I have a haskell assignment in which i have to create a function lastDigit x y of 2 arguments that calculates the sum of all [x^x | (0..x)], mine is too slow and i need to speed it up. Anyone has any ideas??
list :: Integral x=>x->[x]
list 0 = []
list x = list(div x 10) ++ [(mod x 10)]
sqrall :: Integer->[Integer]
sqrall x y = [mod (mod x 10^y)^x 10^y | x <- [1..x]]
lastDigits :: Integer -> Int -> [Integer]
lastDigits x y = drop (length((list(sum (sqrall x y))))-y) (list(sum (sqrall x)))
The main reason this will take too long is because you calculate the entire number of x^x, which scales super exponentially. This means that even for very small x, it will still take a considerable amount of time.
The point is however that you do not need to calculate the entire number. Indeed, you can make use of the fact that x×y mod n = (x mod n) × (y mod n) mod n. For example Haskell's arithmoi package makes use of this [src]:
powMod :: (Integral a, Integral b) => a -> b -> a -> a
powMod x y m
| m <= 0 = error "powModInt: non-positive modulo"
| y < 0 = error "powModInt: negative exponent"
| otherwise = f (x `rem` m) y 1 `mod` m
where
f _ 0 acc = acc
f b e acc = f (b * b `rem` m) (e `quot` 2)
(if odd e then (b * acc `rem` m) else acc)
We can make a specific version for modulo 10 with:
pow10 :: Integral i => i -> i
pow10 x = go x x
where go 0 _ = 1
go i j | odd i = rec * j `mod` 10
| otherwise = rec
where rec = go (div i 2) ((j*j) `mod` 10)
This then matches x^x `mod` 10, except that we do not need to calculate the entire number:
Prelude> map pow10 [1 .. 20]
[1,4,7,6,5,6,3,6,9,0,1,6,3,6,5,6,7,4,9,0]
Prelude> [x^x `mod` 10 | x <- [1..20]]
[1,4,7,6,5,6,3,6,9,0,1,6,3,6,5,6,7,4,9,0]
Now that we have that, we can also calculate the the sum of the two last digits with integers that range to at most 18:
sum10 :: Int -> Int -> Int
sum10 x y = (x + y) `mod` 10
we thus can calculate the last digit with:
import Data.List(foldl')
lastdigit :: Int -> Int
lastdigit x = foldl' sum10 0 (map pow10 [0 .. x])
For example for x = 26, we get:
Prelude Data.List> lastdigit 26
4
Prelude Data.List> sum [ x^x | x <- [0 .. 26] ]
6246292385799360560872647730684286774
I keep it as an exercise to generalize the above to calculate it for the last y digits. As long as y is relatively small, this will be efficient, since then the numbers never take huge amounts of memory. Furthermore if the numbers have an upper bound, addition, multiplication, etc. are done in constant time. If you however use an Integer, then the numbers can be arbitrary large, and thus operations like addition are not constant.
I am attempting to calculate the Levenshtein distance between two strings using dynamic programming. This is being done through Hackerrank, so I have timing constraints. I used a techenique I saw in: How are Dynamic Programming algorithms implemented in idiomatic Haskell? and it seems to be working. Unfortunaly, it is timing out in one test case. I do not have access to the specific test case, so I don't know the exact size of the input.
import Control.Monad
import Data.Array.IArray
import Data.Array.Unboxed
main = do
n <- readLn
replicateM_ n $ do
s1 <- getLine
s2 <- getLine
print $ editDistance s1 s2
editDistance :: String -> String -> Int
editDistance s1 s2 = dynamic editDistance' (length s1, length s2)
where
s1' :: UArray Int Char
s1' = listArray (1,length s1) s1
s2' :: UArray Int Char
s2' = listArray (1,length s2) s2
editDistance' table (i,j)
| min i j == 0 = max i j
| otherwise = min' (table!((i-1),j) + 1) (table!(i,(j-1)) + 1) (table!((i-1),(j-1)) + cost)
where
cost = if s1'!i == s2'!j then 0 else 1
min' a b = min (min a b)
dynamic :: (Array (Int,Int) Int -> (Int,Int) -> Int) -> (Int,Int) -> Int
dynamic compute (xBnd, yBnd) = table!(xBnd,yBnd)
where
table = newTable $ map (\coord -> (coord, compute table coord)) [(x,y) | x<-[0..xBnd], y<-[0..yBnd]]
newTable xs = array ((0,0),fst (last xs)) xs
I've switched to using arrays, but that speed up was insufficient. I cannot use Unboxed arrays, because this code relies on laziness. Are there any glaring performance mistakes I have made? Or how else can I speed it up?
The backward equations for edit distance calculations are:
f(i, j) = minimum [
1 + f(i + 1, j), -- delete from the 1st string
1 + f(i, j + 1), -- delete from the 2nd string
f(i + 1, j + 1) + if a(i) == b(j) then 0 else 1 -- substitute or match
]
So within each dimension, you need nothing more than the very next index: + 1. This is a sequential access pattern, not random access to require arrays; and can be implemented using lists and nested right folds:
editDistance :: Eq a => [a] -> [a] -> Int
editDistance a b = head . foldr loop [n, n - 1..0] $ zip a [m, m - 1..]
where
(m, n) = (length a, length b)
loop (s, l) lst = foldr go [l] $ zip3 b lst (tail lst)
where
go (t, i, j) acc#(k:_) = inc `seq` inc:acc
where inc = minimum [i + 1, k + 1, if s == t then j else j + 1]
You may test this code in Hackerrank Edit Distance Problem as in:
import Control.Applicative ((<$>))
import Control.Monad (replicateM_)
import Text.Read (readMaybe)
editDistance :: Eq a => [a] -> [a] -> Int
editDistance a b = ... -- as implemented above
main :: IO ()
main = do
Just n <- readMaybe <$> getLine
replicateM_ n $ do
a <- getLine
b <- getLine
print $ editDistance a b
which passes all tests with a decent performance.
