I was asked to create a function that takes 2 functions as parameters and an integer. The functions are supposed to check for conditions, if they are met then it evaluates to true or false.
Here is my code, but how do I test my code. What parameters do I put into the function to test? I tried (find harmonic even? 6) and it gives me an error. Harmonic is a function that takes the nth number in harmonic and sums them all up. Can someone please help? What test cases can I use?
(define (find sequence test n)
(define (helper x found)
(let ((fx (sequence x)))
(if (test fx)
(if (= (+ found 1) n) fx
(helper (+ x 1) (+ found 1)))
(helper (+ x 1) found)))) (helper 1 0))
Related
Im trying to learn scheme and Im having trouble with the arithmetic in the Scheme syntax.
Would anyone be able to write out a function in Scheme that represents the Geometric Series?
You have expt, which is Scheme power procedure. (expt 2 8) ; ==> 256 and you have * that does multiplication. eg. (* 2 3) ; ==> 6. From that you should be able to make a procedure that takes a n and produce the nth number in a specific geometric series.
You can also produce a list with the n first if you instead of using expt just muliply in a named let, basically doing the expt one step at a time and accumulate the values in a list. Here is an example of a procedure that makes a list of numbers:
(define (range from to)
(let loop ((n to) (acc '())
(if (< n from)
acc
(loop (- 1 n) (cons n acc)))))
(range 3 10) ; ==> (3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10)
Notice I'm doing them in reverse. If I cannot do it in reverse I would in the base case do (reverse acc) to get the right order as lists are always made from end to beginning. Good luck with your series.
range behaves exactly like Python's range.
(define (range from (below '()) (step 1) (acc '()))
(cond ((null? below) (range 0 from step))
((> (+ from step) below) (reverse acc))
(else (range (+ from step) below step (cons from acc)))))
Python's range can take only one argument (the upper limit).
If you take from and below as required arguments, the definition is shorter:
(define (range from below (step 1) (acc '()))
(cond ((> (+ from step) below) (reverse acc))
(else (range (+ from step) below step (cons from acc)))))
Here is an answer, in Racket, that you probably cannot submit as homework.
(define/contract (geometric-series x n)
;; Return a list of x^k for k from 0 to n (inclusive).
;; This will be questionable if x is not exact.
(-> number? natural-number/c (listof number?))
(let gsl ((m n)
(c (expt x n))
(a '()))
(if (zero? m)
(cons 1 a)
(gsl (- m 1)
(/ c x)
(cons c a)))))
So I am currently reading SICP and I am stuck at exercise 1.22, since I do not understand why my program isn't working the way I intend it to work. Here is the Code
#lang sicp
; the given function to time the search for a prime
(define (timed-prime-test n)
(newline)
(display n)
(start-prime-test n (runtime)))
(define (start-prime-test n start-time)
(if (prime? n)
(report-prime (- (runtime) start-time))))
(define (report-prime elapsed-time)
(display " *** ")
(display elapsed-time))
; finds the smallest natural number that can divide n without any remainder
(define (smallest-divisor n)
(define (square x)
(* x x))
(define (divides? a b)
(= (remainder a b) 0))
(define (find-divisor n test-divisor)
(cond ((> (square test-divisor) n) n)
((divides? n test-divisor) test-divisor)
(else (find-divisor n (+ test-divisor 1)))))
(find-divisor n 2))
; returns true if the given number n is prime
(define (prime? n)
(= n (smallest-divisor n)))
; start searching at start and found keeps track of the amount of
; primes found, if it equals 3 return found
(define (search-for-primes start found)
(if (= found 3)
found ; after finding 3 primes above start return
((timed-prime-test start) ; if not continue search with start + 1
(search-for-primes (+ start 1) (if (not (prime? start))
found
(+ found 1))))))
(search-for-primes 1000 0)
The problem is that when I run this program it works fine until it finds a prime number. The interpreter that I use is racket and the program terminates with:
application: not a procedure;
expected a procedure that can be applied to arguments
given: #<void>
arguments...:
3
1019 *** 0
If I understand the interpreter correctly than it should evaluate this expression according to the applicative-order evaluation principle right? So why is it passing the if expression as a procedure to my search-for-primes procedure? What am I missing here?
The problem is in search-for-primes, if you have more than one expression in one of the legs of an if, then you need to put them inside a begin block - surrounding it with () won't work. This should fix the problem:
(define (search-for-primes start found)
(if (= found 3)
found
(begin ; add this!
