I am aware how we can evaluate an expression after converting into Polish Notations. However I would like to know how I can evaluate something like this:
If a < b Then a + b Else a - b
a + b happens in case condition a < b is True, otherwise, if False a - b is computed.
The grammar is not an issue here. Since I only need the algorithm to solve this problem. I am able evaluate boolean and algebraic expressions. But how can I go about solving the above problem?
Do you need to assign a+b or a-b to something?
You can do this:
int c = a < b ? a+b : a-b;
Or
int sign = a < b ? 1 : -1;
int c = a + (sign * b);
Refer to LISP language for S-express:
e.g
(if (> a b) ; if-part
(+ a b) ; then-part
(- a b)) ; else-part
Actually if you want evaluate just this simple if statement, toknize it and evaluate it, but if you want to evaluate somehow more complicated things, like nested if then else, if with experssions, multiple else, variable assignments, types, ... you need to use some parser, like LR parsers. You can use e.g Lex&Yacc to write a good parser for your own language. They support somehow complicated grammars. But if you want to know how does LR parser (or so) works, you should read into them, and see how they use their table to read tokens and parse them. e.g take a look at wiki page and see how does LR parser table works (it's something more than simple stack and is not easy to describe it here).
If your problem is just really parsing if statement, you can cheat from parser techniques, you can add empty thing after a < b, which means some action, and empty thing after else, which also means an action. When you parsed the condition, depending on correctness or wrongness you will run one of actions. By the way if you want to parse expressions inside if statement you need conditional stack, means something like SLR table.
Basically, you need to build in support for a ternary operator. IE, where currently you pop an operator, and then wait for 2 sequential values before resolving it, you need to wait for 3 if your current operation is IF, and 2 for the other operations.
To handle the if statement, you can consider the if statement in terms of C++'s ternary operator. Which formats you want your grammar to support is up to you.
a < b ? a + b : a - b
You should be able to evaluate boolean operators on your stack the way you currently evaluate arithmetic operations, so a < b should be pushed as
< a b
The if can be represented by its own symbol on the stack, we can stick with '?'.
? < a b
and the 2 possible conditions to evaluate need to separated by another operator, might as well use ':'
? < a b : + a b - a b
So now when you pop '?', you see it is the operator that needs 3 values, so put it aside as you normally would, and continue to evaluate the stack until you have 3 values. The ':' operator should be a binary operator, that simply pushes both of its values back onto the stack.
Once you have 3 values on the stack, you evaluate ? as:
If the first value is 1, push the 2nd value, throw away the third.
If the first value is 0, throw away the 2nd and push the 3rd.
Related
I want to append([],C,C) where C is a list containing some elements . Is it possible? I will append some list in C containing elements append (Found,C,C) if other condition is true.
And also i want to store final value in C to a variable D . How can I do that?
I want to append([],C,C) where C is a list containing some elements. Is it possible?
append([],C,C) is always true. An empty list combined with anything is that anything. Look what Prolog says when you attempt it:
?- append([],C,C).
true.
This true without any bindings tells you that Prolog established the proof but no new bindings were created as a result. This code would have the same result:
meaningless(_, _, _).
?- meaningless(everybody, X, Squant).
true.
This suggests your desire is misplaced. append([], C, C) does not do what you think it does.
I will append some list in C containing elements append (Found,C,C) if other condition is true. And also i want to store final value in C to a variable D. How can I do that?
Thinking in terms of "storing" and other operations implying mutable state is a sure sign that you are not understanding Prolog. In Prolog, you establish bindings (or assert facts into the dynamic store, which is a tar pit for beginners). Something similar could be achieved in a Prolog fashion by doing something like this:
frob(cat, List, Result) :- append([cat], List, Result).
frob(dog, List, List).
This predicate frob/3 has two in-parameters: an atom and a list. If the atom is cat then it will append [cat] to the beginning of the list. The threading you see going between the arguments in the head of the clause and their use in the body of the clause is how Prolog manages state. Basically, all state in Prolog is either in the call stack or in the dynamic store.
To give an example in Python, consider these two ways of implementing factorial:
def fac(n):
result = 1
while n > 1:
result = result * n
n = n - 1
This version has a variable, result, which is a kind of state. We mutate the state repeatedly in a loop to achieve the calculation. While the factorial function may be defined as fac(n) = n * fac(n-1), this implementation does not have fac(n-1) hiding in the code anywhere explicitly.