I'm trying to find all the integer lattice points within various 3D ellipses.
I would like my program to take an integer N, and count all the lattice points within the ellipses of the form ax^2 + by^2 + cz^2 = n, where a,b,c are fixed integers and n is between 1 and N. This program should then return N tuples of the form (n, numlatticePointsWithinEllipse n).
I'm currently doing it by counting the points on the ellipses ax^2 + by^2 + cz^2 = m, for m between 0 and n inclusive, and then summing over m. I'm also only looking at x, y and z all positive initially, and then adding in the negatives by permuting their signs later.
Ideally, I'd like to reach numbers of N = 1,000,000+ within the scale of hours
Taking a specific example of x^2 + y^2 + 3z^2 = N, here's the Haskell code I'm currently using:
import System.Environment
isqrt :: Int -> Int
isqrt 0 = 0
isqrt 1 = 1
isqrt n = head $ dropWhile (\x -> x*x > n) $ iterate (\x -> (x + n `div` x) `div` 2) (n `div` 2)
latticePointsWithoutNegatives :: Int -> [[Int]]
latticePointsWithoutNegatives 0 = [[0,0,0]]
latticePointsWithoutNegatives n = [[x,y,z] | x<-[0.. isqrt n], y<- [0.. isqrt (n - x^2)], z<-[max 0 (isqrt ((n-x^2 -y^2) `div` 3))], x^2 +y^2 + z^2 ==n]
latticePoints :: Int -> [[Int]]
latticePoints n = [ zipWith (*) [x1,x2,x3] y | [x1,x2,x3] <- (latticePointsWithoutNegatives n), y <- [[a,b,c] | a <- (if x1 == 0 then [0] else [-1,1]), b<-(if x2 == 0 then [0] else [-1,1]), c<-(if x3 == 0 then [0] else [-1,1])]]
latticePointsUpTo :: Int -> Int
latticePointsUpTo n = sum [length (latticePoints x) | x<-[0..n]]
listResults :: Int -> [(Int, Int)]
listResults n = [(x, latticePointsUpTo x) | x<- [1..n]]
main = do
args <- getArgs
let cleanArgs = read (head args)
print (listResults cleanArgs)
I've compiled this with
ghc -O2 latticePointsTest
but using the PowerShell "Measure-Command" command, I get the following results:
Measure-Command{./latticePointsTest 10}
TotalMilliseconds : 12.0901
Measure-Command{./latticePointsTest 100}
TotalMilliseconds : 12.0901
Measure-Command{./latticePointsTest 1000}
TotalMilliseconds : 31120.4503
and going any more orders of magnitude up takes us onto the scale of days, rather than hours or minutes.
Is there anything fundamentally wrong with the algorithm I'm using? Is there any core reason why my code isn't scaling well? Any guidance will be greatly appreciated. I may also want to process the data between "latticePoints" and "latticePointsUpTo", so I can't just rely entirely on clever number theoretic counting techniques - I need the underlying tuples preserved.
Some things I would try:
isqrt is not efficient for the range of values you are working work. Simply use the floating point sqrt function:
isqrt = floor $ sqrt ((fromIntegral n) :: Double)
Alternatively, instead of computing integer square roots, use logic like this in your list comprehensions:
x <- takeWhile (\x -> x*x <= n) [0..],
y <- takeWhile (\y -> y*y <= n - x*x) [0..]
Also, I would use expressions like x*x instead of x^2.
Finally, why not compute the number of solutions with something like this:
sols a b c n =
length [ () | x <- takeWhile (\x -> a*x*x <= n) [0..]
, y <- takeWhile (\y -> a*x*x+b*y*y <= n) [0..]
, z <- takeWhile (\z -> a*x*x+b*y*y+c*z*z <= n) [0..]
]
This does not exactly compute the same answer that you want because it doesn't account for positive and negative solutions, but you could easily modify it to compute your answer. The idea is to use one list comprehension instead of iterating over various values of n and summing.
Finally, I think using floor and sqrt to compute the integral square root is completely safe in this case. This code verifies that the integer square root by sing sqrt of (x*x) == x for all x <= 3037000499:
testAll :: Int -> IO ()
testAll n =
print $ head [ (x,a) | x <- [n,n-1 .. 1], let a = floor $ sqrt (fromIntegral (x*x) :: Double), a /= x ]
main = testAll 3037000499
Note I am running this on a 64-bit GHC - otherwise just use Int64 instead of Int since Doubles are 64-bit in either case. Takes only a minute or so to verify.
This shows that taking the floor of sqrt y will never result in the wrong answer if y <= 3037000499^2.
A friend of mine showed me a home exercise in a C++ course which he attend. Since I already know C++, but just started learning Haskell I tried to solve the exercise in the "Haskell way".
These are the exercise instructions (I translated from our native language so please comment if the instructions aren't clear):
Write a program which reads non-zero coefficients (A,B,C,D) from the user and places them in the following equation:
A*x + B*y + C*z = D
The program should also read from the user N, which represents a range. The program should find all possible integral solutions for the equation in the range -N/2 to N/2.
