, since it would be a waste to go through the trouble of all this copying.
Delayed arrays also allow the possiblity of fusion, which is impossible if the array is manifest.
Finally, computeUnboxedP is just computeP with a specialized type. Giving computeUnboxedP explicitly might allow GHC to optimize better, and makes the code a little clearer.
Repa 3.1 no longer requires the explict use of now. The parallel computation functions are all monadic, and automatically apply deepSeqArray to their results. The repa-examples package also contains a new implementation of matrix multiply that demonstrates their use.
I'm studying the mtl library and trying to do some MonadTransformers of my own. I was checking the Control.Monad.State.StateT declaration, and across all the code, I see this syntax:
execStateT :: (Monad m) => StateT s m a -> s -> m s
execStateT m s = do
~(_, s') <- runStateT m s
return s'
What does this ~ operand mean?
This is the notation for a lazy pattern in Haskell. I can't say that I'm familiar with it but from here:
It is called a lazy pattern, and has
the form ~pat. Lazy patterns are
irrefutable: matching a value v
against ~pat always succeeds,
regardless of pat. Operationally
speaking, if an identifier in pat is
later "used" on the right-hand-side,
it will be bound to that portion of
the value that would result if v were
to successfully match pat, and ⊥
otherwise.
Also, this section may be useful.
For a normal pattern match, the value that should be matched needs to be evaluated, so that it can be compared against the pattern.
~ denotes a lazy pattern match: It is just assumed that the value will match the pattern. The match is then only done later, if the value of a matched variable is actually used.
It's equivalent to
execStateT m s = do
r <- runStateT m s
return (snd r)
or
execStateT m s =
runStateT m s >>= return . snd