Where does this implementation of the Josephus problem fall short? For those who are unfamiliar with the Josephus Problem, the goal is to delete every 3rd entry from a circularly linked list until only one remains. In this example I am deleting every "mth" value.
(define (joseph lst)
(let ((m (+ 1 (random (length lst)))))
(define (joseph-h i xlst mlst)
(cond ((<= (length xlst) 1) xlst)
((null? (cdr mlst))
(joseph-h i xlst xlst))
((= i m)
(joseph-h 1 (delete (car mlst) xlst) (cdr mlst)))
(else
(joseph-h (+ i 1) xlst (cdr mlst)))))
(joseph-h 0 lst lst)))
(joseph (list 1 2 3 4 5 6 7))
(define (delete v lst)
(cond ((= v (car lst))
(cdr lst))
(else
(cons (car lst) (delete v (cdr lst))))))
I always end up with the last number of the list as the answer. I know that this is not right.
You're taking the algorithm too literally, by creating a list and deleting elements ("killing" people) from it. A simpler solution would be to use arithmetic operations to model the problem, here's a possible implementation, adapted from my own previous answer:
(define (joseph n k)
(let loop ([i 1]
[acc 0])
(if (> i n)
(add1 acc)
(loop (add1 i)
(modulo (+ acc k) i)))))
For example, to see which position survives in the list '(1 2 3 4 5 6 7) after killing every third person, do this:
(joseph 7 3)
=> 4
Wikipedia provides an interesting discussion regarding the possible solutions for this problem, my solution adapts the simple python function shown, after converting it to tail recursion.
I give three solutions at my blog. The most literal version deletes from a list of n items in steps of m, representing the list as a cyclic list:
(define (cycle xs)
(set-cdr! (last-pair xs) xs) xs)
(define (josephus3 n m)
(let loop ((k (- m 1)) (alive (cycle (range 0 n))) (dead '()))
(cond ((= (car alive) (cadr alive))
(reverse (cons (car alive) dead)))
((= k 1)
(let ((dead (cons (cadr alive) dead)))
(set-cdr! alive (cddr alive))
(loop (- m 1) (cdr alive) dead)))
This does the deletions by actually removing the killed elements from the alive list and placing them on the dead list. The range function is from my Standard Prelude; it returns the integers from 0 to n-1:
(define (range first past . step)
(let* ((xs '()) (f first) (p past)
(s (cond ((pair? step) (car step))
((< f p) 1) (else -1)))
(le? (if (< 0 s) <= >=)))
(do ((x f (+ x s))) ((le? p x) (reverse xs))
(set! xs (cons x xs)))))
The original Josephus problem killed 41 men in steps of 3, leaving the 31st man as the survivor, counting from 1:
(josephus3 41 3)
(2 5 8 11 14 17 20 23 26 29 32 35 38 0 4 9 13 18 22 27 31 36
40 6 12 19 25 33 39 7 16 28 37 10 24 1 21 3 34 15 30)
You might also enjoy the other two versions at my blog.
Related
how to implement this function
if get two list (a b c), (d e)
and return list (a+d b+d c+d a+e b+e c+e)
list element is all integer and result list's element order is free
I tried this like
(define (addlist L1 L2)
(define l1 (length L1))
(define l2 (length L2))
(let ((result '()))
(for ((i (in-range l1)))
(for ((j (in-range l2)))
(append result (list (+ (list-ref L1 i) (list-ref L2 j))))))))
but it return error because result is '()
I don't know how to solve this problem please help me
A data-transformational approach:
(a b c ...) (x y ...)
1. ==> ( ((a x) (b x) (c x) ...) ((a y) (b y) (c y) ...) ...)
2. ==> ( (a x) (b x) (c x) ... (a y) (b y) (c y) ... ...)
3. ==> ( (a+x) (b+x) ... )
(define (addlist L1 L2)
(map (lambda (r) (apply + r)) ; 3. sum the pairs up
(reduce append '() ; 2. concatenate the lists
(map (lambda (e2) ; 1. pair-up the elements
(map (lambda (e1)
(list e1 e2)) ; combine two elements with `list`
L1))
L2))))
testing (in MIT-Scheme):
(addlist '(1 2 3) '(10 20))
;Value 23: (11 12 13 21 22 23)
Can you simplify this so there's no separate step #3?