For example:
Input: A = 2,B = -3,C = -1, D = 5, N = 4
Output: (-1,-2,-1), (0,-2, 1), (0,-1,-2), (1,-1, 0), (2,-1,2), (2,0, -1)
The most straight-forward algorithm is to try all possibilities by brute force. I implemented it in Haskell in the following way:
triSolve :: Integer -> Integer -> Integer -> Integer -> Integer -> [(Integer,Integer,Integer)]
triSolve a b c d n =
let equation x y z = (a * x + b * y + c * z) == d
minN = div (-n) 2
maxN = div n 2
in [(x,y,z) | x <- [minN..maxN], y <- [minN..maxN], z <- [minN..maxN], equation x y z]
So far so good, but the exercise instructions note that a more efficient algorithm can be implemented, so I thought how to make it better. Since the equation is linear, based on the assumption that Z is always the first to be incremented, once a solution has been found there's no point to increment Z. Instead, I should increment Y, set Z to the minimum value of the range and keep going. This way I can save redundant executions.
Since there are no loops in Haskell (to my understanding at least) I realized that such algorithm should be implemented by using a recursion. I implemented the algorithm in the following way:
solutions :: (Integer -> Integer -> Integer -> Bool) -> Integer -> Integer -> Integer -> Integer -> Integer -> [(Integer,Integer,Integer)]
solutions f maxN minN x y z
| solved = (x,y,z):nextCall x (y + 1) minN
| x >= maxN && y >= maxN && z >= maxN = []
| z >= maxN && y >= maxN = nextCall (x + 1) minN minN
| z >= maxN = nextCall x (y + 1) minN
| otherwise = nextCall x y (z + 1)
where solved = f x y z
nextCall = solutions f maxN minN
triSolve' :: Integer -> Integer -> Integer -> Integer -> Integer -> [(Integer,Integer,Integer)]
triSolve' a b c d n =
let equation x y z = (a * x + b * y + c * z) == d
minN = div (-n) 2
maxN = div n 2
in solutions equation maxN minN minN minN minN
Both yield the same results. However, trying to measure the execution time yielded the following results:
*Main> length $ triSolve' 2 (-3) (-1) 5 100
3398
(2.81 secs, 971648320 bytes)
*Main> length $ triSolve 2 (-3) (-1) 5 100
3398
(1.73 secs, 621862528 bytes)
Meaning that the dumb algorithm actually preforms better than the more sophisticated one. Based on the assumption that my algorithm was correct (which I hope won't turn as wrong :) ), I assume that the second algorithm suffers from an overhead created by the recursion, which the first algorithm isn't since it's implemented using a list comprehension.
Is there a way to implement in Haskell a better algorithm than the dumb one?
(Also, I'll be glad to receive general feedbacks about my coding style)
Of course there is. We have:
a*x + b*y + c*z = d
and as soon as we assume values for x and y, we have that
a*x + b*y = n
where n is a number we know.
Hence
c*z = d - n
z = (d - n) / c
And we keep only integral zs.
It's worth noticing that list comprehensions are given special treatment by GHC, and are generally very fast. This could explain why your triSolve (which uses a list comprehension) is faster than triSolve' (which doesn't).
For example, the solution
solve :: Integer -> Integer -> Integer -> Integer -> Integer -> [(Integer,Integer,Integer)]
-- "Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo..."
solve a b c d n =
[(x,y,z) | x <- vals, y <- vals
, let p = a*x +b*y
, let z = (d - p) `div` c
, z >= minN, z <= maxN, c * z == d - p ]
where
minN = negate (n `div` 2)
maxN = (n `div` 2)
vals = [minN..maxN]
runs fast on my machine:
> length $ solve 2 (-3) (-1) 5 100
3398
(0.03 secs, 4111220 bytes)
whereas the equivalent code written using do notation:
solveM :: Integer -> Integer -> Integer -> Integer -> Integer -> [(Integer,Integer,Integer)]
solveM a b c d n = do
x <- vals
y <- vals
let p = a * x + b * y
z = (d - p) `div` c
guard $ z >= minN
guard $ z <= maxN
guard $ z * c == d - p
return (x,y,z)
where
minN = negate (n `div` 2)
maxN = (n `div` 2)
vals = [minN..maxN]
takes twice as long to run and uses twice as much memory:
> length $ solveM 2 (-3) (-1) 5 100
3398
(0.06 secs, 6639244 bytes)
Usual caveats about testing within GHCI apply -- if you really want to see the difference, you need to compile the code with -O2 and use a decent benchmarking library (like Criterion).
Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
I want to see all the different ways you can come up with, for a factorial subroutine, or program. The hope is that anyone can come here and see if they might want to learn a new language.
Ideas:
Procedural
Functional
Object Oriented
One liners
Obfuscated
Oddball
Bad Code
Polyglot
Basically I want to see an example, of different ways of writing an algorithm, and what they would look like in different languages.
Please limit it to one example per entry.
I will allow you to have more than one example per answer, if you are trying to highlight a specific style, language, or just a well thought out idea that lends itself to being in one post.
The only real requirement is it must find the factorial of a given argument, in all languages represented.
Be Creative!
Recommended Guideline:
# Language Name: Optional Style type
- Optional bullet points
Code Goes Here
Other informational text goes here
I will ocasionally go along and edit any answer that does not have decent formatting.
Polyglot: 5 languages, all using bignums
So, I wrote a polyglot which works in the three languages I often write in, as well as one from my other answer to this question and one I just learned today. It's a standalone program, which reads a single line containing a nonnegative integer and prints a single line containing its factorial. Bignums are used in all languages, so the maximum computable factorial depends only on your computer's resources.
Perl: uses built-in bignum package. Run with perl FILENAME.
Haskell: uses built-in bignums. Run with runhugs FILENAME or your favorite compiler's equivalent.
