I have been searching other questions, where users would instantiate many System.Random()'s within a loop or method and therefore create many of the same randoms from the same clock. But here I have one instantiated System.Random() but when I try to use it to create multiple random number lists, they are all the same.
module Scripts =
let rnd = System.Random()
let getRandom36 =
let rec generate (l : list<int>) =
match l.Length with
|8 -> l
|_ -> let number = rnd.Next 38
if(List.exists(fun elem -> elem=number) l) then generate l else generate (number::l)
List.sort(generate List.empty)
let myseq = Seq.init 4 (fun _ -> getRandom36)
The important part is not really how the code inside getRandom36 works, I have been tampering with it to work in different ways, but I keep getting lists that look the same when calling myseq;;.
myseq;;
val it : seq<int list> =
seq
[[2; 8; 10; 11; 18; 21; 22; 35]; [2; 8; 10; 11; 18; 21; 22; 35];
[2; 8; 10; 11; 18; 21; 22; 35]; [2; 8; 10; 11; 18; 21; 22; 35]; ...]
Any ideas why? I mean shouldn't the rnd.Next be different each time since no new instance of rnd is made for each iteration.
getRandom36 is a value not a function. Can be fixed like below:
let rnd = System.Random()
let getRandom36 _ =
let rec generate (l : list<int>) =
match l.Length with
|8 -> l
|_ -> let number = rnd.Next 38
if(List.exists(fun elem -> elem=number) l) then generate l else generate (number::l)
List.sort(generate List.empty)
let myseq = Seq.init 4 getRandom36
The problem is that getRandom36 is a value, not a function. It gets evaluated once, then always returns the same list. Turn it into a function, and it should work correctly:
module Scripts =
let rnd = System.Random ()
let getRandom36 () =
let rec generate (l : _ list) =
match l.Length with
| 8 -> l
| _ -> let number = rnd.Next 38
if List.exists (fun elem -> elem = number) l
then l else (number :: l)
|> generate
List.sort (generate [])
let myseq = Seq.init 4 (fun _ -> getRandom36 ())
While the OP might be looking for a very specific solution using recursion, there are easier/faster ways to generate random numbers by using MathDotNet or even the stock System.Random.
For example:
#load #"..\..\FSLAB\packages\FsLab\FsLab.fsx"
open MathNet.Numerics.LinearAlgebra
open MathNet.Numerics.Distributions
open MathNet.Numerics.Random
let rng = Random.shared
Array2D.init<int> 4 8 (fun i j -> rng.Next(38))
Or:
[for i in 1..4 -> List.init 8 (fun x -> rnd.Next(38))]
And there are functions like .NextInt32s that will fill an already existing array for example:
let fillArray (x:int []) = rng.NextInt32s(x,0,38)
let xs = [|for i in 1..4 -> Array.zeroCreate<int> 8|]
xs |> Array.map (fun x -> fillArray(x))
Related
Let's says I have a string of a length N that contains only 0 or 1. I want to split that string in multiples strings and each string should contains only one digit.
Example:
00011010111
Should be split into:
000
11
0
1
0
111
The only solution I can think of if using a for loop with a string builder (Written in pseudo code below, more c# like sorry):
result = new list<string>
tmpChar = ""
tmpString = ""
for each character c in MyString
if tmpchar != c
if tmpsString != ""
result.add tmpString
tmpString = ""
endIf
tmpchar = c
endIf
tmpString += tmpChar
endFor
Do you have any other solution and maybe a clever solution that use a more functional approach?
I think Seq.scan would be a good fit for this, this is a very procedural problem in nature, preserving the order like that. But here is code that I believe does what you are asking.
