I'm going through an exercise to grab the 'leaves' of a nested list in scheme (from SICP). Here is the exercise input-output:
(define x (list (lis 1 2) (list 3 4)))
(fringe x)
; (1 2 3 4)
(fringe (list x x))
; (1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4)
Now, I've come up with two answers for this: one recursive and one iterative. Here are my two implementations below:
(define (fr lst)
(cond ((null? lst) '())
((not (pair? (car lst))) (cons (car lst) (fr (cdr lst))))
(else (append (fr (car lst)) (fr (cdr lst))))))
(define (add-element-to-list lst elem)
(if (null? lst)
(list elem)
(cons (car lst) (add-element-to-list (cdr lst) elem))))
(define (fringe lst)
(define L '())
(define (iter lst)
(if (not (pair? (car lst)))
(set! L (add-element-to-list L (car lst))) ; update the list if it's a leaf
(iter (car lst))) ; otherwise recurse
(if (not (null? (cdr lst))) (iter (cdr lst))) ; and if we have a cdr, recurse on that
L
)
(iter lst)
)
(fringe x)
(fr x)
(fr (list x x))
(fringe (list x x))
; (1 2 3 4)
; (1 2 3 4)
; (1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4)
; (1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4)
; OK
The problem for me is, this exercise took me forever to figure out with a ton of head-bashing along the way (and it's still difficult for me to 'get it' as I write this up). Here are a few things I struggled with and seeing if there are any suggestions on ways to deal with these issues in scheme:
I thought initially that there are two cases. The normal/scalar case and the nested case. However, it seems like there are actually three! There's the normal case, the nested case, and then the null case -- and inner-lists also have the null case! Is there a good general pattern or something to account for the null case? Is this something that comes up a lot?
In the iterative case, why do I have to return L at the end? Why doesn't (iter lst) just return that (i.e., if I removed the standalone-L at the bottom of the iter function).
Finally, is there a 'cleaner' way to implement the iterative case? It seems like I have so much code, where it could probably be improved on.
The reason there are three cases is that you are importing some scalar / vector distinction from some other language: Scheme doesn't have it and it is not helpful. Instead a list is a recursively-defined object: a list is either the empty list, or it is a pair of something and a list. That means there are two distinctions to make, not one: is an object a pair, and is an object the empty list:
(define (lyst? o)
(or (null? o)
(and (pair? o) (lyst? (cdr o)))))
That's completely different than a vector / scalar distinction. I don't know what language you're getting this from, but just think about how the maths of this would work: vectors are defined over some scalar field, and there is no vector which is also a scalar. But for lists there is a list which is not a pair. Just stop thinking about vectors and scalars: it is not a helpful way to think about lists, pairs and the empty list.
The iterative version is too horrible to think about: there's a reason why SICP hasn't introduced set! yet.
First of all it's not actually iterative: like most of the 'iterative' solutions to this problem on the net it looks as if it is, but it's not. The reason it's not is that the skeleton of the iter function looks like
if blah
recurse on the first element of the list
otherwise do something else
if other blah
iterate on the rest of the list
And the critical thing is that both (1) and (2) always happen, so the call into the car of the list is not a tail call: it's a fully-fledged recursive call.
That being said you can make this much better: the absolutely standard way of doing this sort of thing is to use an accumulator:
(define (fringe l)
(define (fringe-loop thing accum)
(cond
((null? thing)
;; we're at the end of the list or an element which is empty list
accum)
((pair? thing)
;; we need to look at both the first of the list and the rest of the list
;; Note that the order is rest then first which means the accumulator
;; comes back in a good order
(fringe-loop (car thing)
(fringe-loop (cdr thing) accum)))
(else
;; not a list at all: collect this "atomic" thing
(cons thing accum))))
(fringe-loop l '()))
Note that this builds the fringe (linear) list from the bottom up, which is the natural way of building linear lists with recursion. To achieve this it slightly deviously orders the way it looks at things so the results come out in the right order. Note also that this is also not iterative: it's recursive, because of the (fringe-loop ... (fringe-loop ...)) call. But this time that's much clearer.
The reason it's not iterative is that the process of searching a (tree-like, Lisp) list is not iterative: it's what SICP would call a 'recursive process' because (Lisp's tree-like) lists are recursively defined in both their first and rest field. Nothing you can do will make the process iterative.
