Consider the following snippet
(define (f a b c)
(
cond ((and (< b c) (< b a)) (+ c a))
((and (< a c) (< a b)) (+ c b))
((and (< c b) (< c a)) (+ b a))
)
)
(display (f 2 1 3)) ; 5
(newline)
(display (f 2 8 3)) ; 11
(newline)
(display (f 2 8 -3)) ; 10
Now if I comment the second line and second line from bottom
(define (f a b c)
;(
cond ((and (< b c) (< b a)) (+ c a))
((and (< a c) (< a b)) (+ c b))
((and (< c b) (< c a)) (+ b a))
;)
)
The result is
#<undef>
11
10
I could not explain why omitting the parentheses lead to that result. In the second case, I expected thtat the complier would treat cond ((and (< b c) (< b a)) (+ c a)), ((and (< a c) (< a b)) (+ c b)) and ((and (< a c) (< a b)) (+ c b)) as three expressions, the latter two invalid, instead it seems they got executed.
Normally cond keyword should raise an exception when it's interpreted.
But, if your interpreter does not throw any error, you are in the case of block statement, in which the evaluation of the last expression provides the result, the other ones are computed only for side-effects. The code reduces to this:
(define (f a b c) ((and (< c b) (< c a)) (+ b a))))
I am trying to create program in Scheme (DrRacket) to solve roots of quadratic equation. I have also function to solve discriminant (function D). If discriminant is >0 function root should have on the output "point pair" (is that the correct word? english is not my native language) of both roots. Else it should give #f on the output.
(define na2
(lambda (x)
(* x x)))
(define D
(lambda (a b c)
(- (na2 b) (* 4 a c))))
(define roots
(lambda (a b c)
((if (> (D a b c) 0)
(cons (/ (+ (- b) (sqrt (D a b c))) (* 2 a)) (/ (- (- b) (sqrt (D a b c))) (* 2 a)))
#f)))
It gives me this:
> (roots 1 3 2)
>: contract violation
expected: real?
given: (-1 . -2)
argument position: 1st
other arguments...:
>
As you can see the correct output is there, but why the error?
Edit:
I corrected typo, as Parakram Majumdar helepd me, now it gives me
application: not a procedure;
expected a procedure that can be applied to arguments
given: (-1 . -2)
arguments...: [none]
Can someone please tell what am I doing wrong?
As discussed in the comments, the if statement should be written as follows:
(if cond then else)
where the condition would be :
(> (D a b c) 0)
So overall it should be:
(define roots
(lambda (a b c)
(if (> (D a b c) 0)
(cons (/ (+ (- b) (sqrt (D a b c))) (* 2 a))
(/ (- (- b) (sqrt (D a b c))) (* 2 a)))
#f
)))
In response to the following exercise from the SICP,
Exercise 1.3. Define a procedure that takes three numbers as arguments
and returns the sum of the squares of the two larger numbers.
I wrote the following (correct) function:
(define (square-sum-larger a b c)
(cond ((or (and (> a b) (> b c)) (and (> b a) (> a c))) (+ (* a a) (* b b)))
((or (and (> a c) (> c b)) (and (> c a) (> a b))) (+ (* a a) (* c c)))
((or (and (> b c) (> c a)) (and (> c b) (> b a))) (+ (* b b) (* c c)))))
Unfortunately, that is one of the ugliest functions I've written in my life. How do I
(a) Make it elegant, and
(b) Make it work for an arbitrary number of inputs?
I found an elegant solution (though it only works for 3 inputs):
(define (square-sum-larger a b c)
(+
(square (max a b))
(square (max (min a b) c))))
If you're willing to use your library's sort function, this becomes easy and elegant.
(define (square-sum-larger . nums)
(define sorted (sort nums >))
(let ((a (car sorted))
(b (cadr sorted)))
(+ (* a a) (* b b))))
In the above function, nums is a "rest" argument, containing a list of all arguments passed to the function. We just sort that list in descending order using >, then square the first two elements of the result.
I don't know if it's elegant enough but for a 3 argument version you can use procedure abstraction to reduce repetition:
(define (square-sum-larger a b c)
(define (square x)
(* x x))
(define (max x y)
(if (< x y) y x))
(if (< a b)
(+ (square b) (square (max a c)))
(+ (square a) (square (max b c)))))
Make it work for an arbitrary number of inputs.
(define (square-sum-larger a b . rest)
(let loop ((a (if (> a b) a b)) ;; a becomes largest of a and b
(b (if (> a b) b a)) ;; b becomes smallest of a and b
(rest rest))
(cond ((null? rest) (+ (* a a) (* b b)))
((> (car rest) a) (loop (car rest) a (cdr rest)))
((> (car rest) b) (loop a (car rest) (cdr rest)))
(else (loop a b (cdr rest))))))
A R6RS-version using sort and take:
#!r6rs
(import (rnrs)
(only (srfi :1) take))
(define (square-sum-larger . rest)
(apply +
(map (lambda (x) (* x x))
(take (list-sort > rest) 2))))
You don't need to bother sorting you just need the find the greatest two.
