"Use your partial sum function and the sequence in 3a to produce a stream containing successive
approximations to sin(x)"
I'm assuming the question is for me to have the value return, however, the output is "#< stream >" instead. What is wrong with my code or what am I missing?
my code for the said 3a is:
(define (sin-stream x)
(define(fact n)
(if (= n 1)
1
(* n (fact (- n 1)))))
(define (sign k)
(if (even? k)
1 -1))
(define (sin-str-term x k)
(/ (* (sign k)
(expt x (+ (* 2 k) 1)))
(fact (+ (* 2 k) 1))))
(define (sin-helper x k)
(stream-cons (sin-str-term x k)
(sin-helper x (+ k 1))))
(sin-helper x 0))
and the code I used for the partial sum function is:
(define (partial-sums s)
(stream-cons (stream-car s)
(add-streams (stream-cdr s) (partial-sums s))))
and the code I use to call the sin approximation is:
(define (sin-approx x)
(partial-sums (sin-stream x)))
The stream can't be displayed directly because it's an infinite object.
What you might want to do is implement a function stream->list or stream-take that takes a stream and a number and returns that many elements from the stream.
Related
I'm trying to edit the current program I have
(define (sumofnumber n)
(if (= n 0)
1
(+ n (sumofnumber (modulo n 2 )))))
so that it returns the sum of an n number of positive squares. For example if you inputted in 3 the program would do 1+4+9 to get 14. I have tried using modulo and other methods but it always goes into an infinite loop.
The base case is incorrect (the square of zero is zero), and so is the recursive step (why are you taking the modulo?) and the actual operation (where are you squaring the value?). This is how the procedure should look like:
(define (sum-of-squares n)
(if (= n 0)
0
(+ (* n n)
(sum-of-squares (- n 1)))))
A definition using composition rather than recursion. Read the comments from bottom to top for the procedural logic:
(define (sum-of-squares n)
(foldl + ; sum the list
0
(map (lambda(x)(* x x)) ; square each number in list
(map (lambda(x)(+ x 1)) ; correct for range yielding 0...(n - 1)
(range n))))) ; get a list of numbers bounded by n
I provide this because you are well on your way to understanding the idiom of recursion. Composition is another of Racket's idioms worth exploring and often covered after recursion in educational contexts.
Sometimes I find composition easier to apply to a problem than recursion. Other times, I don't.
You're not squaring anything, so there's no reason to expect that to be a sum of squares.
Write down how you got 1 + 4 + 9 with n = 3 (^ is exponentiation):
1^2 + 2^2 + 3^2
This is
(sum-of-squares 2) + 3^2
or
(sum-of-squares (- 3 1)) + 3^2
that is,
(sum-of-squares (- n 1)) + n^2
Notice that modulo does not occur anywhere, nor do you add n to anything.
(And the square of 0 is 0 , not 1.)
You can break the problem into small chunks.
1. Create a list of numbers from 1 to n
2. Map a square function over list to square each number
3. Apply + to add all the numbers in squared list
(define (sum-of-number n)
(apply + (map (lambda (x) (* x x)) (sequence->list (in-range 1 (+ n 1))))))
> (sum-of-number 3)
14
This is the perfect opportunity for using the transducers technique.
Calculating the sum of a list is a fold. Map and filter are folds, too. Composing several folds together in a nested fashion, as in (sum...(filter...(map...sqr...))), leads to multiple (here, three) list traversals.
But when the nested folds are fused, their reducing functions combine in a nested fashion, giving us a one-traversal fold instead, with the one combined reducer function:
(define (((mapping f) kons) x acc) (kons (f x) acc)) ; the "mapping" transducer
(define (((filtering p) kons) x acc) (if (p x) (kons x acc) acc)) ; the "filtering" one
(define (sum-of-positive-squares n)
(foldl ((compose (mapping sqr) ; ((mapping sqr)
(filtering (lambda (x) (> x 0)))) ; ((filtering {> _ 0})
+) 0 (range (+ 1 n)))) ; +))
; > (sum-of-positive-squares 3)
; 14
Of course ((compose f g) x) is the same as (f (g x)). The combined / "composed" (pun intended) reducer function is created just by substituting the arguments into the definitions, as
((mapping sqr) ((filtering {> _ 0}) +))
=
( (lambda (kons)
(lambda (x acc) (kons (sqr x) acc)))
((filtering {> _ 0}) +))
=
(lambda (x acc)
( ((filtering {> _ 0}) +)
(sqr x) acc))
=
(lambda (x acc)
( ( (lambda (kons)
(lambda (x acc) (if ({> _ 0} x) (kons x acc) acc)))
+)
(sqr x) acc))
=
(lambda (x acc)
( (lambda (x acc) (if (> x 0) (+ x acc) acc))
(sqr x) acc))
=
(lambda (x acc)
(let ([x (sqr x)] [acc acc])
(if (> x 0) (+ x acc) acc)))
which looks almost as something a programmer would write. As an exercise,
((filtering {> _ 0}) ((mapping sqr) +))
=
( (lambda (kons)
(lambda (x acc) (if ({> _ 0} x) (kons x acc) acc)))
((mapping sqr) +))
=
(lambda (x acc)
(if (> x 0) (((mapping sqr) +) x acc) acc))
=
(lambda (x acc)
(if (> x 0) (+ (sqr x) acc) acc))
So instead of writing the fused reducer function definitions ourselves, which as every human activity is error-prone, we can compose these reducer functions from more atomic "transformations" nay transducers.
