I'm writing a program that's manipulating polynomials. I'm defining polynomials recursively as either a term (base case) or a sum or product of polynomials (recursive cases).
Sums and products are completely identical as far as their contents are concerned. They just contain a sequence of polynomials. But they need to be processed very differently. So to distinguish them I have to somehow tag my sequences of polynomials.
Currently I have two records - Sum and Product - defined. But this is causing my code to be littered with the line (:polynomials sum-or-product) to extract the contents of polynomials. Also printing out even small polynomials in the REPL produces so much boilerplate that I have to run everything through a dedicated prettyprinting routine if I want to make sense of it.
Alternatives I have considered are tagging my sums and products using metadata instead, or putting a + or * symbol at the head of the sequence. But I'm not convinced that either of these approaches are good style and I'm wondering if there's perhaps another option I haven't considered yet.
Putting a + or * symbol at the head of the sequence sounds like it would print out nicely. I would try implementing the processing of these two different "types" via multimethods, which keeps the calling convention neat and extensible. That document starts from object-oriented programmin view, but the "area of a shape" is a very neat example on what this approach can accomplish.
In your case you'd use first of the seq to determine if you are dealing with a sum or a product of polynomials, and the multimethod would automagically use the correct implementation.
Related
Recently I am thinking about an algorithm constructed by myself. I call it Replacment Compiling.
It works as follows:
Define a language as well as its operators' precedence, such as
(1) store <value> as <id>, replace with: var <id> = <value>, precedence: 1
(2) add <num> to <num>, replace with: <num> + <num>, precedence: 2
Accept a line of input, such as store add 1 to 2 as a;
Tokenize it: <kw,store><kw,add><num,1><kw,to><2><kw,as><id,a><EOF>;
Then scan through all the tokens until reach the end-of-file, find the operation with highest precedence, and "pack" the operation:
<kw,store>(<kw,add><num,1><kw,to><2>)<kw,as><id,a><EOF>
Replace the "sub-statement", the expression in parenthesis, with the defined replacement:
<kw,store>(1 + 2)<kw,as><id,a><EOF>
Repeat until no more statements left:
(<kw,store>(1 + 2)<kw,as><id,a>)<EOF>
(var a = (1 + 2))
Then evaluate the code with the built-in function, eval().
eval("var a = (1 + 2)")
Then my question is: would this algorithm work, and what are the limitations? Is this algorithm works better on simple languages?
This won't work as-is, because there's no way of deciding the precedence of operations and keywords, but you have essentially defined parsing (and thrown in an interpretation step at the end). This looks pretty close to operator-precedence parsing, but I could be wrong in the details of your vision. The real keys to what makes a parsing algorithm are the direction/precedence it reads the code, whether the decisions are made top-down (figure out what kind of statement and apply the rules) or bottom-up (assemble small pieces into larger components until the types of statements are apparent), and whether the grammar is encoded as code or data for a generic parser. (I'm probably overlooking something, but this should give you a starting point to make sense out of further reading.)
More typically, code is generally parsed using an LR technique (LL if it's top-down) that's driven from a state machine with look-ahead and next-step information, but you'll also find the occasional recursive descent. Since they're all doing very similar things (only implemented differently), your rough algorithm could probably be refined to look a lot like any of them.
For most people learning about parsing, recursive-descent is the way to go, since everything is in the code instead of building what amounts to an interpreter for the state machine definition. But most parser generators build an LL or LR compiler.
And I'm obviously over-simplifying the field, since you can see at the bottom of the Wikipedia pages that there's a smattering of related systems that partly revolve around the kind of grammar you have available. But for most languages, those are the big-three algorithms.
What you've defined is a rewriting system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rewriting
You can make a compiler like that, but it's hard work and runs slowly, and if you do a really good job of optimizing it then you'll get conventional table-driven parser. It would be better in the end to learn about those first and just start there.
If you really don't want to use a parser generating tool, then the easiest way to write a parser for a simple language by hand is usually recursive descent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursive_descent_parser
I'm looking for an algorithm to help me build 2D patterns based on rules. The idea is that I could write a script using a given site of parameters, and it would return a random, 2-dimensional sequence up to a given length.
My plan is to use this to generate image patterns based on rules. Things like image fractals or sprites for game levels could possibly use this.
For example, lets say that you can use A, B, C, & D to create the pattern. The rule is that C and A can never be next to each other, and that D always follows C. Next, lets say I want a pattern of size 4x4. The result might be the following which respects all the rules.
A B C D
B B B B
C D B B
C D C D
Are there any existing libraries that can do calculations like this? Are there any mathematical formulas I can read-up on?