A recursive method would be:
def fac(n):
if n < 1:
return 1
else:
return n * fac(n-1)
There's no explicit state here, so how does the calculation work? The state is implicit, it's being carried on the stack. Procedural programmers tend to raise a skeptical eyebrow at recursion, but in Prolog, there is no such thing as an assignable so the first method cannot be used.
Back to frob/3, the condition is implicit on the first argument. The behavior is different in the body because in the first body, the third argument will be bound to the third argument of the append/3 call, which will unify with the list of the atom cat appended to the second argument List. In the second body, nothing special will happen and the third argument will be bound to the same value as the second argument. So if you were to call frob(Animal, List, Result), Result will be bound with cat at the front or not based on what Animal is.
Do not get mixed up and think that Prolog is just treating the last argument as a return value! If that were true, this would certainly not work like so:
?- frob(X, Y, [whale]).
X = dog,
Y = [whale].
What appears to have happened here is that Prolog could tell that because the list did not start with cat it was able to infer that X was dog. Good Prolog programmers aspire to maintain that illusion in their APIs, but all that really happened here is that Prolog entered the first rule, which expanded to append([cat], X, [whale]) and then unification failed because Prolog could not come up with an X which, having had [cat] prepended to it, would generate [whale]. As a result, it went to the second rule, which unifies X with dog and the second two arguments with each other. Hence Y = [whale].
I hope this helps!
Here is what I have and the error that I am getting sadly is
Error: This function has type 'a * 'a list -> 'a list
It is applied to too many arguments; maybe you forgot a `;'.
Why is that the case? I plan on passing two lists to the deleteDuplicates function, a sorted list, and an empty list, and expect the duplicates to be removed in the list r, which will be returned once the original list reaches [] condition.
will be back with updated code
let myfunc_caml_way arg0 arg1 = ...
rather than
let myfunc_java_way(arg0, arg1) = ...
Then you can call your function in this way:
myfunc_caml_way "10" 123
rather than
myfunc_java_way("10, 123)
I don't know how useful this might be, but here is some code that does what you want, written in a fairly standard OCaml style. Spend some time making sure you understand how and why it works. Maybe you should start with something simpler (eg how would you sum the elements of a list of integers ?). Actually, you should probably start with an OCaml tutorial, reading carefully and making sure you aunderstand the code examples.
let deleteDuplicates u =
(*
u : the sorted list
v : the result so far
last : the last element we read from u
*)
let rec aux u v last =
match u with
[] -> v
| x::xs when x = last -> aux xs v last
| x::xs -> aux u (x::v) x
in
(* the first element is a special case *)
match u with
[] -> []
| x::xs -> List.rev (aux xs [x] x)
This is not a direct answer to your question.
The standard way of defining an "n-ary" function is
let myfunc_caml_way arg0 arg1 = ...
rather than
let myfunc_java_way(arg0, arg1) = ...
Then you can call your function in this way:
myfunc_caml_way "10" 123
rather than
myfunc_java_way("10, 123)
See examples here:
https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/blob/trunk/stdlib/complex.ml
By switching from myfunc_java_way to myfunc_caml_way, you will be benefited from what's called "Currying"
What is 'Currying'?
However please note that you sometimes need to enclose the whole invocation by parenthesis
myfunc_caml_way (otherfunc_caml_way "foo" "bar") 123
in order to tell the compiler not to interpret your code as
((myfunc_caml_way otherfunc_caml_way "foo") "bar" 123)
You seem to be thinking that OCaml uses tuples (a, b) to indicate arguments of function calls. This isn't the case. Whenever some expressions stand next to each other, that's a function call. The first expression is the function, and the rest of the expressions are the arguments to the function.
So, these two lines:
append(first,r)
deleteDuplicates(remaining, r)
Represent a function call with three arguments. The function is append. The first argument is (first ,r). The second argument is deleteDuplicates. The third argument is (remaining, r).
Since append has just one argument (a tuple), you're passing it too many arguments. This is what the compiler is telling you.
You also seem to be thinking that append(first, r) will change the value of r. This is not the case. Variables in OCaml are immutable. You can't do anything that will change the value of r.
Update
I think you have too many questions for SO to help you effectively at this point. You might try reading some OCaml tutorials. It will be much faster than asking a question here for every error you see :-)
Nonetheless, here's what "match failure" means. It means that somewhere you have a match that you're applying to an expression, but none of the patterns of the match matches the expression. Your deleteDuplicates code clearly has a pattern coverage error; i.e., it has a pattern that doesn't cover all cases. Your first match only works for empty lists or for lists of 2 or more elements. It doesn't work for lists of 1 element.