We can further separate out the different bits and pieces in play here, as
(define (bind L f) (join (map f L)))
(define (join L) (reduce append '() L))
(define yield list)
then,
(bind '(1 2 3) (lambda (x) (bind '(10 20) (lambda (y) (yield (+ x y))))))
;Value 13: (11 21 12 22 13 23)
(bind '(10 20) (lambda (x) (bind '(1 2 3) (lambda (y) (yield (+ x y))))))
;Value 14: (11 12 13 21 22 23)
Here you go:
(define (addlist L1 L2)
(for*/list ((i (in-list L1)) (j (in-list L2)))
(+ i j)))
> (addlist '(1 2 3) '(10 20))
'(11 21 12 22 13 23)
The trick is to use for/list (or for*/list in case of nested fors) , which will automatically do the append for you. Also, note that you can just iterate over the lists, no need to work with indexes.
To get the result "the other way round", invert L1 and L2:
(define (addlist L1 L2)
(for*/list ((i (in-list L2)) (j (in-list L1)))
(+ i j)))
> (addlist '(1 2 3) '(10 20))
'(11 12 13 21 22 23)
In scheme, it's not recommended using function like set! or append!.
because it cause data changed or Variable, not as Funcitonal Programming Style.
should like this:
(define (add-one-list val lst)
(if (null? lst) '()
(cons (list val (car lst)) (add-one-list val (cdr lst)))))
(define (add-list lst0 lst1)
(if (null? lst0) '()
(append (add-one-list (car lst0) lst1)
(add-list (cdr lst0) lst1))))
first understanding function add-one-list, it recursively call itself, and every time build val and fist element of lst to a list, and CONS/accumulate it as final answer.
add-list function just like add-one-list.
(define (addlist L1 L2)
(flatmap (lambda (x) (map (lambda (y) (+ x y)) L1)) L2))
(define (flatmap f L)
(if (null? L)
'()
(append (f (car L)) (flatmap f (cdr L)))))
1 ]=> (addlist '(1 2 3) '(10 20))
;Value 2: (11 12 13 21 22 23)
Going with Will and Procras on this one. If you're going to use scheme, might as well use idiomatic scheme.
Using for to build a list is a bit weird to me. (list comprehensions would fit better) For is usually used to induce sequential side effects. That and RSR5 does not define a for/list or for*/list.
Flatmap is a fairly common functional paradigm where you use append instead of cons to build a list to avoid nested and empty sublists
It doesn't work because functions like append don't mutate the containers. You could fix your problem with a mutating function like append!. Usually functions that mutate have a ! in their name like set! etc.
But it's possible to achieve that without doing mutation. You'd have to change your algorithm to send the result to your next iteration. Like this:
(let loop ((result '()))
(loop (append result '(1)))
As you can see, when loop will get called, result will be:
'()
'(1)
'(1 1)
'(1 1 1)
....
Following this logic you should be able to change your algorithm to use this method instead of for loop. You'll have to pass some more parameters to know when you have to exit and return result.
I'll try to add a more complete answer later today.
Here's an implementation of append! I just wrote:
(define (append! lst1 lst2)
(if (null? (cdr lst1))
(set-cdr! lst1 lst2)
(append! (cdr lst1) lst2)))
I'm working on implementing a bubble sorting algorithm in Scheme, and I must say that the functional way of programming is a strange concept and I am struggling a bit to grasp it.
I've successfully created a function that will bubble up the first largest value we come across, but that's about all it does.
(bubbleH '(5 10 9 8 7))
(5 9 8 7 10)
I am struggling with the helper function that is required to completely loop through the list until no swaps have been made.
Here's where I am at so far, obviously it is not correct but I think I am on the right track. I know that I could pass in the number of elements in the list myself, but I am looking for a solution different from that.