"00011010111"
|> Seq.scan (fun (s, i) x ->
match s with
| Some p when p = x -> Some x, i
| _ -> Some x, i + 1 ) (None, 0)
|> Seq.countBy id
|> Seq.choose (function
| (Some t, _), n -> Some(t, n)
| _ -> None )
|> Seq.toList
Perhaps something along the lines of:
let result =
let rec groupWhileSame xs result =
match xs with
| a when a |> Seq.isEmpty -> result
| _ ->
let head = xs |> Seq.head
let str = xs |> Seq.takeWhile ((=) head)
let rest = xs |> Seq.skipWhile ((=) head)
groupWhileSame rest (Seq.append result [str])
groupWhileSame (myStr) []
Seq.fold (fun (acc:(string list)) x ->
match acc with
| y::rst when y.StartsWith(string x) -> (string x) + y::rst
| _ -> (string x)::acc)
[]
"00011010111"
Consider this function (which is generic):
let chunk s =
if Seq.isEmpty s then []
else
let rec chunk items chunks =
if Seq.isEmpty items then chunks
else
let chunks' =
match chunks with
| [] -> [(Seq.head items, 1)]
| x::xs ->
let c,n = x in let c' = Seq.head items in
if c = c' then (c, n + 1) :: xs else (c', 1) :: x :: xs
chunk (Seq.tail items) chunks'
chunk s [] |> List.rev
It returns a list of tuples, where each tuple represents an item and its repetitions.
So
"00011010111" |> Seq.toList |> chunk
actually returns
[('0', 3); ('1', 2); ('0', 1); ('1', 1); ('0', 1); ('1', 3)]
Basically, we're doing run length encoding (which is admittedly a bit wasteful in the case of your example string).
To get the list of strings that you want, we use code like following:
"00011010111"
|> Seq.toList
|> chunk
|> List.map (fun x -> let c,n = x in new string(c, n))
Here's a working version of OP's proposal with light syntax:
let chunk (s: string) =
let result = System.Collections.Generic.List<string>()
let mutable tmpChar = ""
let mutable tmpString = ""
for c in s do
if tmpChar <> string c then
if tmpString <> "" then
result.Add tmpString
tmpString <- ""
tmpChar <- string c
tmpString <- tmpString + tmpChar
result.Add tmpString
result
No attempt was made to follow a functional style.
I have a F# list and I'm taking two elements of that list.
If the list has 10 elements in it :
let rnd = new Random()
let elem1 = list.Item(rnd.Next(0,9))
let elem2 = list.Item(rnd.Next(0,9))
There is a chance elem1 and elem2 are equal.
I have checked some workarounds and most of them work using a do while, but I don't want to implement a function that may never end in F#.
Is there a way to create a restriction in the random function?
First random : 0 <= x <= 9
Second random : 0 <= y <= 9 <> x
A simple solution:
let rnd = new Random()
let ndx1 = rnd.Next(9)
let ndx2 =
let x = rnd.Next(8)
if x < ndx1 then x else x + 1
let elem1, elem2 = list.[ndx1], list.[ndx2]
Another way, using maths and calling the random function once:
let r = Random().Next(9 * 8)
let x = 1 + r + r / 9
let elem1, elem2 = list.[x / 9], list.[x % 9]
which may be generalised to:
let getTwoElements lst =
let c = List.length lst
let x, y = Math.DivRem(Random().Next(c * (c-1)) * (c+1) / c + 1, c)
lst.[x], lst.[y]
A more declarative approach, taking into account your comment about points in the image:
let rnd = System.Random()
/// this will build you a list of 10 pairs of indices where a <> b.
let indices =
Seq.initInfinite (fun _ -> rnd.Next(0,10), rnd.Next(0,10))
|> Seq.filter (fun (a,b) -> a <> b)
|> Seq.take 10
|> List.ofSeq
/// map indices into actual points.
let elems =
let points = list |> Array.ofList
List.map (fun (a, b) -> points.[a], points.[b]) indices
As a side note, do not use random access on lists. They're not made for that and performance of that is poor. Convert them to an array first.
There are lots of way to achieve this. A simple one would be something like this:
open System
open System.Linq
let rnd = new Random()
let elem1 = list.Item(rnd.Next(0,9))
let elem2 = list.Where(fun x->x <> elem1).ElementAt(rnd.Next(0,8))
I'm trying to learn F# by rewriting some C# algorithms I have into idiomatic F#.
One of the first functions I'm trying to rewrite is a batchesOf where:
[1..17] |> batchesOf 5
Which would split the sequence into batches with a max of five in each, i.e:
[[1; 2; 3; 4; 5]; [6; 7; 8; 9; 10]; [11; 12; 13; 14; 15]; [16; 17]]
My first attempt at doing this is kind of ugly where I've resorted to using a mutable ref object after running into errors trying to use mutable type inside the closure. Using ref is particularly unpleasant since to dereference it you have to use the ! operator which when inside a condition expression can be counter intuitive to some devs who will read it as logical not. Another problem I ran into is where Seq.skip and Seq.take are not like their Linq aliases in that they will throw an error if size exceeds the size of the sequence.
let batchesOf size (sequence: _ seq) : _ list seq =
seq {
let s = ref sequence
while not (!s |> Seq.isEmpty) do
yield !s |> Seq.truncate size |> List.ofSeq
s := System.Linq.Enumerable.Skip(!s, size)
}
Anyway what would be the most elegant/idiomatic way to rewrite this in F#? Keeping the original behaviour but preferably without the ref mutable variable.