C++: requires GMP for bignum support. To compile with g++, use g++ -lgmpxx -lgmp -x c++ FILENAME to link against the right libraries. After compiling, run ./a.out. Or use your favorite compiler's equivalent.
brainf*ck: I wrote some bignum support in this post. Using Muller's classic distribution, compile with bf < FILENAME > EXECUTABLE. Make the output executable and run it. Or use your favorite distribution.
Whitespace: uses built-in bignum support. Run with wspace FILENAME.
Edit: added Whitespace as a fifth language. Incidentally, do not wrap the code with <code> tags; it breaks the Whitespace. Also, the code looks much nicer in fixed-width.
char //# b=0+0{- |0*/; #>>>>,----------[>>>>,--------
#define a/*#--]>>>>++<<<<<<<<[>++++++[<------>-]<-<<<
#Perl ><><><> <> <> <<]>>>>[[>>+<<-]>>[<<+>+>-]<->
#C++ --><><> <><><>< > < > < +<[>>>>+<<<-<[-]]>[-]
#Haskell >>]>[-<<<<<[<<<<]>>>>[[>>+<<-]>>[<<+>+>-]>>]
#Whitespace >>>>[-[>+<-]+>>>>]<<<<[<<<<]<<<<[<<<<
#brainf*ck > < ]>>>>>[>>>[>>>>]>>>>[>>>>]<<<<[[>>>>*/
exp; ;//;#+<<<<-]<<<<]>>>>+<<<<<<<[<<<<][.POLYGLOT^5.
#include <gmpxx.h>//]>>>>-[>>>[>>>>]>>>>[>>>>]<<<<[>>
#define eval int main()//>+<<<-]>>>[<<<+>>+>->
#include <iostream>//<]<-[>>+<<[-]]<<[<<<<]>>>>[>[>>>
#define print std::cout << // > <+<-]>[<<+>+>-]<<[>>>
#define z std::cin>>//<< +<<<-]>>>[<<<+>>+>-]<->+++++
#define c/*++++[-<[-[>>>>+<<<<-]]>>>>[<<<<+>>>>-]<<*/
#define abs int $n //>< <]<[>>+<<<<[-]>>[<<+>>-]]>>]<
#define uc mpz_class fact(int $n){/*<<<[<<<<]<<<[<<
use bignum;sub#<<]>>>>-]>>>>]>>>[>[-]>>>]<<<<[>>+<<-]
z{$_[0+0]=readline(*STDIN);}sub fact{my($n)=shift;#>>
#[<<+>+>-]<->+<[>-<[-]]>[-<<-<<<<[>>+<<-]>>[<<+>+>+*/
uc;if($n==0){return 1;}return $n*fact($n-1); }//;#
eval{abs;z($n);print fact($n);print("\n")/*2;};#-]<->
'+<[>-<[-]]>]<<[<<<<]<<<<-[>>+<<-]>>[<<+>+>-]+<[>-+++
-}-- <[-]]>[-<<++++++++++<<<<-[>>+<<-]>>[<<+>+>-++
fact 0 = 1 -- ><><><>< > <><>< ]+<[>-<[-]]>]<<[<<+ +
fact n=n*fact(n-1){-<<]>>>>[[>>+<<-]>>[<<+>+++>+-}
main=do{n<-readLn;print(fact n)}-- +>-]<->+<[>>>>+<<+
{-x<-<[-]]>[-]>>]>]>>>[>>>>]<<<<[>+++++++[<+++++++>-]
<--.<<<<]+written+by+++A+Rex+++2009+.';#+++x-}--x*/;}
lolcode:
sorry I couldn't resist xD
HAI
CAN HAS STDIO?
I HAS A VAR
I HAS A INT
I HAS A CHEEZBURGER
I HAS A FACTORIALNUM
IM IN YR LOOP
UP VAR!!1
TIEMZD INT!![CHEEZBURGER]
UP FACTORIALNUM!!1
IZ VAR BIGGER THAN FACTORIALNUM? GTFO
IM OUTTA YR LOOP
U SEEZ INT
KTHXBYE
This is one of the faster algorithms, up to 170!. It fails inexplicably beyond 170!, and it's relatively slow for small factorials, but for factorials between 80 and 170 it's blazingly fast compared to many algorithms.
curl http://www.google.com/search?q=170!
There's also an online interface, try it out now!
Let me know if you find a bug, or faster implementation for large factorials.
EDIT:
This algorithm is slightly slower, but gives results beyond 170:
curl http://www58.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=171!
It also simplifies them into various other representations.
C++: Template Metaprogramming
Uses the classic enum hack.
template<unsigned int n>
struct factorial {
enum { result = n * factorial<n - 1>::result };
};
template<>
struct factorial<0> {
enum { result = 1 };
};
Usage.
const unsigned int x = factorial<4>::result;
Factorial is calculated completely at compile time based on the template parameter n. Therefore, factorial<4>::result is a constant once the compiler has done its work.
Whitespace
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
It was hard to get it to show here properly, but now I tried copying it from the preview and it works. You need to input the number and press enter.
I find the following implementations just hilarious:
The Evolution of a Haskell Programmer
Evolution of a Python programmer
Enjoy!
C# Lookup:
Nothing to calculate really, just look it up. To extend it,add another 8 numbers to the table and 64 bit integers are at at their limit. Beyond that, a BigNum class is called for.
public static int Factorial(int f)
{
if (f<0 || f>12)
{
throw new ArgumentException("Out of range for integer factorial");
}
int [] fact={1,1,2,6,24,120,720,5040,40320,362880,3628800,
39916800,479001600};
return fact[f];
}
Lazy K
Your pure functional programming nightmares come true!
