i'm working through SICP Chapter 1 "1.3 Formulating Abstractions with Higher-Order
Procedures"
the part i'm (currently) having trouble with is where the procedural template (shown below) is transformed into an actual procedure (shown below that) by having its 'slots' turned into formal parameters. What I don't get is where the hell they get the next b at the end of the transformed procedure (just before the closing brackets)?
Surely its just b as in the template?
Anyway, this is the template...
(define (<name> a b)
(if (> a b)
0
(+ (<term> a)
(<name> (<next> a) b))))
And this is the procedure once the parameter slots have been filled in
(define (sum term a next b)
(if (> a b)
0
(+ (term a)
(sum term (next a) next b))))
any illumination much appreciated
The key insight to understand here is that in Scheme we can pass functions as parameters to another function as easily as we would pass, say, numbers. Be aware that the template is incomplete, it should be:
(define (<name> <term> a <next> b)
(if (> a b)
0
(+ (<term> a)
(<name> <term> (<next> a) <next> b))))
The transformation from template to actual procedure is straightforward:
<name> is the placeholder for the name of the procedure, which happens to be sum
<term> is the placeholder for the procedure that is applied over each term in the series, in the actual procedure it's also called term but it could have any other name - for instance, identity would be an useful procedure to pass along
<next> is the placeholder for a procedure that calculates the next element in the series, for instance it could be as simple as passing along add1, but the authors chose to also call it next
The next b part at the end of the actual procedure is just providing the next (a function) and b (a number) parameters to the recursive call of the function, this is what's getting passed in the last line:
(sum term (next a) next b)
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
function call "term" function next number "next" function upper limit
Also notice that (next a) is actually applying the next procedure to the a parameter, and passing along to the recursion the result of that application - in fact, this is the only value that changes between calls, and it's effectively advancing the recursion up until the point when (> a b) becomes false. That's different from what's happening in the second-to-last parameter, where we are passing next, the function itself and not the result of applying it. As an example, here's how you'd call the sum procedure to add all the numbers between 1 and 10:
(sum identity 1 add1 10) ; <term> is `identity` and <next> is `add1`
=> 55
Related
I need to complete an assignment for my college course using Scheme. I've never coded in Scheme before so I have no clue what I'm doing. Our assignment is to define an anonymous function that computes the discriminant of a quadratic function. I keep running into the error: "Invalid `define'. Any help would be appreciated.
(define roots (lambda(abc))(
(lambda(discriminant))(
list(/(+(-b) discriminant)(*2a))
(/(-(-b) discriminant)(*2a))
)
(sqrt - (*bb)(*4ac))
)
First, you should learn a bit about what Scheme code looks like; find some example code (in your textbook, or online, or in answers here on SO) and notice how parentheses and whitespace are used. Then emulate that. You can't arbitrarily place parentheses or arbitrarily remove whitespace in Scheme (or in any Lisp).
For example, in the posted code (-b) gets two things wrong. First, -b is treated as one symbol, not as the negation of the value of b. Further, placing the symbol in parentheses indicates a procedure call; given an s-expression (f x), f is either a syntactic keyword (in which case (f x) is interpreted as a macro call), or (f x) is interpreted as a procedure call. If it is a procedure call and f is not bound to a procedure, then an exception is raised. So (-b) attempts to call a procedure named -b, which does not exist (unless you have defined it), raising an exception. You can use (- b), with a space between the - procedure and the symbol b; this evaluates to the negation of the value of b.
Similarly, *2a is interpreted as a symbol, not an expression; placing the *2a between parentheses is interpreted as a procedure call. The interpreter (or compiler) is expecting that *2a is a procedure which takes no arguments. You need to add the spaces: (* 2 a); this is interpreted as a call to the procedure * with the arguments 2 and a.
(*bb) and (*4ac) have exactly the same problems. The second case is interesting because when it is correctly written it illustrates one of the advantages of prefix notation. Since * is associative, it does not matter what order multiple values are multiplied in. To express naively 4 * a * c in prefix notation you could write (* 4 (* a c)), explicitly ordering the multiplications. You could also write this as (* (* 4 a) c), multiplying in a different order. It does not matter what order you multiply in, so you might as well just write (* 4 a c), so long as your language supports this notation. It turns out that Scheme and other Lisps do support this notation.
Another problem with s-expression notation in the posted code (after fixing the problems noted above): (sqrt - (* b b) (* 4 a c)). This is attempting to call the sqrt procedure on the arguments -, (* b b), and (* 4 a c). But sqrt is not a higher-order procedure (i.e., it does not take procedures as arguments), and it in fact only takes one argument. It was meant to apply the - procedure to the arguments (* b b) and (* 4 a c), subtracting them before taking the square root: (sqrt (- (* b b) (* 4 a c))).