Implementing this function using the seq<_> type idiomatically is difficult - the type is inherently mutable, so there is no simple nice functional way. Your version is quite inefficient, because it uses Skip repeatedly on the sequence. A better imperative option would be to use GetEnumerator and just iterate over elements using IEnumerator. You can find various imperative options in this snippet: http://fssnip.net/1o
If you're learning F#, then it is better to try writing the function using F# list type. This way, you can use idiomatic functional style. Then you can write batchesOf using pattern matching with recursion and accumulator argument like this:
let batchesOf size input =
// Inner function that does the actual work.
// 'input' is the remaining part of the list, 'num' is the number of elements
// in a current batch, which is stored in 'batch'. Finally, 'acc' is a list of
// batches (in a reverse order)
let rec loop input num batch acc =
match input with
| [] ->
// We've reached the end - add current batch to the list of all
// batches if it is not empty and return batch (in the right order)
if batch <> [] then (List.rev batch)::acc else acc
|> List.rev
| x::xs when num = size - 1 ->
// We've reached the end of the batch - add the last element
// and add batch to the list of batches.
loop xs 0 [] ((List.rev (x::batch))::acc)
| x::xs ->
// Take one element from the input and add it to the current batch
loop xs (num + 1) (x::batch) acc
loop input 0 [] []
As a footnote, the imperative version can be made a bit nicer using computation expression for working with IEnumerator, but that's not standard and it is quite advanced trick (for example, see http://fssnip.net/37).
A friend asked me this a while back. Here's a recycled answer. This works and is pure:
let batchesOf n =
Seq.mapi (fun i v -> i / n, v) >>
Seq.groupBy fst >>
Seq.map snd >>
Seq.map (Seq.map snd)
Or an impure version:
let batchesOf n =
let i = ref -1
Seq.groupBy (fun _ -> i := !i + 1; !i / n) >> Seq.map snd
These produce a seq<seq<'a>>. If you really must have an 'a list list as in your sample then just add ... |> Seq.map (List.ofSeq) |> List.ofSeq as in:
> [1..17] |> batchesOf 5 |> Seq.map (List.ofSeq) |> List.ofSeq;;
val it : int list list = [[1; 2; 3; 4; 5]; [6; 7; 8; 9; 10]; [11; 12; 13; 14; 15]; [16; 17]]
Hope that helps!
This can be done without recursion if you want
[0..20]
|> Seq.mapi (fun i elem -> (i/size),elem)
|> Seq.groupBy (fun (a,_) -> a)
|> Seq.map (fun (_,se) -> se |> Seq.map (snd));;
val it : seq<seq<int>> =
seq
[seq [0; 1; 2; 3; ...]; seq [5; 6; 7; 8; ...]; seq [10; 11; 12; 13; ...];
seq [15; 16; 17; 18; ...]; ...]
Depending on how you think this may be easier to understand. Tomas' solution is probably more idiomatic F# though
Hurray, we can use List.chunkBySize, Seq.chunkBySize and Array.chunkBySize in F# 4, as mentioned by Brad Collins and Scott Wlaschin.
