Im want to make a function where rootcheck has a list L as input, L always is 3 atoms (a b c) where a is coefficient of x^2, b coef of x and c is the constant. it checks if the equation is quadratic, using discriminant (b^2 - 4ac) and should output this (num 'L) where num is the number of roots and L is a list that contains the roots themselves (using quadratic formula), L is empty in case of no roots. here is my code:
(define roots-2
(lambda (L)
(let ((d (- (* (cdr L) (cdr L)) (4 (car L) (caddr L))))))
(cond ((< d 0) (cons(0 null)))
((= d 0) (cons(1 null)))
(else((> d 0) (cons(2 null)))))
))
its giving me no expression in body error.
also I tried to code the quadratic function and even tried some that are online, one compiled fint but gave me an error when I inserted input this is the code for the quadratic function, NOT MINE!
(define quadratic-solutions
(lambda (a b c) (list (root1 a b c) (root2 a b c))))
(define root1
(lambda (a b c) (/ (+ (- b) (sqrt (discriminant a b c)))
(* 2 a))))
(define root2
(lambda (a b c) (/ (- (- b) (sqrt (discriminant a b c)))
(*2 a))))
(define discriminant
(lambda (a b c) (- (square b) (* 4 (* a c)))))
There are several mistakes in the code:
Some parentheses are incorrectly placed, use a good IDE to detect such problems. This is causing the error reported, the let doesn't have a body
You forgot to multiply in the 4ac part
You're incorrectly accessing the second element in the list
The else part must not have a condition
The output list is not correctly constructed
This should fix the errors, now replace null with the actual call to the function that calculates the roots for the second and third cases (the (< d 0) case is fine as it is):
(define roots-2
(lambda (L)
(let ((d (- (* (cadr L) (cadr L)) (* 4 (car L) (caddr L)))))
(cond ((< d 0) (list 0 null))
((= d 0) (list 1 null))
(else (list 2 null))))))
for the quadractic function part, I found a code online and tweaked it to provide both roots of a quadratic equation. returns a list of both roots
(define (solve-quadratic-equation a b c)
(define disc (sqrt (- (* b b)
(* 4.0 a c))))
(list (/ (+ (- b) disc) (* 2.0 a))
(/ (- (- b) disc) (* 2.0 a))
))
Related
This is my first post on StackOverflow. I have been working on Exercise 1.11 from SICP and feel I have a viable solution. In transferring from paper to Emacs I seem to have some syntax error that I am unaware of. I tried my best to double and triple check the parenthesis and solve it but the terminal is still giving me an 'object #t is not applicable' message. Could someone please point me in the right direction of how to fix the code so I can test its output properly?"
Exercise 1.11: A function f
is defined by the rule that:
f(n)=n
if n<3
, and
f(n)=f(n−1)+2f(n−2)+3f(n−3)
if n>=3
Write a procedure that computes f by means of a recursive process.
Write a procedure that computes f by means of an iterative process.
(define (f-recur n)
(if ((< n 3) n)
(+ (f(- n 1))
(* 2 (f(n-2)))
(* 3 (f(n-3)))))
(define (f-iter n)
(define (counter n)
(if (<= n 3) 0)
(- n 3))
(define (d n) (+ n (* 2 n) (* 3 n)))
(define (c n) (+ d (* 2 n) (* 3 n)))
(define (b n) (+ c (* 2 d) (* 3 n)))
(define (a n) (+ b (* 2 c) (* 3 d)))
(define (f a b c d counter)
(if ((> (+ counter 3) n) a)
(f (+ b (* 2 c) (* 3 d)) a b c (+ counter 1)))))
(cond ((= counter 0) d)
((= counter 1) c)
((= counter 2) b)
((= counter 3) a)
(else (f a b c d counter))))
I'm pretty sure SICP is looking for a solution in the manner of this iterative fibonnacci:
(define (fib n)
(define (helper n a b)
(if (zero? n)
a
(helper (- n 1) b (+ a b))))
(helper n 0 1))
Fibonacci is f(n)=f(n−1)+f(n−2) so I guess f(n)=f(n−1)+2f(n−2)+3f(n−3) can be made exactly the same way with one extra variable. Your iterative solution looks more like Fortran than Scheme. Try avoiding set!.
I'm trying to write a code for extended Euclidian Algorithm in Scheme for an RSA implementation.
The thing about my problem is I can't write a recursive algorithm where the output of the inner step must be the input of the consecutive outer step. I want it to give the result of the most-outer step but as it can be seen, it gives the result of the most inner one. I wrote a program for this (it is a bit messy but I couldn't find time to edit.):
(define ax+by=1
(lambda (a b)
(define q (quotient a b))
(define r (remainder a b))
(define make-list (lambda (x y)
(list x y)))
(define solution-helper-x-prime (lambda (a b q r)
(if (= r 1) (- 0 q) (solution-helper-x-prime b r (quotient b r) (remainder b r)))
))
(define solution-helper-y-prime (lambda (a b q r)
(if (= r 1) (- r (* q (- 0 q) )) (solution-helper-y-prime b r (quotient b r) (remainder b r))
))
(define solution-first-step (lambda (a b q r)
(if (= r 1) (make-list r (- 0 q))
(make-list (solution-helper-x-prime b r (quotient b r) (remainder b r)) (solution-helper-y-prime b r (quotient b r) (remainder b r))))
))
(display (solution-first-step a b q r))
))
All kinds of help and advice would be greatly appreciated. (P.S. I added a scrrenshot of the instructions that was given to us but I can't see the image. If there is a problem, please let me know.)
This is a Diophantine equation and is a bit tricky to solve. I came up with an iterative solution adapted from this explanation, but had to split the problem in parts - first, obtain the list of quotients by applying the extended Euclidean algorithm:
(define (quotients a b)
(let loop ([a a] [b b] [lst '()])
(if (<= b 1)
lst
(loop b (remainder a b) (cons (quotient a b) lst)))))
Second, go back and solve the equation:
(define (solve x y lst)
(if (null? lst)
(list x y)
(solve y (+ x (* (car lst) y)) (cdr lst))))
Finally, put it all together and determine the correct signs of the solution:
(define (ax+by=1 a b)
(let* ([ans (solve 0 1 (quotients a b))]
[x (car ans)]
[y (cadr ans)])
(cond ((and (= a 0) (= b 1))
(list 0 1))
((and (= a 1) (= b 0))
(list 1 0))
((= (+ (* a (- x)) (* b y)) 1)
(list (- x) y))
((= (+ (* a x) (* b (- y))) 1)
(list x (- y)))
(else (error "Equation has no solution")))))
For example:
(ax+by=1 1027 712)
=> '(-165 238)
(ax+by=1 91 72)
=> '(19 -24)
(ax+by=1 13 13)
=> Equation has no solution
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)))