(timed-prime-test start)
(search-for-primes (+ start 1) (if (not (prime? start))
found
(+ found 1))))))
Here is the Y-combinator in Racket:
#lang lazy
(define Y (λ(f)((λ(x)(f (x x)))(λ(x)(f (x x))))))
(define Fact
(Y (λ(fact) (λ(n) (if (zero? n) 1 (* n (fact (- n 1))))))))
(define Fib
(Y (λ(fib) (λ(n) (if (<= n 1) n (+ (fib (- n 1)) (fib (- n 2))))))))
Here is the Y-combinator in Scheme:
(define Y
(lambda (f)
((lambda (x) (x x))
(lambda (g)
(f (lambda args (apply (g g) args)))))))
(define fac
(Y
(lambda (f)
(lambda (x)
(if (< x 2)
1
(* x (f (- x 1))))))))
(define fib
(Y
(lambda (f)
(lambda (x)
(if (< x 2)
x
(+ (f (- x 1)) (f (- x 2))))))))
(display (fac 6))
(newline)
(display (fib 6))
(newline)
My question is: Why does Scheme require the apply function but Racket does not?
Racket is very close to plain Scheme for most purposes, and for this example, they're the same. But the real difference between the two versions is the need for a delaying wrapper which is needed in a strict language (Scheme and Racket), but not in a lazy one (Lazy Racket, a different language).
That wrapper is put around the (x x) or (g g) -- what we know about this thing is that evaluating it will get you into an infinite loop, and we also know that it's going to be the resulting (recursive) function. Because it's a function, we can delay its evaluation with a lambda: instead of (x x) use (lambda (a) ((x x) a)). This works fine, but it has another assumption -- that the wrapped function takes a single argument. We could just as well wrap it with a function of two arguments: (lambda (a b) ((x x) a b)) but that won't work in other cases too. The solution is to use a rest argument (args) and use apply, therefore making the wrapper accept any number of arguments and pass them along to the recursive function. Strictly speaking, it's not required always, it's "only" required if you want to be able to produce recursive functions of any arity.
On the other hand, you have the Lazy Racket code, which is, as I said above, a different language -- one with call-by-need semantics. Since this language is lazy, there is no need to wrap the infinitely-looping (x x) expression, it's used as-is. And since no wrapper is required, there is no need to deal with the number of arguments, therefore no need for apply. In fact, the lazy version doesn't even need the assumption that you're generating a function value -- it can generate any value. For example, this:
(Y (lambda (ones) (cons 1 ones)))
works fine and returns an infinite list of 1s. To see this, try
(!! (take 20 (Y (lambda (ones) (cons 1 ones)))))
(Note that the !! is needed to "force" the resulting value recursively, since Lazy Racket doesn't evaluate recursively by default. Also, note the use of take -- without it, Racket will try to create that infinite list, which will not get anywhere.)
Scheme does not require apply function. you use apply to accept more than one argument.
in the factorial case, here is my implementation which does not require apply
;;2013/11/29
(define (Fact-maker f)
(lambda (n)
(cond ((= n 0) 1)
(else (* n (f (- n 1)))))))
(define (fib-maker f)
(lambda (n)
(cond ((or (= n 0) (= n 1)) 1)
(else
(+ (f (- n 1))
(f (- n 2)))))))
(define (Y F)
((lambda (procedure)
(F (lambda (x) ((procedure procedure) x))))
(lambda (procedure)
(F (lambda (x) ((procedure procedure) x))))))
(define (checksum-2 ls)
(if (null? ls)
0
(let ([n 0])
(+ (+ n 1))(* n (car ls))(checksum-2 (cdr ls)))))
Ok, I have this code, its suppose to, if I wrote it right, the number (n) should increase by one every time it goes through the list, so n (in reality) should be like 1 2 3 4, but I want n to be multiplied by the car of the list.
Everything loads, but when the answer is returned I get 0.
Thanks!
If you format your code differently, you might have an easier time seeing what is going on:
(define (checksum-2 ls)
(if (null? ls)
0
(let ([n 0])
(+ (+ n 1))
(* n (car ls))
(checksum-2 (cdr ls)))))
Inside the let form, the expressions are evaluated in sequence but you're not using the results for any of them (except the last one). The results of the addition and multiplication are simply discarded.
What you need to do in this case is define a new helper function that uses an accumulator and performs the recursive call. I'm going to guess this is homework or a learning exercise, so I'm not going to give away the complete answer.
UPDATE: As a demonstration of the sort of thing you might need to do, here is a similar function in Scheme to sum the integers from 1 to n:
(define (sum n)
(define (sum-helper n a)
(if (<= n 0)
a
(sum-helper (- n 1) (+ a n))))
(sum-helper n 0))
You should be able to use a similar framework to implement your checksum-2 function.
I'm making a function that multiplies all numbers between an 1 input and a "x" input with dotimes loop. If you please, check my function and say what's wrong since I don't know loops very well in Scheme.
(define (product x)
(let ((result 1))
(dotimes (temp x)
(set! result (* temp (+ result 1))))
result))
Use recursion. It is the way to do things in Scheme/Racket. And try to never use set! and other functions that change variables unless there really is no other choice.
Here's a textbook example of recursion in Scheme:
(define factorial
(lambda (x)
(if (<= x 1)
1
(* x (factorial (- x 1))))))