Related
Does anyone have source code implementing this algorithm for finding cycles, preferably in a modern statically-typed language like SML, OCaml, Haskell, F#, Scala?
The following is a Java implementation of the algorithm you need:
https://github.com/1123/johnson. Java running on the JVM, you can also use it from Scala.
I struggled on this too, I came up with this page that lists some implementations for Johnson algorithm (the one looking for elementary circuits) in Java and OCaml. The author of the blog post fixed some issues in the original implementations, on the same page I linked before there are also the fixed versions of both implementations.
You can find it here as part of jgrapht implementation.
Will C++ and Boost Graph Library work for you?
Are there any implementations of a purely functional soft heap data structure in any language?
A quick search of the ACM digital library indicates that Chazelle's soft heap structure, despite being very interesting, has received relatively little study, and that persistent/functional soft heaps are thus an open research topic.
So I would say no, there are no known approaches for persistent soft heaps. Describing one would be a publishable result (it may boil down to adding copying where you would mutate the original structure, and identifying sharing opportunities).
The Haim Kaplan, Robert E. Tarjan, Uri Zwick paper describes but doesn't fully analyze purely functional variant. It can be found at:
http://phdtree.org/pdf/44150182-soft-heaps-simplified/
This project has Java code that might not be too terrible to translate to Scala... and then make it more functional.
https://github.com/lowasser/SoftSelect
But as noted previously the Purely Functional Data Structures book has Haskell code that may be easier to adopt to Soft Heaps, especially given the example Java code.
https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rwh/theses/okasaki.pdf
Does anyone know what is the worst possible asymptotic slowdown that can happen when programming purely functionally as opposed to imperatively (i.e. allowing side-effects)?
Clarification from comment by itowlson: is there any problem for which the best known non-destructive algorithm is asymptotically worse than the best known destructive algorithm, and if so by how much?
According to Pippenger [1996], when comparing a Lisp system that is purely functional (and has strict evaluation semantics, not lazy) to one that can mutate data, an algorithm written for the impure Lisp that runs in O(n) can be translated to an algorithm in the pure Lisp that runs in O(n log n) time (based on work by Ben-Amram and Galil [1992] about simulating random access memory using only pointers). Pippenger also establishes that there are algorithms for which that is the best you can do; there are problems which are O(n) in the impure system which are Ω(n log n) in the pure system.
There are a few caveats to be made about this paper. The most significant is that it does not address lazy functional languages, such as Haskell. Bird, Jones and De Moor [1997] demonstrate that the problem constructed by Pippenger can be solved in a lazy functional language in O(n) time, but they do not establish (and as far as I know, no one has) whether or not a lazy functional language can solve all problems in the same asymptotic running time as a language with mutation.
The problem constructed by Pippenger requires Ω(n log n) is specifically constructed to achieve this result, and is not necessarily representative of practical, real-world problems. There are a few restrictions on the problem that are a bit unexpected, but necessary for the proof to work; in particular, the problem requires that results are computed on-line, without being able to access future input, and that the input consists of a sequence of atoms from an unbounded set of possible atoms, rather than a fixed size set. And the paper only establishes (lower bound) results for an impure algorithm of linear running time; for problems that require a greater running time, it is possible that the extra O(log n) factor seen in the linear problem may be able to be "absorbed" in the process of extra operations necessary for algorithms with greater running times. These clarifications and open questions are explored briefly by Ben-Amram [1996].
In practice, many algorithms can be implemented in a pure functional language at the same efficiency as in a language with mutable data structures. For a good reference on techniques to use for implementing purely functional data structures efficiently, see Chris Okasaki's "Purely Functional Data Structures" [Okasaki 1998] (which is an expanded version of his thesis [Okasaki 1996]).
Anyone who needs to implement algorithms on purely-functional data structures should read Okasaki. You can always get at worst an O(log n) slowdown per operation by simulating mutable memory with a balanced binary tree, but in many cases you can do considerably better than that, and Okasaki describes many useful techniques, from amortized techniques to real-time ones that do the amortized work incrementally. Purely functional data structures can be a bit difficult to work with and analyze, but they provide many benefits like referential transparency that are helpful in compiler optimization, in parallel and distributed computing, and in implementation of features like versioning, undo, and rollback.