Works in DrRacket.
I am working through SICP. In exercise 1.28 about the Miller-Rabin test. I had this code, that I know is wrong because it does not follow the instrcuccions of the exercise.
(define (fast-prime? n times)
(define (even? x)
(= (remainder x 2) 0))
(define (miller-rabin-test n)
(try-it (+ 1 (random (- n 1)))))
(define (try-it a)
(= (expmod a (- n 1) n) 1))
(define (expmod base exp m)
(cond ((= exp 0) 1)
((even? exp)
(if (and (not (= exp (- m 1))) (= (remainder (square exp) m) 1))
0
(remainder (square (expmod base (/ exp 2) m)) m)))
(else
(remainder (* base (expmod base (- exp 1) m)) m))))
(cond ((= times 0) true)
((miller-rabin-test n) (fast-prime? n (- times 1)))
(else false)))
In it I test if the square of the exponent is congruent to 1 mod n. Which according
to what I have read, and other correct implementations I have seen is wrong. I should test
the entire number as in:
...
(square
(trivial-test (expmod base (/ exp 2) m) m))
...
The thing is that I have tested this, with many prime numbers and large Carmicheal numbers,
and it seems to give the correct answer, though a bit slower. I don't understand why this
seems to work.
Your version of the function "works" only because you are lucky. Try this experiment: evaluate (fast-prime? 561 3) a hundred times. Depending on the random witnesses that your function chooses, sometimes it will return true and sometimes it will return false. When I did that I got 12 true and 88 false, but you may get different results, depending on your random number generator.
> (let loop ((k 0) (t 0) (f 0))
(if (= k 100) (values t f)
(if (fast-prime? 561 3)
(loop (+ k 1) (+ t 1) f)
(loop (+ k 1) t (+ f 1)))))
12
88
I don't have SICP in front of me -- my copy is at home -- but I can tell you the right way to perform a Miller-Rabin primality test.
Your expmod function is incorrect; there is no reason to square the exponent. Here is a proper function to perform modular exponentiation:
(define (expm b e m) ; modular exponentiation
(let loop ((b b) (e e) (x 1))
(if (zero? e) x
(loop (modulo (* b b) m) (quotient e 2)
(if (odd? e) (modulo (* b x) m) x)))))
Then Gary Miller's strong pseudoprime test, which is a strong version of your try-it test for which there is a witness a that proves the compositeness of every composite n, looks like this:
(define (strong-pseudoprime? n a) ; strong pseudoprime base a
(let loop ((r 0) (s (- n 1)))
(if (even? s) (loop (+ r 1) (/ s 2))
(if (= (expm a s n) 1) #t
(let loop ((r r) (s s))
(cond ((zero? r) #f)
((= (expm a s n) (- n 1)) #t)
(else (loop (- r 1) (* s 2)))))))))
Assuming the Extended Riemann Hypothesis, testing every a from 2 to n-1 will prove (an actual, deterministic proof, not just a probabilistic estimate of primality) the primality of a prime n, or identify at least one a that is a witness to the compositeness of a composite n. Michael Rabin proved that if n is composite, at least three-quarters of the a from 2 to n-1 are witnesses to that compositeness, so testing k random bases demonstrates, but does not prove, the primality of a prime n to a probability of 4−k. Thus, this implementation of the Miller-Rabin primality test:
(define (prime? n k)
(let loop ((k k))
(cond ((zero? k) #t)
((not (strong-pseudoprime? n (random (+ 2 (- n 3))))) #f)
(else (loop (- k 1))))))
That always works properly:
> (let loop ((k 0) (t 0) (f 0))
(if (= k 100) (values t f)
(if (prime? 561 3)
(loop (+ k 1) (+ t 1) f)
(loop (+ k 1) t (+ f 1)))))
0
100
I know your purpose is to study SICP rather than to program primality tests, but if you're interested in programming with prime numbers, I modestly recommend this essay at my blog, which discusses the Miller-Rabin test, among other topics. You should also know there are better (faster, less likely to report erroneous result) primality tests available than randomized Miller-Rabin.
It seems to me, you still got correct answer, because in each iteration of expmod you check conditions for previous iteration. You could try to debug exp value using display function inside expmod. Really, your code is not very different from this one.
I was wondering if this is the fastest possible version of this function.