The only Esoteric Turing-complete Programming Language that has:
A purely functional foundation, core, and libraries---in fact, here's the complete API: S K I
No lambdas even!
No numbers or lists needed or allowed
No explicit recursion but yet, allows recursion
A simple infinite lazy stream-based I/O mechanism
Here's the Factorial code in all its parenthetical glory:
K(SII(S(K(S(S(KS)(S(K(S(KS)))(S(K(S(KK)))(S(K(S(K(S(K(S(K(S(SI(K(S(K(S(S(KS)K)I))
(S(S(KS)K)(SII(S(S(KS)K)I))))))))K))))))(S(K(S(K(S(SI(K(S(K(S(SI(K(S(K(S(S(KS)K)I))
(S(S(KS)K)(SII(S(S(KS)K)I))(S(S(KS)K))(S(SII)I(S(S(KS)K)I))))))))K)))))))
(S(S(KS)K)(K(S(S(KS)K)))))))))(K(S(K(S(S(KS)K)))K))))(SII))II)
Features:
No subtraction or conditionals
Prints all factorials (if you wait long enough)
Uses a second layer of Church numerals to convert the Nth factorial to N! asterisks followed by a newline
Uses the Y combinator for recursion
In case you are interested in trying to understand it, here is the Scheme source code to run through the Lazier compiler:
(lazy-def '(fac input)
'((Y (lambda (f n a) ((lambda (b) ((cons 10) ((b (cons 42)) (f (1+ n) b))))
(* a n)))) 1 1))
(for suitable definitions of Y, cons, 1, 10, 42, 1+, and *).
EDIT:
Lazy K Factorial in Decimal
(10KB of gibberish or else I would paste it). For example, at the Unix prompt:
$ echo "4" | ./lazy facdec.lazy
24
$ echo "5" | ./lazy facdec.lazy
120
Rather slow for numbers above, say, 5.
The code is sort of bloated because we have to include library code for all of our own primitives (code written in Hazy, a lambda calculus interpreter and LC-to-Lazy K compiler written in Haskell).
XSLT 1.0
The input file, factorial.xml:
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="factorial.xsl" type="text/xsl" ?>
<n>
20
</n>
The XSLT file, factorial.xsl:
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<xsl:stylesheet version="1.0"
xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform"
xmlns:msxsl="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:xslt" >
<xsl:output method="text"/>
<!-- 0! = 1 -->
<xsl:template match="text()[. = 0]">
1
</xsl:template>
<!-- n! = (n-1)! * n-->
<xsl:template match="text()[. > 0]">
<xsl:variable name="x">
<xsl:apply-templates select="msxsl:node-set( . - 1 )/text()"/>
</xsl:variable>
<xsl:value-of select="$x * ."/>
</xsl:template>
<!-- Calculate n! -->
<xsl:template match="/n">
<xsl:apply-templates select="text()"/>
</xsl:template>
</xsl:stylesheet>
Save both files in the same directory and open factorial.xml in IE.
Python: Functional, One-liner
factorial = lambda n: reduce(lambda x,y: x*y, range(1, n+1), 1)
NOTE:
It supports big integers. Example:
print factorial(100)
93326215443944152681699238856266700490715968264381621468592963895217599993229915\
608941463976156518286253697920827223758251185210916864000000000000000000000000
It does not work for n < 0.
APL (oddball/one-liner):
×/⍳X
⍳X expands X into an array of the integers 1..X
×/ multiplies every element in the array
Or with the built-in operator:
!X
Source: http://www.webber-labs.com/mpl/lectures/ppt-slides/01.ppt
Perl6
sub factorial ($n) { [*] 1..$n }
I hardly know about Perl6. But I guess this [*] operator is same as Haskell's product.
This code runs on Pugs, and maybe Parrot (I didn't check it.)
Edit
This code also works.
sub postfix:<!> ($n) { [*] 1..$n }
# This function(?) call like below ... It looks like mathematical notation.
say 10!;
x86-64 Assembly: Procedural
You can call this from C (only tested with GCC on linux amd64).
Assembly was assembled with nasm.
section .text
global factorial
; factorial in x86-64 - n is passed in via RDI register
; takes a 64-bit unsigned integer
; returns a 64-bit unsigned integer in RAX register
; C declaration in GCC:
; extern unsigned long long factorial(unsigned long long n);
factorial:
enter 0,0
; n is placed in rdi by caller
mov rax, 1 ; factorial = 1
mov rcx, 2 ; i = 2
loopstart:
cmp rcx, rdi
ja loopend
mul rcx ; factorial *= i
inc rcx
jmp loopstart
loopend:
leave
ret
Recursively in Inform 7
(it reminds you of COBOL because it's for writing text adventures; proportional font is deliberate):
To decide what number is the factorial of (n - a number):
if n is zero, decide on one;
otherwise decide on the factorial of (n minus one) times n.
If you want to actually call this function ("phrase") from a game you need to define an action and grammar rule:
"The factorial game" [this must be the first line of the source]
There is a room. [there has to be at least one!]
Factorialing is an action applying to a number.
Understand "factorial [a number]" as factorialing.
Carry out factorialing:
Let n be the factorial of the number understood;
Say "It's [n]".
C#: LINQ
public static int factorial(int n)
{
return (Enumerable.Range(1, n).Aggregate(1, (previous, value) => previous * value));
}
Erlang: tail recursive
fac(0) -> 1;
fac(N) when N > 0 -> fac(N, 1).
fac(1, R) -> R;
fac(N, R) -> fac(N - 1, R * N).