This isn't perhaps idiomatic but it works:
let batchesOf n l =
let _, _, temp', res' = List.fold (fun (i, n, temp, res) hd ->
if i < n then
(i + 1, n, hd :: temp, res)
else
(1, i, [hd], (List.rev temp) :: res))
(0, n, [], []) l
(List.rev temp') :: res' |> List.rev
Here's a simple implementation for sequences:
let chunks size (items:seq<_>) =
use e = items.GetEnumerator()
let rec loop i acc =
seq {
if i = size then
yield (List.rev acc)
yield! loop 0 []
elif e.MoveNext() then
yield! loop (i+1) (e.Current::acc)
else
yield (List.rev acc)
}
if size = 0 then invalidArg "size" "must be greater than zero"
if Seq.isEmpty items then Seq.empty else loop 0 []
let s = Seq.init 10 id
chunks 3 s
//output: seq [[0; 1; 2]; [3; 4; 5]; [6; 7; 8]; [9]]
My method involves converting the list to an array and recursively chunking the array:
let batchesOf (sz:int) lt =
let arr = List.toArray lt
let rec bite curr =
if (curr + sz - 1 ) >= arr.Length then
[Array.toList arr.[ curr .. (arr.Length - 1)]]
else
let curr1 = curr + sz
(Array.toList (arr.[curr .. (curr + sz - 1)])) :: (bite curr1)
bite 0
batchesOf 5 [1 .. 17]
[[1; 2; 3; 4; 5]; [6; 7; 8; 9; 10]; [11; 12; 13; 14; 15]; [16; 17]]
I found this to be a quite terse solution:
let partition n (stream:seq<_>) = seq {
let enum = stream.GetEnumerator()
let rec collect n partition =
if n = 1 || not (enum.MoveNext()) then
partition
else
collect (n-1) (partition # [enum.Current])
while enum.MoveNext() do
yield collect n [enum.Current]
}
It works on a sequence and produces a sequence. The output sequence consists of lists of n elements from the input sequence.
You can solve your task with analog of Clojure partition library function below:
let partition n step coll =
let rec split ss =
seq {
yield(ss |> Seq.truncate n)
if Seq.length(ss |> Seq.truncate (step+1)) > step then
yield! split <| (ss |> Seq.skip step)
}
split coll
Being used as partition 5 5 it will provide you with sought batchesOf 5 functionality:
[1..17] |> partition 5 5;;
val it : seq<seq<int>> =
seq
[seq [1; 2; 3; 4; ...]; seq [6; 7; 8; 9; ...]; seq [11; 12; 13; 14; ...];
seq [16; 17]]
As a premium by playing with n and step you can use it for slicing overlapping batches aka sliding windows, and even apply to infinite sequences, like below:
Seq.initInfinite(fun x -> x) |> partition 4 1;;
val it : seq<seq<int>> =
seq
[seq [0; 1; 2; 3]; seq [1; 2; 3; 4]; seq [2; 3; 4; 5]; seq [3; 4; 5; 6];
...]
Consider it as a prototype only as it does many redundant evaluations on the source sequence and not likely fit for production purposes.
This version passes all my tests I could think of including ones for lazy evaluation and single sequence evaluation:
let batchIn batchLength sequence =
let padding = seq { for i in 1 .. batchLength -> None }
let wrapped = sequence |> Seq.map Some
Seq.concat [wrapped; padding]
|> Seq.windowed batchLength
|> Seq.mapi (fun i el -> (i, el))
|> Seq.filter (fun t -> fst t % batchLength = 0)
|> Seq.map snd
|> Seq.map (Seq.choose id)
|> Seq.filter (fun el -> not (Seq.isEmpty el))
I am still quite new to F# so if I'm missing anything - please do correct me, it will be greatly appreciated.
This is probably trivial, and I do have a solution but I'm not happy with it. Somehow, (much) simpler forms don't seem to work and it gets messy around the corner cases (either first, or last matching pairs in a row).
To keep it simple, let's define the matching rule as any two or more numbers that have a difference of two. Example:
> filterTwins [1; 2; 4; 6; 8; 10; 15; 17]
val it : int list = [2; 4; 6; 8; 10; 15; 17]
The code I currently use is this, which just feels sloppy and overweight:
let filterTwins list =
let func item acc =
let prevItem, resultList = acc
match prevItem, resultList with
| 0, []
-> item, []
| var, [] when var - 2 = item
-> item, item::var::resultList
| var, hd::tl when var - 2 = item && hd <> var
-> item, item::var::resultList
| var, _ when var - 2 = item
-> item, item::resultList
| _
-> item, resultList
List.foldBack func list (0, [])
|> snd
I intended my own original exercise to experiment with List.foldBack, large lists and parallel programming (which went well) but ended up messing with the "easy" part...
Guide through the answers
Daniel's last, 113 characters*, easy to follow, slow
Kvb's 2nd, 106 characters* (if I include the function), easy, but return value requires work
Stephen's 2nd, 397 characters*, long winded and comparably complex, but fastest
Abel's, 155 characters*, based on Daniel's, allows duplicates (this wasn't a necessity, btw) and is relatively fast.