Sometimes I see terms like:
X = a:b
or
X = a-b
I can do requests like
X = Y:Z
and the compiler unifies Y with a and Z with b, as expected.
Now my answer:
Which characters (or sequence of characters) am I allowed to use to combine two Prolog atoms?!
Maybe you can give me some links with further informations about this issue.
Thanks for your help and kind regards from Germany
Which characters (or sequence of characters) am I allowed to use to combine two Prolog atoms?!
What you are asking here for, is the entire operator syntax definition of Prolog. To get the very full answer to this, please refer to the tag iso-prolog for full information how to obtain the Prolog standard ISO/IEC 13211-1.
But as a short answer to start with:
Prolog syntax consists of
functional notation, like +(a,b), plus
a dynamically redefinable operator syntax, plus
some extra.
It seems you want to know which "characters" can be used as operators.
The short answer is that you can use all atoms Op that succeed for current_op(Pri,Fix,Op). So you can ask dynamically, which operators are present:
?- current_op(Pri, Fix, Op).
Pri = 1, Fix = fx, Op = ($)
; Pri = 1150, Fix = fx, Op = (module_transparent)
; Pri = 700, Fix = xfx, Op = (=#=)
; Pri = 700, Fix = xfx, Op = (#>=)
; Pri = 700, Fix = xfx, Op = (>=)
; ... .
All those operators can be used in the specified manner, as pre-, in-, or postfix with the indicated priorities. Some of these operators are specific to SWI, and some are defined by the standard. Above, only #>= and >= are standard operators.
Most of the operators consist of the graphic characters #$&*+-./:<=>?#^~ only or of letters, digits and underscores starting with a lower case letter. There are two solo characters !; and then there are ,| which are even more special. Operator names that are different to above need quoting - you rarely will encounter them.
To see how operators nest, use write_canonical(Term).
The long answer is that you are also able to define such operators yourself. However, be aware that changing the operator syntax has often many implications that are very difficult to fathom. Even more so, since many systems differ in some rarely used configurations. For example, the system you mentioned, SWI differs in several ways.
I'd suggest to avoid defining new operators until you have learned more about the Prolog language.
let's see what's inside X = Y:Z
?- display( X = Y:Z ).
=(_G3,:(_G1,_G2))
true.
then we have a nested structure, where functors are operators.
An operator is an atom, and the rule for atom syntax says that we have 3 kind to consider:
a sequence of any printable character enclosed in single quote
a sequence of special characters only, where a special character is one of `.=:-+*/><##~? (I hope I have found all of them, from this page you can check if I forgot someone !)
a sequence of lowercase/uppercase characters or the underscore, starting with a lowercase character
edit
A functor (shorthand for function constructor, I think, but function is misleading in Prolog context) it's the symbol that 'ties' several arguments. The number of arguments is named arity. In Prolog a term is an atomic literal (like a number, or an atom), or a recursive structure, composed of a functor and a number of arguments, each being a term itself (at least 1).
Given the appropriate declaration, i.e. op/3, unary and binary terms can be represented as expressions, like that one you show.
An example of operator, using the : special char, is ':-'
member(X,[X|_]).
member(X,[_|T]) :- member(X, T).
The O.P., said (and I quote):
Sometimes I see terms like: X = a:b or X = a-b
I can do requests like X = Y:Z and the compiler unifies Y with a and Z with b, as expected.
Now my answer: Which characters (or sequence of characters) am I allowed
to use to combine two Prolog atoms?!
The short answer is Pretty much whatever you want (provided it is an atom).
The longer answer is this:
What are seeing are infix (x infix_op b), prefix (pfx_op b) and suffix (b sfx_op ) operators. Any structure with an arity of 2 can be an infix operator. Any structure with an arity of 1 can be a prefix or suffix operator. As a result, any atom may be an operator.
Prolog is parsed via a precedence driven, recursive descent parser (written in Prolog, naturally). Operators are defined and enumerated, along with their precedence and associativity in the operator/3 predicate. Associativity has to do with how the parse tree is constructed. An expression like a - b - c could be parsed as ( a - ( b - c ) ) (right-associative), or ( ( a - b ) - c ) (left-associative).
Precedence has to do with how tightly operators bind. An expression like a + b * c binds as ( a + ( b * c ) not because of associativity, but because '*'/2 (multiplication) has higher precedence that '+'/2 (addition).
You can add, remove and change operators to your heart's content. Not that this gives you a lot of room to shoot yourself in the foot by breaking prolog's syntax.