But you can make the code to appear iterative at the implementation level by managing the stack explicitly thus turning it into a tail recursive version. The nature of the computational process doesn't change though:
(define (fringe l)
(define (fringe-loop thing accum stack)
(cond
((null? thing)
;; ignore the () sentinel or () element
(if (null? stack)
;; nothing more to do
accum
;; continue with the thing most recently put aside
(fringe-loop (car stack) accum (cdr stack))))
((pair? thing)
;; carry on to the right, remembering to look to the left later
(fringe-loop (cdr thing) accum (cons (car thing) stack)))
(else
;; we're going to collect this atomic thing but we also need
;; to check the stack
(if (null? stack)
;; we're done
(cons thing accum)
;; collect this and continue with what was put aside
(fringe-loop (car stack) (cons thing accum) (cdr stack))))))
(fringe-loop l '() '()))
Whether that's worth it depends on how expensive you think recursive calls are and whether there is any recursion limit. However the general trick of explicitly managing what you are going to do next is useful in general as it can make it much easier to control search order.
(Note, of course, that you can do a trick like this for any program at all!)
It's about types. Principled development follows types. Then it becomes easy.
Lisp is an untyped language. It's like assembler on steroids. There are no types, no constraints on what you're able to code.
There are no types enforced by the language, but still there are types, conceptually. We code to types, we handle types, we produce values to a given specs i.e. values of some types as needed for the pieces of bigger system to interface properly, for the functions we write to work together properly, etc. etc.
What is it we're building a fringe of? Is it a "list"?
What is a "list"? Is it
(define (list? ls)
(or (null? ls)
(and (pair? ls)
(list? (cdr ls)))))
Is this what we're building a fringe of? How come it says nothing about the car of the thing, are we to ignore anything that's in the car? Why, no, of course not. We're not transforming a list. We're actually transforming a tree:
(define (tree? ls)
(or (null? ls)
(and (pair? ls)
(tree? (car ls))
(tree? (cdr ls)))))
Is it really enough though to only be able to have ()s in it? Probably not.
Is it
(define (tree? ls)
(or (null? ls)
(not (pair? ls)) ;; (atom? ls) is what we mean
(and ;; (pair? ls)
(tree? (car ls))
(tree? (cdr ls)))))
It 1 a tree? Apparently it is, but let's put this aside for now.
What we have here, is a structured, principled way to see a piece of data as belonging to a certain type. Or as some say, data type.
So then we just follow the same skeleton of the data type definition / predicate, to write a function that is to process the values of said type in some specific way (this is the approach promoted by Sterling and Shapiro's "The Art of Prolog").
(define (tree-fringe ls)
So, what is it to produce? A list of atoms in its leaves, that's what.
(cond
((null? ls)
A () is already a list?.
ls)
((not (pair? ls)) ;; (atom? ls) is what we mean
(handle-atom-case ls))
Let's put this off for now. On to the next case,
(else
;; (tree? (car ls))
;; (tree? (cdr ls))
both car and cdr of ls are tree?s. How to handle them, we already know. It's
(let ((a (tree-fringe (car ls)))
(b (tree-fringe (cdr ls)))
and what do we do with the two pieces? We piece them together. First goes the fringe from the left, then from the right. Simple:
(append a b )))))
(define (handle-atom-case ls)
;; bad name, inline its code inside
;; the `tree-fringe` later, when we have it
And so, what type of data does append expect in both its arguments? A list?, again.
And this is what we must produce for an atomic "tree". Such "tree" is its own fringe. Except,
;; tree: 1 2
;; fringe: ( 1 ) ( 2 )
it must be a list?. It's actually quite simple to turn an atomic piece of data, any data, into a list? containing that piece of data.
........ )
And that was the only non-trivial thing we had to come up with here, to get to the solution.
Recursion is about breaking stuff apart into the sub-parts which are similar to the whole thing, transforming those with that same procedure we are trying to write, then combining the results in some simple and straightforward way.
If a tree? contains two smaller trees?, well, we've hit the jackpot -- we already know how to handle them!
And when we have structural data types, we already have the way to pick them apart. It is how they are defined anyway.
Maybe I'll address your second question later.
I need help with one issue: I can't handle how to get the first atom from the list in SCHEME language. I think I should make a loop, something like "while" and compare each element on boolean (?atom) and print first matched item.
Unfortunately, It's difficult for me to handle scheme syntax.