There were more answers, but the above were the most distinct, I believe. Hope I didn't hurt anybody's feelings by accepting Daniel's answer as solution: each and every one solution deserves to be the selected answer(!).
* counting done with function names as one character
Would this do what you want?
let filterTwins l =
let rec filter l acc flag =
match l with
| [] -> List.rev acc
| a :: b :: rest when b - 2 = a ->
filter (b::rest) (if flag then b::acc else b::a::acc) true
| _ :: t -> filter t acc false
filter l [] false
This is terribly inefficient, but here's another approach using more built-in functions:
let filterTwinsSimple l =
l
|> Seq.pairwise
|> Seq.filter (fun (a, b) -> b - 2 = a)
|> Seq.collect (fun (a, b) -> [a; b])
|> Seq.distinct
|> Seq.toList
Maybe slightly better:
let filterTwinsSimple l =
seq {
for (a, b) in Seq.pairwise l do
if b - 2 = a then
yield a
yield b
}
|> Seq.distinct
|> Seq.toList
How about this?
let filterPairs f =
let rec filter keepHead = function
| x::(y::_ as xs) when f x y -> x::(filter true xs)
| x::xs ->
let rest = filter false xs
if keepHead then x::rest else rest
| _ -> []
filter false
let test = filterPairs (fun x y -> y - x = 2) [1; 2; 4; 6; 8; 10; 15; 17]
Or if all of your list's items are unique, you could do this:
let rec filterPairs f s =
s
|> Seq.windowed 2
|> Seq.filter (fun [|a;b|] -> f a b)
|> Seq.concat
|> Seq.distinct
let test = filterPairs (fun x y -> y - x = 2) [1; 2; 4; 6; 8; 10; 15; 17]
EDIT
Or here's another alternative which I find elegant. First define a function for breaking a list into a list of groups of consecutive items satisfying a predicate:
let rec groupConsec f = function
| [] -> []
| x::(y::_ as xs) when f x y ->
let (gp::gps) = groupConsec f xs
(x::gp)::gps
| x::xs -> [x]::(groupConsec f xs)
Then, build your function by collecting all results back together, discarding any singletons:
let filterPairs f =
groupConsec f
>> List.collect (function | [_] -> [] | l -> l)
let test = filterPairs (fun x y -> y - x = 2) [1; 2; 4; 6; 8; 10; 15; 17]
The following solution is in the spirit of your own, but I use a discriminate union to encapsulate aspects of the algorithm and reign in the madness a bit:
type status =
| Keep of int
| Skip of int
| Tail
let filterTwins xl =
(Tail, [])
|> List.foldBack
(fun cur (prev, acc) ->
match prev with
| Skip(prev) when prev - cur = 2 -> (Keep(cur), cur::prev::acc)
| Keep(prev) when prev - cur = 2 -> (Keep(cur), cur::acc)
| _ -> (Skip(cur), acc))
xl
|> snd
Here's another solution which uses a similar discriminate union strategy as my other answer but it works on sequences lazily so you can watch those twin (primes?) roll in as they come:
type status =
| KeepTwo of int * int
| KeepOne of int
| SkipOne of int
| Head
let filterTwins xl =
let xl' =
Seq.scan
(fun prev cur ->
match prev with
| KeepTwo(_,prev) | KeepOne prev when cur - prev = 2 ->
KeepOne cur
| SkipOne prev when cur - prev = 2 ->
KeepTwo(prev,cur)
| _ ->
SkipOne cur)
Head
xl
seq {
for x in xl' do
match x with
| KeepTwo(a,b) -> yield a; yield b
| KeepOne b -> yield b
| _ -> ()
}
for completeness sake, I'll answer this with what I eventually came up with, based on the friendly suggestions in this thread.
The benefits of this approach are that it doesn't need Seq.distinct, which I believe is an improvement as it allows for duplicates. However, it still needs List.rev which doesn't make it the fastest. Nor is it the most succinct code (see comparison of solution in question itself).
let filterTwins l =
l
|> Seq.pairwise
|> Seq.fold (fun a (x, y) ->
if y - x = 2 then (if List.head a = x then y::a else y::x::a)
else a) [0]
|> List.rev
|> List.tail
Yesterday I started looking at F# during some spare time. I thought I would start with the standard problem of printing out all the prime numbers up to 100. Heres what I came up with...