It should be noted, however, that any operator expression can also be written via ordinary notation:
a + b * c
is exactly identical to
'+'( a , '*'(b,c) )
Hi I'm a Haskell beginner and I'm really lost.
This is for my assignment, and it asks me to do something like below using higer order function
Main> mySort (<) [1,5,3,6,4,1,3,3,2]
[1,1,2,3,3,3,4,5,6]
Main> mySort (>) [1,5,3,6,4,1,3,3,2]
[6,5,4,3,3,3,2,1,1]
Main> mySort longerWord [“Hello”, “The”, “a”, “Daniel”, “Declarative”]
[“Declarative”, “Daniel”, “Hello”, “The”, “a”]
First of all, I thought I should make a function that distinguish whether it's < , > or longerWord
checkConditionStr::String->Int
checkConditionStr str
|str=="(<)" =1
|str=="(>)" =2
|str=="longerWord" =3
but the example doesn't have quotation mark (i.e. mysort (<) not my sort"(<)" so here is my first problem. I worte this function but it's not compiling. otherwise is for longerWord
checkCondition::Ordering->Int
checkCondition ord
|ord==(<) =1
|ord==(>) =2
|otherwise =2
secondly I still have difficulty understanding higher order function. would this make sense?
mySort::(String->Int)->[a]->[a]
mySort i list
|i==1 map (sortBy compare) list
|i==2 map (sortBy(flip compare)) list
You're not supposed to match against those functions specifically. It defeats the purpose of using a higher-order function in the first place. In fact, you can't write it like this, since there is no general way of comparing functions.
Instead, use the passed function directly for the sorting. That way, it will work for any suitable comparison function, not just the ones you've explicitly written code for.
For example, imagine the task was to combine two values using a passed operator:
combine (+) 2 3 = 5
combine (*) 3 5 = 15
combine max 10 100 = 100
You would solve it like this:
combine op x y = x `op` y
Can you use a similar approach to solving the sorting problem?
Hint: You may want to define a helper function to transform the passed comparison function into a form suitable for sortBy:
compareUsing :: (a -> a -> Bool) -> (a -> a -> Ordering)
compareUsing op x y = ...
How can I pass values to a given expression with several variables? The values for these variables are placed in a list that needs to be passed into the expression.
Your revised question is straightforward, simply
f ## {a,b,c,...} == f[a,b,c,...]
where ## is shorthand for Apply. Internally, {a,b,c} is List[a,b,c] (which you can see by using FullForm on any expression), and Apply just replaces the Head, List, with a new Head, f, changing the function. The operation of Apply is not limited to lists, in general
f ## g[a,b] == f[a,b]
Also, look at Sequence which does
f[Sequence[a,b]] == f[a,b]
So, we could do this instead
f[ Sequence ## {a,b}] == f[a,b]
which while pedantic seeming can be very useful.
Edit: Apply has an optional 2nd argument that specifies a level, i.e.
Apply[f, {{a,b},{c,d}}, {1}] == {f[a,b], f[c,d]}
Note: the shorthand for Apply[fcn, expr,{1}] is ###, as discussed here, but to specify any other level description you need to use the full function form.
A couple other ways...
Use rule replacement
f /. Thread[{a,b} -> l]
(where Thread[{a,b} -> l] will evaluate into {a->1, b->2})
Use a pure function
Function[{a,b}, Evaluate[f]] ## l
(where ## is a form of Apply[] and Evaluate[f] is used to turn the function into Function[{a,b}, a^2+b^2])
For example, for two elements
f[l_List]:=l[[1]]^2+l[[2]]^2
for any number of elements
g[l_List] := l.l
or
h[l_List]:= Norm[l]^2
So:
Print[{f[{a, b}], g[{a, b}], h[{a, b}]}]
{a^2 + b^2, a^2 + b^2, Abs[a]^2 + Abs[b]^2}
Two more, just for fun:
i[l_List] := Total#Table[j^2, {j, l}]
j[l_List] := SquaredEuclideanDistance[l, ConstantArray[0, Length[l]]
Edit
Regarding your definition
f[{__}] = a ^ 2 + b ^ 2;
It has a few problems:
1) You are defining a constant, because the a,b are not parameters.
2) You are defining a function with Set, Instead of SetDelayed, so the evaluation is done immediately. Just try for example
s[l_List] = Total[l]
vs. the right way:
s[l_List] := Total[l]
which remains unevaluated until you use it.
3) You are using a pattern without a name {__} so you can't use it in the right side of the expression. The right way could be:
f[{a_,b_}]:= a^2+b^2;