Note also that all of this discusses only asymptotic running times. Many techniques for implementing purely functional data structures give you a certain amount of constant factor slowdown, due to extra bookkeeping necessary for them to work, and implementation details of the language in question. The benefits of purely functional data structures may outweigh these constant factor slowdowns, so you will generally need to make trade-offs based on the problem in question.
References
Ben-Amram, Amir and Galil, Zvi 1992. "On Pointers versus Addresses" Journal of the ACM, 39(3), pp. 617-648, July 1992
Ben-Amram, Amir 1996. "Notes on Pippenger's Comparison of Pure and Impure Lisp" Unpublished manuscript, DIKU, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Bird, Richard, Jones, Geraint, and De Moor, Oege 1997. "More haste, less speed: lazy versus eager evaluation" Journal of Functional Programming 7, 5 pp. 541–547, September 1997
Okasaki, Chris 1996. "Purely Functional Data Structures" PhD Thesis, Carnegie Mellon University
Okasaki, Chris 1998. "Purely Functional Data Structures" Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Pippenger, Nicholas 1996. "Pure Versus Impure Lisp" ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 104–109, January 1996
There are indeed several algorithms and data structures for which no asymptotically efficient purely functional solution (t.i. one implementable in pure lambda calculus) is known, even with laziness.
The aforementioned union-find
Hash tables
Arrays
Some graph algorithms
...
However, we assume that in "imperative" languages access to memory is O(1) whereas in theory that can't be so asymptotically (i.e. for unbounded problem sizes) and access to memory within a huge dataset is always O(log n), which can be emulated in a functional language.
Also, we must remember that actually all modern functional languages provide mutable data, and Haskell even provides it without sacrificing purity (the ST monad).
This article claims that the known purely functional implementations of the union-find algorithm all have worse asymptotic complexity than the one they publish, which has a purely functional interface but uses mutable data internally.
The fact that other answers claim that there can never be any difference and that for instance, the only "drawback" of purely functional code is that it can be parallelized gives you an idea of the informedness/objectivity of the functional programming community on these matters.
EDIT:
Comments below point out that a biased discussion of the pros and cons of pure functional programming may not come from the “functional programming community”. Good point. Perhaps the advocates I see are just, to cite a comment, “illiterate”.
For instance, I think that this blog post is written by someone who could be said to be representative of the functional programming community, and since it's a list of “points for lazy evaluation”, it would be a good place to mention any drawback that lazy and purely functional programming might have. A good place would have been in place of the following (technically true, but biased to the point of not being funny) dismissal:
If strict a function has O(f(n)) complexity in a strict language then it has complexity O(f(n)) in a lazy language as well. Why worry? :)
With a fixed upper bound on memory usage, there should be no difference.
Proof sketch:
Given a fixed upper bound on memory usage, one should be able to write a virtual machine which executes an imperative instruction set with the same asymptotic complexity as if you were actually executing on that machine. This is so because you can manage the mutable memory as a persistent data structure, giving O(log(n)) read and writes, but with a fixed upper bound on memory usage, you can have a fixed amount of memory, causing these to decay to O(1). Thus the functional implementation can be the imperative version running in the functional implementation of the VM, and so they should both have the same asymptotic complexity.
First of all, is this only possible on algorithms which have no side effects?
Secondly, where could I learn about this process, any good books, articles, etc?
COQ is a proof assistant that produces correct ocaml output. It's pretty complicated though. I never got around to looking at it, but my coworker started and then stopped using it after two months. It was mostly because he wanted to get things done quicker, but if you need to verify an algorithm this might be a good idea.
Here is a course that uses COQ and talks about proving algorithms.
And here is a tutorial about writing academic papers in COQ.
It's generally a lot easier to verify/prove correctness when no side effects are involved, but it's not an absolute requirement.
You might want to look at some of the documentation for a formal specification language like Z. A formal specification isn't a proof itself, but is often the basis for one.
I think that verifying the correctness of an algorithm would be validating its conformance with a specification. There is a branch of theoretical Computer Science called Formal Methods which may be what you are looking for if you need to get as close to proof as you can. From wikipedia,
Formal Methods are a particular kind
of mathematically-based techniques for
the specification, development and
verification of software and hardware
systems
You will be able to find many learning resources and tools from the multitude of links on the linked Wikipedia page and from the Formal Methods wiki.