While pretty inefficient concering runtime, backtracking is an often used algorithm for such a problem.
It follows a simple pattern, and if written correctly, you can easily replace a rule set into it.
Define your rule data structures; i.e., define the set of operations that the rules can encapsulate, and define the available cross-referencing that can be done. Once you've done this, you should have a clearer view of what type of algorithms to use to apply these rules to a potential result set.
Supposing that your rules are restricted to "type X is allowed to have type Y immediately to its left/right/top/bottom" you potentially have situations where generating possible patterns is computationally difficult. Take a look at Wang Tiles (a good source is the book Tilings and Patterns by Grunbaum and Shephard) and you'll see that with the states sets of rules you might define sets of Wang Tiles. Appropriate sets of these are Turing Complete.
For small rectangles, or your sets of rules, this may only be of academic interest. As mentioned elsewhere a backtracking approach might be appropriate for your ruleset - in which case you may want to consider appropriate heuristics for the order in which new components are added to your grid. Again, depending on your rulesets, other approaches might work. E.g. if your ruleset admits many solutions you might get a long way by randomly allocating many items to the grid before attempting to fill in remaining gaps.
Background: I'm writing a toy Lisp (Scheme) interpreter in Haskell. I'm at the point where I would like to be able to compile code using LLVM. I've spent a couple days dreaming up various ways of feeding untyped Lisp values into compiled functions that expect to know the format of the data coming at them. It occurs to me that I am not the first person to need to solve this problem.
Question: What are some historically successful ways of mapping untyped data into an efficient binary format.
Addendum: In point of fact, I do know which of about a dozen different types the data is, I just don't know which one might be sent to the function at compile time. The function itself needs a way to determine what it got.
Do you mean, "I just don't know which [type] might be sent to the function at runtime"? It's not that the data isn't typed; certainly 1 and '() have different types. Rather, the data is not statically typed, i.e., it's not known at compile time what the type of a given variable will be. This is called dynamic typing.
You're right that you're not the first person to need to solve this problem. The canonical solution is to tag each runtime value with its type. For example, if you have a dozen types, number them like so:
0 = integer
1 = cons pair
2 = vector
etc.
Once you've done this, reserve the first four bits of each word for the tag. Then, every time two objects get passed in to +, first you perform a simple bit mask to verify that both objects' first four bits are 0b0000, i.e., that they are both integers. If they are not, you jump to an error message; otherwise, you proceed with the addition, and make sure that the result is also tagged accordingly.
This technique essentially makes each runtime value a manually-tagged union, which should be familiar to you if you've used C. In fact, it's also just like a Haskell data type, except that in Haskell the taggedness is much more abstract.
I'm guessing that you're familiar with pointers if you're trying to write a Scheme compiler. To avoid limiting your usable memory space, it may be more sensical to use the bottom (least significant) four bits, rather than the top ones. Better yet, because aligned dword pointers already have three meaningless bits at the bottom, you can simply co-opt those bits for your tag, as long as you dereference the actual address, rather than the tagged one.
Does that help?
Your default solution should be a simple tagged union. If you want to narrow your typing down to more specific types, you can do it - but it won't be that "toy" any more. A thing to look at is called abstract interpretation.
There are few successful implementations of such an optimisation, with V8 being probably the most widespread. In the Scheme world, the most aggressively optimising implementation is Stalin.
I just started working with Mathematica (5.0) for the first time, and while the manual has been helpful, I'm not entirely sure my technique has been correct using (Full)Simplify. I am using the program to check my work on a derived transform to change between reference frames, which consisted of multiplying a trio of relatively large square matrices.
A colleague and I each did the work by hand, separately, to make sure there were no mistakes. We hoped to get a third check from the program, which seemed that it would be simple enough to ask. The hand calculations took some time due to matrix size, but we came to the same conclusions. The fact that we had the same answer made me skeptical when the program produced different results.
I've checked and double checked my inputs.
I am definitely . (dot-multiplying) the matrices for correct multiplication.
FullSimplify made no difference.
Neither have combinations with TrigReduce / expanding algebraically before simplifying.
I've taken indices from the final matrix and tryed to simplify them while isolated, to no avail, so the problem isn't due to the use of matrices.
I've also tried to multiply the first two matrices, simplify, and then multiply that with the third matrix; however, this produced the same results as before.
I thought Simplify automatically crossed into all levels of Heads, so I didn't need to worry about mapping, but even where zeros would be expected as outputs in the matrix, there are terms, and where we would expect terms, there are close answers, plus a host of sin and cosine terms that do not reduce.
Does anyone frequent any type of technique with Simplify to get more preferable results, in contrast to solely using Simplify?