#light
open System
let mutable divisable = false
let mutable j = 2
for i = 2 to 100 do
j <- 2
while j < i do
if i % j = 0 then divisable <- true
j <- j + 1
if divisable = false then Console.WriteLine(i)
divisable <- false
The thing is I feel like I have approached this from a C/C# perspective and not embraced the true functional language aspect.
I was wondering what other people could come up with - and whether anyone has any tips/pointers/suggestions. I feel good F# content is hard to come by on the web at the moment, and the last functional language I touched was HOPE about 5 years ago in university.
Here is a simple implementation of the Sieve of Eratosthenes in F#:
let rec sieve = function
| (p::xs) -> p :: sieve [ for x in xs do if x % p > 0 then yield x ]
| [] -> []
let primes = sieve [2..50]
printfn "%A" primes // [2; 3; 5; 7; 11; 13; 17; 19; 23; 29; 31; 37; 41; 43; 47]
This implementation won't work for very large lists but it illustrates the elegance of a functional solution.
Using a Sieve function like Eratosthenes is a good way to go. Functional languages work really well with lists, so I would start with that in mind for struture.
On another note, functional languages work well constructed out of functions (heh). For a functional language "feel" I would build a Sieve function and then call it to print out the primes. You could even split it up--one function builds the list and does all the work and one goes through and does all the printing, neatly separating functionality.
There's a couple of interesting versions here.
And there are well known implementations in other similar languages. Here's one in OCAML that beats one in C.
Here are my two cents:
let rec primes =
seq {
yield 2
yield! (Seq.unfold (fun i -> Some(i, i + 2)) 3)
|> Seq.filter (fun p ->
primes
|> Seq.takeWhile (fun i -> i * i <= p)
|> Seq.forall (fun i -> p % i <> 0))
}
for i in primes do
printf "%d " i
Or maybe this clearer version of the same thing as isprime is defined as a separate function:
let rec isprime x =
primes
|> Seq.takeWhile (fun i -> i*i <= x)
|> Seq.forall (fun i -> x%i <> 0)
and primes =
seq {
yield 2
yield! (Seq.unfold (fun i -> Some(i,i+2)) 3)
|> Seq.filter isprime
}
You definitely do not want to learn from this example, but I wrote an F# implementation of a NewSqueak sieve based on message passing:
type 'a seqMsg =
| Die
| Next of AsyncReplyChannel<'a>
type primes() =
let counter(init) =
MailboxProcessor.Start(fun inbox ->
let rec loop n =
async { let! msg = inbox.Receive()
match msg with
| Die -> return ()
| Next(reply) ->
reply.Reply(n)
return! loop(n + 1) }
loop init)
let filter(c : MailboxProcessor<'a seqMsg>, pred) =
MailboxProcessor.Start(fun inbox ->
let rec loop() =
async {
let! msg = inbox.Receive()
match msg with
| Die ->
c.Post(Die)
return()
| Next(reply) ->
let rec filter' n =
if pred n then async { return n }
else
async {let! m = c.AsyncPostAndReply(Next)
return! filter' m }
let! testItem = c.AsyncPostAndReply(Next)
let! filteredItem = filter' testItem
reply.Reply(filteredItem)
return! loop()
}
loop()
)
let processor = MailboxProcessor.Start(fun inbox ->
let rec loop (oldFilter : MailboxProcessor<int seqMsg>) prime =
async {
let! msg = inbox.Receive()
match msg with
| Die ->
oldFilter.Post(Die)
return()
| Next(reply) ->
reply.Reply(prime)
let newFilter = filter(oldFilter, (fun x -> x % prime <> 0))
let! newPrime = oldFilter.AsyncPostAndReply(Next)
return! loop newFilter newPrime
}
loop (counter(3)) 2)
member this.Next() = processor.PostAndReply( (fun reply -> Next(reply)), timeout = 2000)
interface System.IDisposable with
member this.Dispose() = processor.Post(Die)
static member upto max =
[ use p = new primes()
let lastPrime = ref (p.Next())
while !lastPrime <= max do
yield !lastPrime
lastPrime := p.Next() ]
Does it work?