Usually proofs of correctness are very specific to the algorithm at hand.
However, there are several well known tricks that are used and re-used again. For example, with recursive algorithms you can use loop invariants.
Another common trick is reducing the original problem to a problem for which your algorithm's proof of correctness is easier to show, then either generalizing the easier problem or showing that the easier problem can be translated to a solution to the original problem. Here is a description.
If you have a particular algorithm in mind, you may do better in asking how to construct a proof for that algorithm rather than a general answer.
Buy these books: http://www.amazon.com/Science-Programming-Monographs-Computer/dp/0387964800
The Gries book, Scientific Programming is great stuff. Patient, thorough, complete.
Logic in Computer Science, by Huth and Ryan, gives a reasonably readable overview of modern systems for verifying systems. Once upon a time people talked about proving programs correct - with programming languages which may or may not have side effects. The impression I get from this book and elsewhere is that real applications are different - for instance proving that a protocol is correct, or that a chip's floating point unit can divide correctly, or that a lock-free routine for manipulating linked lists is correct.
ACM Computing Surveys Vol 41 Issue 4 (October 2009) is a special issue on software verification. It looks like you can get to at least one of the papers without an ACM account by searching for "Formal Methods: Practice and Experience".
The tool Frama-C, for which Elazar suggests a demo video in the comments, gives you a specification language, ACSL, for writing function contracts and various analyzers for verifying that a C function satisfies its contract and safety properties such as the absence of run-time errors.
An extended tutorial, ACSL by example, shows examples of actual C algorithms being specified and verified, and separates the side-effect-free functions from the effectful ones (the side-effect-free ones are considered easier and come first in the tutorial). This document is also interesting in that it was not written by the designers of the tools it describe, so it gives a fresher and more didactic look at these techniques.
If you are familiar with LISP then you should definitely check out ACL2: http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~moore/acl2/acl2-doc.html
Dijkstra's Discipline of Programming and his EWDs lay the foundation for formal verification as a science in programming. A simpler work is Wirth's Systematic Programming, which begins with the simple approach to using verification. Wirth uses pre-ISO Pascal for the language; Dijkstra uses an Algol-68-like formalism called Guarded (GCL). Formal verification has matured since Dijkstra and Hoare, but these older texts may still be a good starting point.
PVS tool developed by Stanford guys is a specification and verification system. I worked on it and found it very useful for Theoram Proving.
WRT (1), you will probably have to create a model of the algorithm in a way that "captures" the side-effects of the algorithm in a program variable intended to model such state-based side-effects.
I wonder how many of you have implemented one of computer science's "classical algorithms" like Dijkstra's algorithm or data structures (e.g. binary search trees) in a real world, not academic project?
Is there a benefit to our dayjobs in knowing these algorithms and data structures when there are tons of libraries, frameworks and APIs which give you the same functionality?
Is there a benefit to our dayjobs in knowing these algorithms and data structures when there are tons of libraries, frameworks and APIs which give you the same functionality?
The library doesn't know what your problem domain is and won't be able to chose the correct algorithm to do the job. That is why I think it is important to know about them: then YOU can make the correct choice of algorithms to solve YOUR problem.
Knowing, or being able to understand these algorithms is important, these are the tools of your trade. It does not mean you have to be able to implement A* in an hour from memory. But you should be able to figure out what the advantages of using a red-black tree as opposed to a normal unbalanced tree are so you can decide if you need it or not. You need to be able to judge the fitness of an algorithm for solving your problem.
This might sound too school-masterish but these "classical algorithms" were not invented to give college students exam questions, they were invented to solve problems or improve on current solutions, just like the array, the linked list or the stack are building blocks to write a program so are some of these. Just like in math where you move from addition and subtraction to integration and differentiation, these are advanced techniques that will help you solve problems that are out there.
They might not be directly applicable to your problems or work situation but in the long run knowing of them will help you as a professional software engineer.
To answer your question, I did an implementation of A* recently for a game.
Is there a benefit to understanding your tools, rather than simply knowing that they exist?