Haskell:
ones = 1 : ones
integers = head ones : zipWith (+) integers (tail ones)
factorials = head integers : zipWith (*) factorials (tail integers)
Brainf*ck
+++++
>+<[[->>>>+<<<<]>>>>[-<<<<+>>+>>]<<<<>[->>+<<]<>>>[-<[->>+<<]>>[-<<+<+>>>]<]<[-]><<<-]
Written by Michael Reitzenstein.
BASIC: old school
10 HOME
20 INPUT N
30 LET ANS = 1
40 FOR I = 1 TO N
50 ANS = ANS * I
60 NEXT I
70 PRINT ANS
Batch (NT):
#echo off
set n=%1
set result=1
for /l %%i in (%n%, -1, 1) do (
set /a result=result * %%i
)
echo %result%
Usage:
C:>factorial.bat 15
F#: Functional
Straight forward:
let rec fact x =
if x < 0 then failwith "Invalid value."
elif x = 0 then 1
else x * fact (x - 1)
Getting fancy:
let fact x = [1 .. x] |> List.fold_left ( * ) 1
Recursive Prolog
fac(0,1).
fac(N,X) :- N1 is N -1, fac(N1, T), X is N * T.
Tail Recursive Prolog
fac(0,N,N).
fac(X,N,T) :- A is N * X, X1 is X - 1, fac(X1,A,T).
fac(N,T) :- fac(N,1,T).
ruby recursive
(factorial=Hash.new{|h,k|k*h[k-1]})[1]=1
usage:
factorial[5]
=> 120
Scheme
Here is a simple recursive definition:
(define (factorial x)
(if (= x 0) 1
(* x (factorial (- x 1)))))
In Scheme tail-recursive functions use constant stack space. Here is a version of factorial that is tail-recursive:
(define factorial
(letrec ((fact (lambda (x accum)
(if (= x 0) accum
(fact (- x 1) (* accum x))))))
(lambda (x)
(fact x 1))))
Oddball examples? What about using the gamma function! Since, Gamma n = (n-1)!.
OCaml: Using Gamma
let rec gamma z =
let pi = 4.0 *. atan 1.0 in
if z < 0.5 then
pi /. ((sin (pi*.z)) *. (gamma (1.0 -. z)))
else
let consts = [| 0.99999999999980993; 676.5203681218851; -1259.1392167224028;
771.32342877765313; -176.61502916214059; 12.507343278686905;
-0.13857109526572012; 9.9843695780195716e-6; 1.5056327351493116e-7;
|]
in
let z = z -. 1.0 in
let results = Array.fold_right
(fun x y -> x +. y)
(Array.mapi
(fun i x -> if i = 0 then x else x /. (z+.(float i)))
consts
)
0.0
in
let x = z +. (float (Array.length consts)) -. 1.5 in
let final = (sqrt (2.0*.pi)) *.
(x ** (z+.0.5)) *.
(exp (-.x)) *. result
in
final
let factorial_gamma n = int_of_float (gamma (float (n+1)))
Freshman Haskell programmer
fac n = if n == 0
then 1
else n * fac (n-1)
Sophomore Haskell programmer, at MIT
(studied Scheme as a freshman)
fac = (\(n) ->
(if ((==) n 0)
then 1
else ((*) n (fac ((-) n 1)))))
Junior Haskell programmer
(beginning Peano player)
fac 0 = 1
fac (n+1) = (n+1) * fac n
Another junior Haskell programmer
(read that n+k patterns are “a disgusting part of Haskell” [1]
and joined the “Ban n+k patterns”-movement [2])
fac 0 = 1
fac n = n * fac (n-1)
Senior Haskell programmer
(voted for Nixon Buchanan Bush — “leans right”)
fac n = foldr (*) 1 [1..n]
Another senior Haskell programmer
(voted for McGovern Biafra Nader — “leans left”)
fac n = foldl (*) 1 [1..n]
Yet another senior Haskell programmer
(leaned so far right he came back left again!)
-- using foldr to simulate foldl
fac n = foldr (\x g n -> g (x*n)) id [1..n] 1
Memoizing Haskell programmer
(takes Ginkgo Biloba daily)
facs = scanl (*) 1 [1..]