The first lambda expression has a formal parameter list containing only one parameter: abc. As before, this is a mistake. The intention was to define three parameters: don't skimp on spaces: (lambda (a b c)).
The other significant problem is that there are syntax errors in the lambda expressions: (lambda (a b c)) has no body, but a lambda expression must have at least one expression in its body. This was probably intended to wrap the lambda expression which follows. Similarly, the inner lambda expression is missing its body. It was probably intended to wrap the (list ;;...) form that follows.
With that done, the inner lambda expression is itself inside of a pair of parentheses, taking the expression (sqrt (- (* b b) (* 4 a c))) as its argument. This is the lambda form of a let binding. Thus, the inner lambda takes one argument, discriminant, and evaluates the list form that is its body. Since the inner lambda expression itself occurs in the first position of an s-expression, it is part of a procedure call, and this inner anonymous procedure is then called on its argument, binding discriminant to the value obtained by evaluating that argument, which is (sqrt (- (* b b) (* 4 a c))). This all occurs inside of the outer lambda, which takes the three arguments a, b, and c. So, root is a function taking three arguments, and returning a list of roots, after binding the result of the discriminant calculation to discriminant (as a way of both simplifying the expression of the roots and ensuring that the discriminant need only be calculated one time).
Here is the fixed-up code. Note that I only added some spaces and added or moved a few parentheses; nothing else was changed:
(define roots
(lambda (a b c)
((lambda (discriminant)
(list (/ (+ (- b) discriminant) (* 2 a))
(/ (- (- b) discriminant) (* 2 a))))
(sqrt (- (* b b) (* 4 a c))))))
Pay attention to what this looks like. In Lisps you should almost never leave parentheses hanging on lines by themselves, and you should always place a space between arguments. Remember that everything is a procedure call.
Here is a sample interaction. Notice that you can represent negative numbers as -1 instead of (- 1) (you can do either if you wish). You just can't express a negative value using a variable as -b.
> (roots 1 0 -1)
(1 -1)
> (roots 1 8 15)
(-3 -5)
I am reading Tree Recursion of SICP, where fib was computed by a linear recursion.
We can also formulate an iterative process for computing the
Fibonacci numbers. The idea is to use a pair of integers a and b,
initialized to Fib(1) = 1 and Fib(0) = 0, and to repeatedly apply the
simultaneous transformations
It is not hard to show that, after applying this transformation n
times, a and b will be equal, respectively, to Fib(n + 1) and Fib(n).
Thus, we can compute Fibonacci numbers iteratively using the procedure
(rewrite by Emacs Lisp substitute for Scheme)
#+begin_src emacs-lisp :session sicp
(defun fib-iter (a b count)
(if (= count 0)
b
(fib-iter (+ a b) a (- count 1))))
(defun fib (n)
(fib-iter 1 0 n))
(fib 4)
#+end_src
"Set a + b = a and b = a", it's hard to wrap my mind around it.
The general idea to find a fib is simple:
Suppose a completed Fibonacci number table, search X in the table by jumping step by step from 0 to X.
The solution is barely intuitive.
It's reasonably to set a + b = b, a = b:
(defun fib-iter (a b count)
(if (= count 0)
a
(fib-iter b (+ a b) (- count 1))
)
)
(defun fib(n)
(fib-iter 0 1 n))
So, the authors' setting seems no more than just anti-intuitively placing b in the head with no special purpose.
However, I surely acknowledge that SICP deserves digging deeper and deeper.
What key points am I missing? Why set a + b = a rather than a + b = b?
As far as I can see your problem is that you don't like it that order of the arguments to fib-iter is not what you think it should be. The answer is that the order of arguments to functions is very often simply arbitrary and/or conventional: it's a choice made by the person writing the function. It does not matter to anyone but the person reading or writing the code: it's a stylistic choice. It doesn't particularly seem more intuitive to me to have fib defined as
(define (fib n)
(fib-iter 1 0 n))
(define (fib-iter next current n)
(if (zero? n)
current
(fib-iter (+ next current) next (- n 1))))
Rather than
(define (fib n)
(fib-iter 0 1 n))
(define (fib-iter current next n)
(if (zero? n)
current
(fib-iter (+ next current) current (- n 1))))
There are instances where this isn't true. For instance Standard Lisp (warning, PDF link) defined mapcar so that the list being mapped over was the first argument with the function being mapped the second. This means you can't extend it in the way it has been extended for more recent dialects, so that it takes any positive number of lists with the function being applied to the
corresponding elements of all the lists.