Yes, of course there is. Taking a trivial example, don't you think there's a benefit to knowing what the difference is List (or your language's equivalent dynamic array implementation) and LinkedList (or your language's equivalent)? It's pretty important to know that one has constant random access time, while the other is linear. And one requires N copies if you insert a value in the middle of the sequence, while the other can do it in constant time.
Don't you think there's an advantage to understanding that the same sorting algorithm isn't always optimal? That for almost-sorted data, quicksort sucks, for example? Naively just calling Sort() and hoping for the best can become ridiculously expensive if you don't understand what's happening under the hood.
Of course there are a lot of algorithms you probably won't need, but even so, just understanding how they work may make it easier for yourself to come up with efficient algorithms to solve other, unrelated, problems.
Well, someone has to write the libraries. While working at a mapping software company, I implemented Dijkstra's, as well as binary search trees, b-trees, n-ary trees, bk-trees and hidden markov models.
Besides, if all you want is a single 'well known' algorithm, and you also want the freedom to specialise it and optimise it if it becomes critical to performance, including a whole library seems like a poor choice.
We use a home grown implementation of a p-random number generator from Knuth SemiNumeric as an aid in some statistical processing
In my previous workplace, which was an EDA company, we implemented versions of Prim and Dijsktra's algorithms, disjoint set data structures, A* search and more. All of these had real world significance. I believe this is dependent on problem domain - some domains are more algorithm-intensive and some less so.
Having said that, there is a fine line to walk - I see no business reason for re-implementing STL or Java Generics. In many cases, a standard library is better than "inventing a wheel". The more you are near your core application, the more it may be necessary to implement a textbook algorithm or data structure.
If you never work with performance-critical code, consider yourself lucky. However, I consider this scenario unrealistic. Performance problems could occur anywhere. And then it's necessary to know how to fix that problem. Obviously, merely knowing a few algorithm names isn't enough here – unless you want to implement them all and try them out one after the other.
No, knowing (at least some of) the inner workings of different algorithms is important for gauging their strengths and weaknesses and for analyzing how they would handle your situation.
Obviously, if there's a library already implementing exactly what you need, you're incredibly lucky. But let's face it, even if there is such a library, using it is often not completely straightforward (at the very least, interfaces and data representation often have to be adapted) so it's still good to know what to expect.
A* for a pac man clone. It took me weeks to really get but to this day I consider it a thing of beauty.
I've had to implement some of the classical algorithms from numerical analysis. It was easier to write my own than to connect to an existing library. Also, I've had to write variations on classical algorithms because the textbook case didn't fit my application.
For classical data structures, I nearly always use the standard libraries, such as STL for C++. The one time recently when I thought STL didn't have the structure I needed (a heap) I rolled my own, only to have someone point out almost immediately that I didn't need to do that.
Classical algorithms I have used in actual work:
A topological sort
A red-black tree (although I will
confess that I only had to implement
insertions for that application and
it only got used in a prototype).
This got used to implement an
'ordered dict' type structure in
Python.
A priority queue
State machines of various sorts
Probably one or two others I can't remember.
As to the second part of the question:
An understanding of how the algorithms work, their complexity and semantics gets used on a fairly regular basis. They also inform the design of systems. Occasionally one has to do things involving parsing or protocol handling, or some computation that's slightly clever. Having a working knowledge of what the algorithms do, how they work, how expensive they are and where one might find them lying around in library code goes a long way to knowing how to avoid reinventing the wheel poorly.
I use the Levenshtein distance algorithm to help implement a 'Did you mean [suggested word]?' feature in our website search.
Works quite well when combined with our 'tagging' system, which allows us to associate extra words (other than those in title/description/etc) with items in the database. \
It's not perfect by any means, but it's way better than most corporate site searches, if I don't say so myself ; )
Classical algorithms are usually associated with something glamorous, like games, or Web search, or scientific computation. However, I had to use some of the classical algorithms for a mere enterprise application.
I was building a metadata migration tool, and I had to use topological sort for dependency resolution, various forms of graph traversals for queries on metadata, and a modified variation of Tarjan's union-find datastructure to partition forest-like structured metadata to trees.
That was a really satisfying experience. Most of those algorithms were implemented before, but their implementations lacked something that I would need for my task. That's why It's important to understand their internals.