(define (max-fold L)
(if (null? L)
#f
(reduce (lambda (x y)
(if (> x y) x y))
(car L)
L)))
(define (remove-num-once x L)
(cond ((null? L) #f)
((= x (car L)) (cdr L))
(else (cons (car L) (remove-once x (cdr L))))))
(define (square-sum-larger . nums)
(let ((max (max-fold nums)))
(+ (square max)
(square (max-fold (remove-num-once max nums))))))
(square-sum-larger 1 8 7 4 5 6 9 2)
;Value: 145
I'm going through "Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs" and I'm having a bit of trouble doing one of the exercises ( 2.1 ) . I'm coding in DrRacket in R5RS mode.
here's my code :
(define (make-rat n d)
(let (((c (gcd n d))
(neg (< (* n d) 0))
(n (/ (abs n) c))
(d (/ (abs d) c)))
(cons (if neg (- n) n) d))))
and here's the error message DrRacket is giving me:
let: bad syntax (not an identifier and expression for a binding) in: ((c (gcd n d)) (neg (< (* n d) 0)) (pn (/ (abs n) c)) (pd (/ (abs d) c)))
I think I've messed up let's syntax. but I'm not sure how to fix it.
I added an extra set of parentheses around the variable declarations, whoops.
Also, since I used c to define n and d, I had to change let into let* to make it work properly
my fixed code:
(define (make-rat n d)
(let* ((c (gcd n d))
(neg (< (* n d) 0))
(n (/ (abs n) c))
(d (/ (abs d) c)))
(cons (if neg (- n) n) d)))
As your edit indicates, you're using the c identifier prematurely. (Which is why it isn't working after fixing the syntax issue of the extra parenthesis.) Identifiers in "let" don't see each other. You'd need to nest your second three lets under the first.
(let ((c (gcd ...)))
(let ((...))
exps ...))
I don't recall when/if SICP introduces other let forms, but if you are stuck using a lot of nested lets, you can use let* in which each subsequent identifier is in the scope of all the previous. That is, the following two definitions are equivalent:
(define foo
(let* ((a 1)
(b (+ 1 a))
(c (+ 1 b)))
(+ 1 c)))
(define foo
(let ((a 1))
(let ((b (+ 1 a)))
(let ((c (+ 1 b)))
(+ 1 c)))))
The scoping rules of the different let forms can be a bit much for a beginner, unfortunately.
Try this:
(define (make-rat n d)
(let ([c (gcd n d)]
[neg (< (* n d) 0)]
[n (/ (abs n) c)]
[d (/ (abs d) c)])
(cons (if neg
(- n)
n)
d)))
I'm trying to learn scheme via SICP. Exercise 1.3 reads as follow: Define a procedure that takes three numbers as arguments and returns the sum of the squares of the two larger numbers. Please comment on how I can improve my solution.
(define (big x y)
(if (> x y) x y))
(define (p a b c)
(cond ((> a b) (+ (square a) (square (big b c))))
(else (+ (square b) (square (big a c))))))
Using only the concepts presented at that point of the book, I would do it:
(define (square x) (* x x))
(define (sum-of-squares x y) (+ (square x) (square y)))
(define (min x y) (if (< x y) x y))
(define (max x y) (if (> x y) x y))
(define (sum-squares-2-biggest x y z)
(sum-of-squares (max x y) (max z (min x y))))
big is called max. Use standard library functionality when it's there.
My approach is different. Rather than lots of tests, I simply add the squares of all three, then subtract the square of the smallest one.
(define (exercise1.3 a b c)
(let ((smallest (min a b c))
(square (lambda (x) (* x x))))
(+ (square a) (square b) (square c) (- (square smallest)))))
Whether you prefer this approach, or a bunch of if tests, is up to you, of course.
Alternative implementation using SRFI 95:
(define (exercise1.3 . args)
(let ((sorted (sort! args >))
(square (lambda (x) (* x x))))
(+ (square (car sorted)) (square (cadr sorted)))))
As above, but as a one-liner (thanks synx # freenode #scheme); also requires SRFI 1 and SRFI 26:
(define (exercise1.3 . args)
(apply + (map! (cut expt <> 2) (take! (sort! args >) 2))))
What about something like this?
(define (p a b c)
(if (> a b)
(if (> b c)
(+ (square a) (square b))
(+ (square a) (square c)))
(if (> a c)
(+ (square a) (square b))
(+ (square b) (square c)))))
I did it with the following code, which uses the built-in min, max, and square procedures. They're simple enough to implement using only what's been introduced in the text up to that point.