Similarly I think it would be extremely unintuitive to define the arguments of - or / the other way around.
but in many, many cases it's just a matter of making a choice and sticking to it.
The recurrence is given in an imperative form. For instance, in Common Lisp, we could use parallel assignment in the body of a loop:
(psetf a (+ a b)
b a)
To reduce confusion, we should think about this functionally and give the old and new variables different names:
a = a' + b'
b = a'
This is no longer an assignment but a pair of equalities; we are justified in using the ordinary "=" operator of mathematics instead of the assignment arrow.
The linear recursion does this implicitly, because it avoids assignment. The value of the expression (+ a b) is passed as the parameter a. But that's a fresh instance of a in new scope which uses the same name, not an assignment; the binding just induces the two to be equivalent.
We can see it also like this with the help of a "Fibonacci slide rule":
1 1 2 3 5 8 13
----------------------------- <-- sliding interface
b' a'
b a
As we calculate the sequence, there is a two-number window whose entries we are calling a and b, which slides along the sequence. You can read the equalities at any position directly off the slide rule: look, b = a' = 5 and a = b' + a' = 8.
You may be confused by a referring to the higher position in the sequence. You might be thinking of this labeling:
1 1 2 3 5 8 13
------------------------
a' b'
a b
Indeed, under this naming arrangement, now we have b = a' + b', as you expect, and a = b'.
It's just a matter of which variable is designated as the leading one farther along the sequence, and which is the trailing one.
The "a is leading" convention comes from the idea that a is before b in the alphabet, and so it receives the newer "updates" from the sequence first, which then pass off to b.
This may seem counterintuitive, but such a pattern appears elsewhere in mathematics, such as convolution of functions.
I am supposed to write a function called (nth-filtered f n), where f is a function of one variable and n is a natural number, which evaluates to the nth natural number such that f applied to that number is #t.
If we called
(nth-filtered even? 1) we would get 2
(nth-filtered prime? 10) we would get 29
How do I make it so that it works for any sequential function? What should I think about when approaching this type of problem?
A variable is a variable and + is also a variable. The main difference between a function and some other data type is that you can wrap a function name in parentheses with arguments and it will become a new value.
eg.
(define (double fun)
(lambda (value)
(fun (fun value))))
(define (add1 v)
(+ 1 v))
(define add2 (double add1))
(add2 1) ; ==> 3
Now the contract doesn't say so you deduct by looking that you do (fun ...) that fun needs to be a function. Imagine this:
(define test (double 5)) ; probably works OK
(test 1)
The last one fails since you get application: 5 is not a procedure or something similar. The error message is not standardized.
How to attack your task is by making a helper that has the same arguments as your function but in addition the current number that I guess starts at 1. As I demonstrated you use the function variable as a function and recurse by always increasing the number and reducing n when the f call was #t. The actual function will just use the helper by passing all the parameters in addition to your state variable.
Your problem requires a fold, which is the standard way to iterate other a list while keeping a record of things done so far.
Here a very rackety method using for/fold:
(define (nth-filtered predicate index)
(for/fold ([count 0]
[current #f] #:result current)
([n (in-naturals 1)]) ; we start at 1 but we could start at 0
#:break (= count index)
(values (if (predicate n) (add1 count) count)
n)))
for/fold takes a list of initial state. Here we define count as the number of times the given predicate returned #t and current as the currently tested value.
Then it takes a list of iterators, in this case we only iterate infinitely over (in-naturals).
To make it stop, we provide a #:break condition, which is "when the number of truthy predicates (count) is equal to the requested amount (index)".
for/fold requests that it's body finishes with a list of values for each "state" variable, in order to update them for the next iteration. Here we provide two values: one is the new count, the other is just the current n.
You can try it out, it works as you requested:
> (nth-filtered even? 1)
2
> (require math/number-theory)
> (nth-filtered prime? 10)
29
> (nth-filtered prime? 5)
11
hy everyone, for school i have to make a function where lambda is used as a parameter
like so : (string (lambda ...) 5 40) where we have to fill in the dots
this is the function we had to reinvent, the regular string version
(define (string decoration n r) >string decoration is a function that creates a string with either fish or pumpkins hanging on the string
(define (decorations k) >decorations is the recursive function which hangs all the decorations together
(if (= k 1)
(decoration r 10) > here decoration is to be replaced with either a pumpkin or a fish as stated in the parameters
(ht-append (decoration r 10) > ht-append is a function that appends 2 figures Horizontally at the Top
(decorations (- k 1)))))
(hang-by-thread (decorations n))) > hang by thread is a function that hangs all the decorations at a string
all the names should be self-explanatory, the function takes a decoration , either a fish or a pumpkin and hangs it by a thread. But the fish has 3 parameters and the pumpkin has 2 which caused an error. So in a previous exercise we had to make an extra definition called fish-square which uses only 2 parameters to make a fish. Now we have to implement this same squared fish but with a lambda. Any help is greatly appreciated
(define (fish-square wh l) > this is the fish square functio which makes a fish but with 2 times the same parameter so it looks like a square
(vc-append (filled-rectangle 2 l) (fish wh wh))) > the l is the length of the string that attaches the fish to the string at the top
the fish function is just (fish x y) x makes it longer, y makes it taller.