fac n = facs !! n
Pointless (ahem) “Points-free” Haskell programmer
(studied at Oxford)
fac = foldr (*) 1 . enumFromTo 1
Iterative Haskell programmer
(former Pascal programmer)
fac n = result (for init next done)
where init = (0,1)
next (i,m) = (i+1, m * (i+1))
done (i,_) = i==n
result (_,m) = m
for i n d = until d n i
Iterative one-liner Haskell programmer
(former APL and C programmer)
fac n = snd (until ((>n) . fst) (\(i,m) -> (i+1, i*m)) (1,1))
Accumulating Haskell programmer
(building up to a quick climax)
facAcc a 0 = a
facAcc a n = facAcc (n*a) (n-1)
fac = facAcc 1
Continuation-passing Haskell programmer
(raised RABBITS in early years, then moved to New Jersey)
facCps k 0 = k 1
facCps k n = facCps (k . (n *)) (n-1)
fac = facCps id
Boy Scout Haskell programmer
(likes tying knots; always “reverent,” he
belongs to the Church of the Least Fixed-Point [8])
y f = f (y f)
fac = y (\f n -> if (n==0) then 1 else n * f (n-1))
Combinatory Haskell programmer
(eschews variables, if not obfuscation;
all this currying’s just a phase, though it seldom hinders)
s f g x = f x (g x)
k x y = x
b f g x = f (g x)
c f g x = f x g
y f = f (y f)
cond p f g x = if p x then f x else g x
fac = y (b (cond ((==) 0) (k 1)) (b (s (*)) (c b pred)))
List-encoding Haskell programmer
(prefers to count in unary)
arb = () -- "undefined" is also a good RHS, as is "arb" :)
listenc n = replicate n arb
listprj f = length . f . listenc
listprod xs ys = [ i (x,y) | x<-xs, y<-ys ]
where i _ = arb
facl [] = listenc 1
facl n#(_:pred) = listprod n (facl pred)
fac = listprj facl
Interpretive Haskell programmer
(never “met a language” he didn't like)
-- a dynamically-typed term language
data Term = Occ Var
| Use Prim
| Lit Integer
| App Term Term
| Abs Var Term
| Rec Var Term
type Var = String
type Prim = String
-- a domain of values, including functions
data Value = Num Integer
| Bool Bool
| Fun (Value -> Value)
instance Show Value where
show (Num n) = show n
show (Bool b) = show b
show (Fun _) = ""
prjFun (Fun f) = f
prjFun _ = error "bad function value"
prjNum (Num n) = n
prjNum _ = error "bad numeric value"
prjBool (Bool b) = b
prjBool _ = error "bad boolean value"
binOp inj f = Fun (\i -> (Fun (\j -> inj (f (prjNum i) (prjNum j)))))
-- environments mapping variables to values
type Env = [(Var, Value)]
getval x env = case lookup x env of
Just v -> v
Nothing -> error ("no value for " ++ x)
-- an environment-based evaluation function
eval env (Occ x) = getval x env
eval env (Use c) = getval c prims
eval env (Lit k) = Num k
eval env (App m n) = prjFun (eval env m) (eval env n)
eval env (Abs x m) = Fun (\v -> eval ((x,v) : env) m)
eval env (Rec x m) = f where f = eval ((x,f) : env) m
-- a (fixed) "environment" of language primitives
times = binOp Num (*)
minus = binOp Num (-)
equal = binOp Bool (==)
cond = Fun (\b -> Fun (\x -> Fun (\y -> if (prjBool b) then x else y)))
prims = [ ("*", times), ("-", minus), ("==", equal), ("if", cond) ]
-- a term representing factorial and a "wrapper" for evaluation
facTerm = Rec "f" (Abs "n"
(App (App (App (Use "if")
(App (App (Use "==") (Occ "n")) (Lit 0))) (Lit 1))
(App (App (Use "*") (Occ "n"))
(App (Occ "f")
(App (App (Use "-") (Occ "n")) (Lit 1))))))
fac n = prjNum (eval [] (App facTerm (Lit n)))
Static Haskell programmer
(he does it with class, he’s got that fundep Jones!
After Thomas Hallgren’s “Fun with Functional Dependencies” [7])
-- static Peano constructors and numerals
data Zero
data Succ n
type One = Succ Zero
type Two = Succ One
type Three = Succ Two
type Four = Succ Three
-- dynamic representatives for static Peanos
zero = undefined :: Zero
one = undefined :: One
two = undefined :: Two
three = undefined :: Three
four = undefined :: Four
-- addition, a la Prolog
class Add a b c | a b -> c where
add :: a -> b -> c
instance Add Zero b b
instance Add a b c => Add (Succ a) b (Succ c)
-- multiplication, a la Prolog
class Mul a b c | a b -> c where
mul :: a -> b -> c
instance Mul Zero b Zero
instance (Mul a b c, Add b c d) => Mul (Succ a) b d
-- factorial, a la Prolog
class Fac a b | a -> b where
fac :: a -> b
instance Fac Zero One
instance (Fac n k, Mul (Succ n) k m) => Fac (Succ n) m
-- try, for "instance" (sorry):
--
-- :t fac four
Beginning graduate Haskell programmer
(graduate education tends to liberate one from petty concerns
about, e.g., the efficiency of hardware-based integers)
-- the natural numbers, a la Peano
data Nat = Zero | Succ Nat
-- iteration and some applications
iter z s Zero = z
iter z s (Succ n) = s (iter z s n)
plus n = iter n Succ
mult n = iter Zero (plus n)
-- primitive recursion
primrec z s Zero = z
primrec z s (Succ n) = s n (primrec z s n)
-- two versions of factorial
fac = snd . iter (one, one) (\(a,b) -> (Succ a, mult a b))
fac' = primrec one (mult . Succ)
-- for convenience and testing (try e.g. "fac five")
int = iter 0 (1+)
instance Show Nat where
show = show . int
(zero : one : two : three : four : five : _) = iterate Succ Zero
Origamist Haskell programmer
(always starts out with the “basic Bird fold”)
-- (curried, list) fold and an application
fold c n [] = n
fold c n (x:xs) = c x (fold c n xs)
prod = fold (*) 1
-- (curried, boolean-based, list) unfold and an application
unfold p f g x =
if p x
then []
else f x : unfold p f g (g x)
downfrom = unfold (==0) id pred
-- hylomorphisms, as-is or "unfolded" (ouch! sorry ...)
refold c n p f g = fold c n . unfold p f g
refold' c n p f g x =
if p x
then n
else c (f x) (refold' c n p f g (g x))
-- several versions of factorial, all (extensionally) equivalent
fac = prod . downfrom
fac' = refold (*) 1 (==0) id pred
fac'' = refold' (*) 1 (==0) id pred
Cartesianally-inclined Haskell programmer
(prefers Greek food, avoids the spicy Indian stuff;
inspired by Lex Augusteijn’s “Sorting Morphisms” [3])
-- (product-based, list) catamorphisms and an application
cata (n,c) [] = n
cata (n,c) (x:xs) = c (x, cata (n,c) xs)
mult = uncurry (*)
prod = cata (1, mult)
-- (co-product-based, list) anamorphisms and an application
ana f = either (const []) (cons . pair (id, ana f)) . f
cons = uncurry (:)
downfrom = ana uncount
uncount 0 = Left ()
uncount n = Right (n, n-1)
-- two variations on list hylomorphisms
hylo f g = cata g . ana f
hylo' f (n,c) = either (const n) (c . pair (id, hylo' f (c,n))) . f
pair (f,g) (x,y) = (f x, g y)
-- several versions of factorial, all (extensionally) equivalent
fac = prod . downfrom
fac' = hylo uncount (1, mult)
fac'' = hylo' uncount (1, mult)
Ph.D. Haskell programmer
(ate so many bananas that his eyes bugged out, now he needs new lenses!)