(define (sum-of-highest-squares x y z)
(+ (square (max x y))
(square (max (min x y) z))))
Using only the concepts introduced up to that point of the text, which I think is rather important, here is a different solution:
(define (smallest-of-three a b c)
(if (< a b)
(if (< a c) a c)
(if (< b c) b c)))
(define (square a)
(* a a))
(define (sum-of-squares-largest a b c)
(+ (square a)
(square b)
(square c)
(- (square (smallest-of-three a b c)))))
(define (sum-sqr x y)
(+ (square x) (square y)))
(define (sum-squares-2-of-3 x y z)
(cond ((and (<= x y) (<= x z)) (sum-sqr y z))
((and (<= y x) (<= y z)) (sum-sqr x z))
((and (<= z x) (<= z y)) (sum-sqr x y))))
(define (f a b c)
(if (= a (min a b c))
(+ (* b b) (* c c))
(f b c a)))
Looks ok to me, is there anything specific you want to improve on?
You could do something like:
(define (max2 . l)
(lambda ()
(let ((a (apply max l)))
(values a (apply max (remv a l))))))
(define (q a b c)
(call-with-values (max2 a b c)
(lambda (a b)
(+ (* a a) (* b b)))))
(define (skip-min . l)
(lambda ()
(apply values (remv (apply min l) l))))
(define (p a b c)
(call-with-values (skip-min a b c)
(lambda (a b)
(+ (* a a) (* b b)))))
And this (proc p) can be easily converted to handle any number of arguments.
With Scott Hoffman's and some irc help I corrected my faulty code, here it is
(define (p a b c)
(cond ((> a b)
(cond ((> b c)
(+ (square a) (square b)))
(else (+ (square a) (square c)))))
(else
(cond ((> a c)
(+ (square b) (square a))))
(+ (square b) (square c)))))
You can also sort the list and add the squares of the first and second element of the sorted list:
(require (lib "list.ss")) ;; I use PLT Scheme
(define (exercise-1-3 a b c)
(let* [(sorted-list (sort (list a b c) >))
(x (first sorted-list))
(y (second sorted-list))]
(+ (* x x) (* y y))))
Here's yet another way to do it:
#!/usr/bin/env mzscheme
#lang scheme/load
(module ex-1.3 scheme/base
(define (ex-1.3 a b c)
(let* ((square (lambda (x) (* x x)))
(p (lambda (a b c) (+ (square a) (square (if (> b c) b c))))))
(if (> a b) (p a b c) (p b a c))))
(require scheme/contract)
(provide/contract [ex-1.3 (-> number? number? number? number?)]))
;; tests
(module ex-1.3/test scheme/base
(require (planet "test.ss" ("schematics" "schemeunit.plt" 2))
(planet "text-ui.ss" ("schematics" "schemeunit.plt" 2)))
(require 'ex-1.3)
(test/text-ui
(test-suite
"ex-1.3"
(test-equal? "1 2 3" (ex-1.3 1 2 3) 13)
(test-equal? "2 1 3" (ex-1.3 2 1 3) 13)
(test-equal? "2 1. 3.5" (ex-1.3 2 1. 3.5) 16.25)
(test-equal? "-2 -10. 3.5" (ex-1.3 -2 -10. 3.5) 16.25)
(test-exn "2+1i 0 0" exn:fail:contract? (lambda () (ex-1.3 2+1i 0 0)))
(test-equal? "all equal" (ex-1.3 3 3 3) 18))))
(require 'ex-1.3/test)
Example:
$ mzscheme ex-1.3.ss
6 success(es) 0 failure(s) 0 error(s) 6 test(s) run
0
It's nice to see how other people have solved this problem. This was my solution:
(define (isGreater? x y z)
(if (and (> x z) (> y z))
(+ (square x) (square y))
0))
(define (sumLarger x y z)
(if (= (isGreater? x y z) 0)
(sumLarger y z x)
(isGreater? x y z)))
I solved it by iteration, but I like ashitaka's and the (+ (square (max x y)) (square (max (min x y) z))) solutions better, since in my version, if z is the smallest number, isGreater? is called twice, creating an unnecessarily slow and circuitous procedure.
(define (sum a b) (+ a b))
(define (square a) (* a a))
(define (greater a b )
( if (< a b) b a))
(define (smaller a b )
( if (< a b) a b))
(define (sumOfSquare a b)
(sum (square a) (square b)))
(define (sumOfSquareOfGreaterNumbers a b c)
(sumOfSquare (greater a b) (greater (smaller a b) c)))
I've had a go:
(define (procedure a b c)
(let ((y (sort (list a b c) >)) (square (lambda (x) (* x x))))
(+ (square (first y)) (square(second y)))))
;exercise 1.3
(define (sum-square-of-max a b c)
(+ (if (> a b) (* a a) (* b b))
(if (> b c) (* b b) (* c c))))
I think this is the smallest and most efficient way:
(define (square-sum-larger a b c)
(+
(square (max a b))
(square (max (min a b) c))))
Below is the solution that I came up with. I find it easier to reason about a solution when the code is decomposed into small functions.
; Exercise 1.3
(define (sum-square-largest a b c)
(+ (square (greatest a b))
(square (greatest (least a b) c))))
(define (greatest a b)
(cond (( > a b) a)
(( < a b) b)))
(define (least a b)
(cond ((> a b) b)
((< a b) a)))
(define (square a)
(* a a))