the pumpkin function is just (pumpkin x y) same story
so my question is, how do rewrite the given code , but with lambda as a parameter.
i would upload an image, but my repuation isn't high enough :s
The string procedure as it is already receiving a procedure as a parameter (you don't have to rewrite it!), decoration can be any two-argument function used for decorating. Now when you call it you can pass a named procedure, for example:
(define (decoration r n)
<body>)
(string decoration
5
40)
... Or just as easily, you can pass the same procedure in-line as a lambda, and if I understood correctly, this is what you're supposed to do:
(string (lambda (r n)
<body>)
5
40)
Just replace <body> with the actual body of the decoration you want to use. In othre words: the change you're expected to do is in the way you pass the parameters to the function at invocation time, but you're not expected to change the function itself.
Imagine you have the procedure +. It could be any really. It takes several arguments but you need a different procedure that takes one and adds that to an already constant value 3.
Thus you want to pass + with the extra information that it should add 3.
A full definition of such procedure would be
(define (add3 n)
(+ 3 n))
which is the short form of the full define
(define add3
(lambda (n)
(+ 3 n)))
Now when passing a procedure 3+ you could actually just pass it's definition. These two does the same:
(do-computation add3 data)
(do-computation (lambda (n) (+ 3 n)) data)
So basically this code's purpose is to simply print out the first n even numbers.
for (i = 0; i <=n; i+= 2)
{
print i;
}
Thing is though, I don't understand Scheme at all. So, help please.
There are several ways to convert the code in the question to Scheme. The first one I can think of:
(define (print-even n)
(let loop ((i 0))
(if (<= i n)
(begin
(print i)
(newline)
(loop (+ i 2))))))
Notice this:
The solution is written as a recursive procedure
Instead of a for loop, I'm using a construct called a named let, which permits the initialization of some iteration variables (i in this case, initialized to 0) and the repeated execution of a recursive procedure (loop in this case), producing an effect similar to a for, even in performance
The stop condition in the "loop" is handled with essentially the same expression: repeat the body of the iteration as long as (<= i n), when that condition becomes false, the iteration ends
The begin surrounds the body of the "loop", just as the curly braces {} do in the original code
The print procedure performs the expected operation; for readability I added a new line after printing each number
The increment part of the original loop i += 2 is handled by the expression (+ i 2), inside the recursive call
So you see, the process being executed is essentially the same, only the way to write it (the syntax!) is different. Give it a try, type this:
(print-even 6)
... And the following will get printed on the screen:
0
2
4
6
Another possible way to implement the procedure, more similar to the original code, although (this is completely subjective) less idiomatic than the previous one:
(define (print-even n)
(do ((i 0 (+ i 2))) ((> i n))
(print i)
(newline)))
Finally, if you're using Racket this will seem even more familiar to you:
#lang racket
(define (print-even n)
(for ((i (in-range 0 (+ n 1) 2)))
(print i)
(newline)))
The first big difference between Scheme and other languages is this: In Scheme, you do (almost) everything recursively.
To implement a simple loop, for instance, you would define a recursive function. This function would first check to see whether it's time to break out of the loop; if is is, it would return the final value. (There is no final value in this case, so it would just return something like (void) or '().) Otherwise, the function would do whatever it's supposed to do, then call itself again.
Any loop variables (such as i) become arguments to the function.
Hopefully this helps you understand how to do this.
The Scheme way to do something like this is using a recursive function like the one below.
(define (doit value n)
(if (<= value n)
(begin
;;...perform loop body with x...
(display value)(newline)
(doit (+ value 2) n))))
To call this function you call (doit 2 n) where n is your n in the for loop.
With regards to learning Scheme, I recommend the first two links below.
For additional information on Scheme see
SICP
How to Design Programs
Schemers
Related Stackoverflow Question
Scheme Cookbook Looping Constructs