-- explicit type recursion based on functors
newtype Mu f = Mu (f (Mu f)) deriving Show
in x = Mu x
out (Mu x) = x
-- cata- and ana-morphisms, now for *arbitrary* (regular) base functors
cata phi = phi . fmap (cata phi) . out
ana psi = in . fmap (ana psi) . psi
-- base functor and data type for natural numbers,
-- using a curried elimination operator
data N b = Zero | Succ b deriving Show
instance Functor N where
fmap f = nelim Zero (Succ . f)
nelim z s Zero = z
nelim z s (Succ n) = s n
type Nat = Mu N
-- conversion to internal numbers, conveniences and applications
int = cata (nelim 0 (1+))
instance Show Nat where
show = show . int
zero = in Zero
suck = in . Succ -- pardon my "French" (Prelude conflict)
plus n = cata (nelim n suck )
mult n = cata (nelim zero (plus n))
-- base functor and data type for lists
data L a b = Nil | Cons a b deriving Show
instance Functor (L a) where
fmap f = lelim Nil (\a b -> Cons a (f b))
lelim n c Nil = n
lelim n c (Cons a b) = c a b
type List a = Mu (L a)
-- conversion to internal lists, conveniences and applications
list = cata (lelim [] (:))
instance Show a => Show (List a) where
show = show . list
prod = cata (lelim (suck zero) mult)
upto = ana (nelim Nil (diag (Cons . suck)) . out)
diag f x = f x x
fac = prod . upto
Post-doc Haskell programmer
(from Uustalu, Vene and Pardo’s “Recursion Schemes from Comonads” [4])
-- explicit type recursion with functors and catamorphisms
newtype Mu f = In (f (Mu f))
unIn (In x) = x
cata phi = phi . fmap (cata phi) . unIn
-- base functor and data type for natural numbers,
-- using locally-defined "eliminators"
data N c = Z | S c
instance Functor N where
fmap g Z = Z
fmap g (S x) = S (g x)
type Nat = Mu N
zero = In Z
suck n = In (S n)
add m = cata phi where
phi Z = m
phi (S f) = suck f
mult m = cata phi where
phi Z = zero
phi (S f) = add m f
-- explicit products and their functorial action
data Prod e c = Pair c e
outl (Pair x y) = x
outr (Pair x y) = y
fork f g x = Pair (f x) (g x)
instance Functor (Prod e) where
fmap g = fork (g . outl) outr
-- comonads, the categorical "opposite" of monads
class Functor n => Comonad n where
extr :: n a -> a
dupl :: n a -> n (n a)
instance Comonad (Prod e) where
extr = outl
dupl = fork id outr
-- generalized catamorphisms, zygomorphisms and paramorphisms
gcata :: (Functor f, Comonad n) =>
(forall a. f (n a) -> n (f a))
-> (f (n c) -> c) -> Mu f -> c
gcata dist phi = extr . cata (fmap phi . dist . fmap dupl)
zygo chi = gcata (fork (fmap outl) (chi . fmap outr))
para :: Functor f => (f (Prod (Mu f) c) -> c) -> Mu f -> c
para = zygo In
-- factorial, the *hard* way!
fac = para phi where
phi Z = suck zero
phi (S (Pair f n)) = mult f (suck n)
-- for convenience and testing
int = cata phi where
phi Z = 0
phi (S f) = 1 + f
instance Show (Mu N) where
show = show . int
Tenured professor
(teaching Haskell to freshmen)
fac n = product [1..n]
D Templates: Functional
template factorial(int n : 1)
{
const factorial = 1;
}
template factorial(int n)
{
const factorial =
n * factorial!(n-1);
}
or
template factorial(int n)
{
static if(n == 1)
const factorial = 1;
else
const factorial =
n * factorial!(n-1);
}
Used like this:
factorial!(5)
Java 1.6: recursive, memoized (for subsequent calls)
private static Map<BigInteger, BigInteger> _results = new HashMap()
public static BigInteger factorial(BigInteger n){
if (0 >= n.compareTo(BigInteger.ONE))
return BigInteger.ONE.max(n);
if (_results.containsKey(n))
return _results.get(n);
BigInteger result = factorial(n.subtract(BigInteger.ONE)).multiply(n);
_results.put(n, result);
return result;
}
PowerShell
function factorial( [int] $n )
{
$result = 1;
if ( $n -gt 1 )
{
$result = $n * ( factorial ( $n - 1 ) )
}
$result
}
Here's a one-liner:
$n..1 | % {$result = 1}{$result *= $_}{$result}
Bash: Recursive
In bash and recursive, but with the added advantage that it deals with each iteration in a new process. The max it can calculate is !20 before overflowing, but you can still run it for big numbers if you don't care about the answer and want your system to fall over ;)
#!/bin/bash
echo $(($1 * `( [[ $1 -gt 1 ]] && ./$0 $(($1 - 1)) ) || echo 1`));