(defun foo (x y)
(cond
;if x = 0, return y+1
((zp x) (+ 1 y))
;if y = 0, return foo on decrement x and 1
((zp y) (foo (- x 1) 1))
;else run foo on decrement x and y = (foo x (- y 1))
(t (foo (- x 1) (foo x (- y 1))))))
When I run this, I usually get stack overflow error, so I am trying to figure out a way to compute something like (foo 3 1000000) without using the computer.
From analyzing the function I think it is embedded foo in the recursive case that causes the overflow in (foo 3 1000000). But since you are decrementing y would the number of steps just equal y?
edit: removed lie from comments
12 years ago I wrote this:
(defun ackermann (m n)
(declare (fixnum m n) (optimize (speed 3) (safety 0)))
(let ((memo (make-hash-table :test #'equal))
(ncal 0) (nhit 0))
(labels ((ack (aa bb)
(incf ncal)
(cond ((zerop aa) (1+ bb))
((= 1 aa) (+ 2 bb))
((= 2 aa) (+ 3 (* 2 bb)))
((= 3 aa) (- (ash 1 (+ 3 bb)) 3))
((let* ((key (cons aa bb))
(val (gethash key memo)))
(cond (val (incf nhit) val)
(t (setq val (if (zerop bb)
(ack (1- aa) 1)
(ack (1- aa) (ack aa (1- bb)))))
(setf (gethash key memo) val)
val)))))))
(let ((ret (ack m n)))
(format t "A(~d,~d)=~:d (~:d calls, ~:d cache hits)~%"
m n ret ncal nhit)
(values ret memo)))))
As you can see, I am using an explicit formula for small a and memoization for larger a.
Note, however, that this function grows so fast that it makes little sense to try to compute the actual values; you will run out of atoms in the universe faster - memoization or not.
Conceptually speaking, stack overflows don't have anything to do with speed, but they concern space usage. For instance, consider the following implementations of length. The first will run into a stack overflow for long lists. The second will too, unless your Lisp implements tail call optimization. The third will not. All have the same time complexity (speed), though; they're linear in the length of the list.
(defun length1 (list)
(if (endp list)
0
(+ 1 (length1 (rest list)))))
(defun length2 (list)
(labels ((l2 (list len)
(if (endp list)
len
(l2 (rest list) (1+ len)))))
(l2 list 0)))
(defun length3 (list)
(do ((list list (rest list))
(len 0 (1+ len)))
((endp list) len)))
You can do something similar for your code, though you'll still have one recursive call that will contribute to stack space. Since this does appear to be the Ackermann function, I'm going to use zerop instead of zp and ack instead of foo. Thus, you could do:
(defun foo2 (x y)
(do () ((zp x) (+ 1 y))
(if (zp y)
(setf x (1- x)
y 1)
(psetf x (1- x)
y (foo x (1- y))))))
Since x is decreasing by 1 on each iteration, and the only conditional change is on y, you could simplify this as:
(defun ack2 (x y)
(do () ((zerop x) (1+ y))
(if (zerop y)
(setf x (1- x)
y 1)
(psetf x (1- x)
y (ack2 x (1- y))))))
Since y is the only thing that conditionally changes during iterations, you could further simplify this to:
(defun ack3 (x y)
(do ((x x (1- x))
(y y (if (zerop y) 1 (ack3 x (1- y)))))
((zerop x) (1+ y))))
This is an expensive function to compute, and this will get you a little bit farther, but you're still not going to get, e.g., to (ackN 3 1000000). All these definitions are available for easy copying and pasting from http://pastebin.com/mNA9TNTm.
Generally, memoization is your friend in this type of computation. Might not apply as it depends on the specific arguments in the recursion; but it is a useful approach to explore.
The following is code that I wrote for newtons method:
(define (newtons-method f guess n)
(define (newtons-method-h guess k)
(if(= k n)
guess
(let ((next (- guess (/ (f guess) ((der f 0.1) guess)))))
(newtons-method-h next (+ k 1)))))
(newtons-method-h guess 0))
As well as code that I wrote to find square roots of numbers using newton's method:
(define (sqrt-newt n)
(newtons-method (lambda (x) (- (* x x) n)) 1.0 40))
I am wondering... Does sqrt-newt call newtons-method for 40 interations? I believe the answer is yes, but I am drawing a blank here.
Just add a counter to you code:
(define counter null) ; define a global variable
(define (newtons-method f guess n)
(define (newtons-method-h guess k)
(set! counter (add1 counter)) ; increment it at each call
(if (= k n)
guess
(let ((next (- guess (/ (f guess) ((der f 0.1) guess)))))
(newtons-method-h next (+ k 1)))))
(set! counter 0) ; initialize it before starting
(newtons-method-h guess 0))
(sqrt-newt 2) ; run the procedure
=> 1.4142135623730951
counter ; check the counter's value
=> 41
As you can see, the newtons-method-h procedure got called 41 times - one more than you expected, because the procedure gets invoked one last time when (= k n) and that's when the recursion ends.
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)))