(define bubbaS
(lambda (lst)
(cond (( = (length lst) 1) (bubba-help lst))
(else (bubbaS (bubba-help lst))))))
Using the bubble-up and bubble-sort-aux implementations in the possible-duplicate SO question I referenced...
(define (bubble-up L)
(if (null? (cdr L))
L
(if (< (car L) (cadr L))
(cons (car L) (bubble-up (cdr L)))
(cons (cadr L) (bubble-up (cons (car L) (cddr L)))))))
(define (bubble-sort-aux N L)
(cond ((= N 1) (bubble-up L))
(else (bubble-sort-aux (- N 1) (bubble-up L)))))
..., this is simple syntactic sugar:
(define (bubbleH L)
(bubble-sort-aux (length L) L))
With the final bit of syntactic sugar added, you should get exactly what you specified in your question:
(bubbleH '(5 10 9 8 7))
=> (5 7 8 9 10)
You can tinker with everything above in a repl.it session I saved & shared.
Here's my own tail-recursive version.
The inner function will bubble up the largest number just like your bubbleH procedure. But instead of returning a complete list, it will return 2 values:
the unsorted 'rest' list
the largest value that has bubbled up
such as:
> (bsort-inner '(5 1 4 2 8))
'(5 2 4 1)
8
> (bsort-inner '(1 5 4 2 8))
'(5 2 4 1)
8
> (bsort-inner '(4 8 2 5))
'(5 2 4)
8
Now the outer loop just has to cons the second value returned, and iterate on the remaining list.
Code:
(define (bsort-inner lst)
(let loop ((lst lst) (res null))
(let ((ca1 (car lst)) (cd1 (cdr lst)))
(if (null? cd1)
(values res ca1)
(let ((ca2 (car cd1)) (cd2 (cdr cd1)))
(if (<= ca1 ca2)
(loop cd1 (cons ca1 res))
(loop (cons ca1 cd2) (cons ca2 res))))))))
(define (bsort lst)
(let loop ((lst lst) (res null))
(if (null? lst)
res
(let-values (((ls mx) (bsort-inner lst)))
(loop ls (cons mx res))))))
For a recursive version, I prefer one where the smallest value bubbles in front:
(define (bsort-inner lst)
; after one pass, smallest element is in front
(let ((ca1 (car lst)) (cd1 (cdr lst)))
(if (null? cd1)
lst ; just one element => sorted
(let ((cd (bsort-inner cd1))) ; cd = sorted tail
(let ((ca2 (car cd)) (cd2 (cdr cd)))
(if (<= ca1 ca2)
(cons ca1 cd)
(cons ca2 (cons ca1 cd2))))))))
(define (bsort lst)
(if (null? lst)
null
(let ((s (bsort-inner lst)))
(cons (car s) (bsort (cdr s))))))
Write a procedure (first-half lst) that returns a list with the first half of its elements. If the length of the given list is odd, the returned list should have (length - 1) / 2 elements.
I am given these program as a example and as I am new to Scheme I need your help in solving this problem.
(define list-head
(lambda (lst k)
(if (= k 0)
'()
(cons (car lst)(list-head (cdr lst)(- k 1)))))))
(list-head '(0 1 2 3 4) 3)
; list the first 3 element in the list (list 0 1 2)
Also the expected output for the program I want is :
(first-half '(43 23 14 5 9 57 0 125))
(43 23 14 5)
This is pretty simple to implement in terms of existing procedures, check your interpreter's documentation for the availability of the take procedure:
(define (first-half lst)
(take lst (quotient (length lst) 2)))
Apart from that, the code provided in the question is basically reinventing take, and it looks correct. The only detail left to implement would be, how to obtain the half of the lists' length? same as above, just use the quotient procedure:
(define (first-half lst)
(list-head lst (quotient (length lst) 2)))
It looks like you are learning about recursion? One recursive approach is to walk the list with a 'slow' and 'fast' pointer; when the fast pointer reaches the end you are done; use the slow pointer to grow the result. Like this:
(define (half list)
(let halving ((rslt '()) (slow list) (fast list))
(if (or (null? fast) (null? (cdr fast)))
(reverse rslt)
(halving (cons (car slow) rslt)
(cdr slow)
(cdr (cdr fast))))))
Another way to approach it is to have a function that divides the list at a specific index, and then a wrapper to calculate floor(length/2):
(define (cleave_at n a)
(cond
((null? a) '())
((zero? n) (list '() a))
(#t
((lambda (x)
(cons (cons (car a) (car x)) (cdr x)))
(cleave_at (- n 1) (cdr a))))))
(define (first-half a)
(car (cleave_at (floor (/ (length a) 2)) a)))
I don't fully understand what the append-map command does in racket, nor do I understand how to use it and I'm having a pretty hard time finding some decently understandable documentation online for it. Could someone possibly demonstrate what exactly the command does and how it works?