> let p = new primes();;
val p : primes
> p.Next();;
val it : int = 2
> p.Next();;
val it : int = 3
> p.Next();;
val it : int = 5
> p.Next();;
val it : int = 7
> p.Next();;
val it : int = 11
> p.Next();;
val it : int = 13
> p.Next();;
val it : int = 17
> primes.upto 100;;
val it : int list
= [2; 3; 5; 7; 11; 13; 17; 19; 23; 29; 31; 37; 41; 43; 47; 53; 59; 61; 67; 71;
73; 79; 83; 89; 97]
Sweet! :)
Simple but inefficient suggestion:
Create a function to test whether a single number is prime
Create a list for numbers from 2 to 100
Filter the list by the function
Compose the result with another function to print out the results
To make this efficient you really want to test for a number being prime by checking whether or not it's divisible by any lower primes, which will require memoisation. Probably best to wait until you've got the simple version working first :)
Let me know if that's not enough of a hint and I'll come up with a full example - thought it may not be until tonight...
Here is my old post at HubFS about using recursive seq's to implement prime number generator.
For case you want fast implementation, there is nice OCaml code by Markus Mottl
P.S. if you want to iterate prime number up to 10^20 you really want to port primegen by D. J. Bernstein to F#/OCaml :)
While solving the same problem, I have implemented Sieve of Atkins in F#. It is one of the most efficient modern algorithms.
// Create sieve
let initSieve topCandidate =
let result = Array.zeroCreate<bool> (topCandidate + 1)
Array.set result 2 true
Array.set result 3 true
Array.set result 5 true
result
// Remove squares of primes
let removeSquares sieve topCandidate =
let squares =
seq { 7 .. topCandidate}
|> Seq.filter (fun n -> Array.get sieve n)
|> Seq.map (fun n -> n * n)
|> Seq.takeWhile (fun n -> n <= topCandidate)
for n2 in squares do
n2
|> Seq.unfold (fun state -> Some(state, state + n2))
|> Seq.takeWhile (fun x -> x <= topCandidate)
|> Seq.iter (fun x -> Array.set sieve x false)
sieve
// Pick the primes and return as an Array
let pickPrimes sieve =
sieve
|> Array.mapi (fun i t -> if t then Some i else None)
|> Array.choose (fun t -> t)
// Flip solutions of the first equation
let doFirst sieve topCandidate =
let set1 = Set.ofList [1; 13; 17; 29; 37; 41; 49; 53]
let mutable x = 1
let mutable y = 1
let mutable go = true
let mutable x2 = 4 * x * x
while go do
let n = x2 + y*y
if n <= topCandidate then
if Set.contains (n % 60) set1 then
Array.get sieve n |> not |> Array.set sieve n
y <- y + 2
else
y <- 1
x <- x + 1
x2 <- 4 * x * x
if topCandidate < x2 + 1 then
go <- false
// Flip solutions of the second equation
let doSecond sieve topCandidate =
let set2 = Set.ofList [7; 19; 31; 43]
let mutable x = 1
let mutable y = 2
let mutable go = true
let mutable x2 = 3 * x * x
while go do
let n = x2 + y*y
if n <= topCandidate then
if Set.contains (n % 60) set2 then
Array.get sieve n |> not |> Array.set sieve n
y <- y + 2
else
y <- 2
x <- x + 2
x2 <- 3 * x * x
if topCandidate < x2 + 4 then
go <- false
// Flip solutions of the third equation
let doThird sieve topCandidate =
let set3 = Set.ofList [11; 23; 47; 59]
let mutable x = 2
let mutable y = x - 1
let mutable go = true
let mutable x2 = 3 * x * x
while go do
let n = x2 - y*y
if n <= topCandidate && 0 < y then
if Set.contains (n % 60) set3 then
Array.get sieve n |> not |> Array.set sieve n
y <- y - 2
else
x <- x + 1
y <- x - 1
x2 <- 3 * x * x
if topCandidate < x2 - y*y then
go <- false
// Sieve of Atkin
let ListAtkin (topCandidate : int) =
let sieve = initSieve topCandidate
[async { doFirst sieve topCandidate }
async { doSecond sieve topCandidate }
async { doThird sieve topCandidate }]
|> Async.Parallel
|> Async.RunSynchronously
|> ignore
removeSquares sieve topCandidate |> pickPrimes
I know some don't recommend to use Parallel Async, but it did increase the speed ~20% on my 2 core (4 with hyperthreading) i5. Which is about the same increase I got using TPL.
I have tried rewriting it in functional way, getting read of loops and mutable variables, but performance degraded 3-4 times, so decided to keep this version.