If there are assumptions on parameter ranges you will want to feed them to Simplify. The following simple examples will indicate why this might be useful.
In[218]:= Simplify[a*Sqrt[1 - x^2] - Sqrt[a^2 - a^2*x^2]]
Out[218]= a Sqrt[1 - x^2] - Sqrt[-a^2 (-1 + x^2)]
In[219]:= Simplify[a*Sqrt[1 - x^2] - Sqrt[a^2 - a^2*x^2],
Assumptions -> a > 0]
Out[219]= 0
Assuming this and other responses miss the mark, if you could provide an example that in some way shows the possibly bad behavior, that would be very helpful. Disguise it howsoever necessary in order to hide proprietary features: bleach out watermarks, file down registration numbers, maybe dress it in a moustache.
Daniel Lichtblau
Wolfram Research
As you didn't give much details to chew on I can only give you a few tips:
Mma5 is pretty old. The current version is 8. If you have access to someone with 8 you might ask him to try it to see whether that makes a difference. You could also try WolframAlpha online (http://www.wolframalpha.com/), which also understands some (all?) Mma syntax.
Have you tried comparing your own and Mma's result numerically? Generate a Table of differences for various parameter values or use Plot. If the differences are negligable (use Chop to cut off small residuals) the results are probably equivalent.
Cheers -- Sjoerd
A C program source code can be parsed according to the C grammar(described in CFG) and eventually turned into many ASTs. I am considering if such tool exists: it can do the reverse thing by firstly randomly generating many ASTs, which include tokens that don't have the concrete string values, just the types of the tokens, according to the CFG, then generating the concrete tokens according to the tokens' definitions in the regular expression.
I can imagine the first step looks like an iterative non-terminals replacement, which is randomly and can be limited by certain number of iteration times. The second step is just generating randomly strings according to regular expressions.
Is there any tool that can do this?
The "Data Generation Language" DGL does this, with the added ability to weight the probabilities of productions in the grammar being output.
In general, a recursive descent parser can be quite directly rewritten into a set of recursive procedures to generate, instead of parse / recognise, the language.
Given a context-free grammar of a language, it is possible to generate a random string that matches the grammar.
For example, the nearley parser generator includes an implementation of an "unparser" that can generate strings from a grammar.
The same task can be accomplished using definite clause grammars in Prolog. An example of a sentence generator using definite clause grammars is given here.
If you have a model of the grammar in a normalized form (all rules like this):
LHS = RHS1 RHS2 ... RHSn ;
and language prettyprinter (e.g., AST to text conversion tool), you can build one of these pretty easily.
Simply start with the goal symbol as a unit tree.
Repeat until no nonterminals are left:
Pick a nonterminal N in the tree;
Expand by adding children for the right hand side of any rule
whose left-hand side matches the nonterminal N
For terminals that carry values (e.g., variable names, numbers, strings, ...) you'll have to generate random content.
A complication with the above algorithm is that it doesn't clearly terminate. What you actually want to do is pick some limit on the size of your tree, and run the algorithm until the all nonterminals are gone or you exceed the limit. In the latter case, backtrack, undo the last replacement, and try something else. This gets you a bounded depth-first search for an AST of your determined size.
Then prettyprint the result. Its the prettyprinter part that is hard to get right.
[You can build all this stuff yourself including the prettyprinter, but it is a fair amount of work. I build tools that include all this machinery directly in a language-parameterized way; see my bio].
A nasty problem even with well formed ASTs is that they may be nonsensical; you might produce a declaration of an integer X, and assign a string literal value to it, for a language that doesn't allow that. You can probably eliminate some simple problems, but language semantics can be incredibly complex, consider C++ as an example. Ensuring that you end up with a semantically meaningful program is extremely hard; in essence, you have to parse the resulting text, and perform name and type resolution/checking on it. For C++, you need a complete C++ front end.
the problem with random generation is that for many CFGs, the expected length of the output string is infinite (there is an easy computation of the expected length using generating functions corresponding to the non-terminal symbols and equations corresponding to the rules of the grammar); you have to control the relative probabilities of the productions in certain ways to guarantee convergence; for example, sometimes, weighting each production rule for a non-terminal symbol inversely to the length of its RHS suffices
there is lot more on this subject in:
Noam Chomsky, Marcel-Paul Sch\"{u}tzenberger, ``The Algebraic Theory of Context-Free Languages'', pp.\ 118-161 in P. Braffort and D. Hirschberg (eds.), Computer Programming and Formal Systems, North-Holland (1963)
(see Wikipedia entry on Chomsky–Schützenberger enumeration theorem)