The append-map procedure is useful for creating a single list out of a list of sublists after applying a procedure to each sublist. In other words, this code:
(append-map proc lst)
... Is semantically equivalent to this:
(apply append (map proc lst))
... Or this:
(append* (map proc lst))
The applying-append-to-a-list-of-sublists idiom is sometimes known as flattening a list of sublists. Let's look at some examples, this one is right here in the documentation:
(append-map vector->list '(#(1) #(2 3) #(4)))
'(1 2 3 4)
For a more interesting example, take a look at this code from Rosetta Code for finding all permutations of a list:
(define (insert l n e)
(if (= 0 n)
(cons e l)
(cons (car l)
(insert (cdr l) (- n 1) e))))
(define (seq start end)
(if (= start end)
(list end)
(cons start (seq (+ start 1) end))))
(define (permute l)
(if (null? l)
'(())
(apply append (map (lambda (p)
(map (lambda (n)
(insert p n (car l)))
(seq 0 (length p))))
(permute (cdr l))))))
The last procedure can be expressed more concisely by using append-map:
(define (permute l)
(if (null? l)
'(())
(append-map (lambda (p)
(map (lambda (n)
(insert p n (car l)))
(seq 0 (length p))))
(permute (cdr l)))))
Either way, the result is as expected:
(permute '(1 2 3))
=> '((1 2 3) (2 1 3) (2 3 1) (1 3 2) (3 1 2) (3 2 1))
In Common Lisp, the function is named "mapcan" and it is sometimes used to combine filtering with mapping:
* (mapcan (lambda (n) (if (oddp n) (list (* n n)) '()))
'(0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7))
(1 9 25 49)
In Racket that would be:
> (append-map (lambda (n) (if (odd? n) (list (* n n)) '()))
(range 8))
'(1 9 25 49)
But it's better to do it this way:
> (filter-map (lambda (n) (and (odd? n) (* n n))) (range 8))
'(1 9 25 49)
I have a function that takes a number such as 36, and reverses it to say '(6 3)
Is there anyway to combine that 6 3 to make it one number?
Here is the code that I have written.
(define (number->rdigits num)
(if (rdigits (/ (- num (mod num 10)) 10)))))
(define reversible?
(lambda (n)
(cond
[(null? n) #f]
[else (odd? (+ n (list (number->rdigits n))))])))
Thanks!
You can do this using an iterative function that takes each element of the list in turn, accumulating a result. For example:
(define (make-number lst)
(define (make a lst)
(if (null? lst)
a
(make (+ (* 10 a) (car lst)) (cdr lst))))
(make 0 lst))
(display (make-number '(6 3)))
The make function uses an accumulator a and the rest of the digits in lst to build up the final result one step at a time:
a = 0
a = 0*10 + 6 = 6
a = 6*10 + 3 = 63
If you had more digits in your list, this would continue:
a = 63*10 + 5 = 635
a = 635*10 + 9 = 6359
A less efficient implementation that uses a single function could be as follows:
(define (make-number lst)
(if (null? lst)
0
(+ (* (expt 10 (length (cdr lst))) (car lst)) (make-number (cdr lst)))))
This function needs to calculate the length of the remainder of the list for each iteration, as well as calling the expt function repeatedly. Also, this implementation is not properly tail recursive so it builds up multiple stack frames during execution before unwinding them all after it reaches its maximum recursion depth.