Please, can you propose any solution for me?
define func ?atom:
(define (atom? x) (not (or (pair? x) (null? x))))
Recursion is not that different from the usual way yo solve problems - you just have to be careful and set some meaningful base cases. For instance, how would you solve this problem in Java? by traversing all the list, and stoping when either 1) we found the element that matches the condition or 2) there are no more elements. This is exactly what we need to do:
(define (first-atom lst)
(cond ((null? lst) #f) ; there are no more elements in the list
((atom? (car lst)) ; current element is an atom
(car lst)) ; return it
(else ; otherwise
(first-atom (cdr lst))))) ; look in the rest of the list
It works as expected:
(first-atom '((2) 42 (3)))
=> 42
(first-atom '((1) (2)(3)))
=> #f
In your question you have the definition to atom? that returns #t if the argument is an atom and #f otherwise.
The function should handle the empty list. eg. What should happen when you do this:
(first-atom '())
Thus you need to check if the argument is the empty list and return whatever you supposed to return when there are no atoms in the arguments. Then you'll have a else expression that handles the rest.
You can use first to get the first element to check if it is an atom and then return it or you recure with the rest of the list.
Now here is something very similar that finds the number of elements in a list:
(define (length lst)
(if (null? lst)
0 ; obviously a 0 length list
(+ 1 (length (cdr lst))))) ; obviously one plus whatever length the rest is
Imagine what happens if you do (length '(1 2)). It does (+ 1 (length '(2))) which again does (+ 1 (+ 1 (length '()))) which again does (+ 1 (+ 1 0)). Simple as that. All loops are recursive functions in Scheme.
You reference to while indicates you might be familiar with other programming languages. I knew C, C++, Pascal, perl, PHP, and Java when starting to learn Lisp and I suddenly realized all the languages I knew were only subtle dialects of one language, Algol. I wasn't learning my sixth language, but my second. Scheme doesn't have a while loop. It has recursion. you need to get a book and start at the first page as if you didn't know how to program at all as assimilation from Algol will point you in the wrong direction.
One of the first questions in the second chapter of The Little Schemer (4th edition) asks the reader to write the function lat?, where (lat? l) returns true if l is a list of atoms.
It goes on to say:
You were not expected to be able to do this yet, because you are still missing some ingredients.
But I'm familiar with recursion, and the definition of atom? earlier in the book already introduced and (further implying the existence of or), so I gave it a shot anyway: (repl)
(define lat?
(lambda (l)
(or
(null? l)
(and
(atom? (car l))
(lat? (cdr l))))))
On the next page, the book introduces the cond operator to enable this definition of lat?:
(define lat?
(lambda (l)
(cond
((null? l) #t)
((atom? (car l)) (lat? (cdr l)))
(else #f))))
Is there any significant difference between these two implementations?
cond is a special form, that takes (roughly) the form
(cond
((test-expression) (then-expression))
((test-expression2) (then-expression2))
(else
(then-expression3)))
Its semantics is that it will evaluate the test-expressions in order, and for the first one that it finds to evaluate to #t (the true value), then it will evaluate its associated then-expression and return its value. If all the test-expressions evaluate to #f (the false value), and an else clause is present, then it will evaluate its associated then-expression3 in this case, and return its value.
So as far as semantics are concerned, the two implementations are equivalent. Their only difference might be that afaik the cond version is considered more idiomatic in the Scheme community.
I am trying to write a program which will add numbers in a list. However, when I give the input as a list, Scheme does not give me an output.
My code is the following:
(define (sumlist lst)
(cond ( (pair? lst) (+ (car lst) (sumlist(cdr lst))) )))
Why does this happen? I am giving input properly, i.e, I am quoting the list.
I am giving input as follows:
(sumlist '(1 2 3))
EDIT:
I changed the question slightly. The list was not quoted in pair? 'lst and that is why I was getting an error.
Now, I am not getting an error. However, I am not getting any output either.
EDIT2:
I unquoted the list in pair? lst. However, now it is giving me the following error: Wrong type in arg2 #
I have updated the code accordingly.
Your function application syntax is wrong. Function application is always prefix in Scheme, i.e. car(lst) should be (car lst), etc.
Also, (pair? 'lst) is wrong, since you should not be quoting the argument. That will test if the symbol lst is a pair, which is obviously always false.
You need a base case for when you don't want to recurse—when you receive the empty list—which should return 0.
Putting all these together, and you should have this:
(define (sumlist lst)
(if (pair? lst)
(+ (car lst) (sumlist (cdr lst)))
0))
(I also changed cond to if since cond is unnecessary in this case.)
I have decided to learn some functional language and I hooked up with the lisp-scheme after all.
I am trying to make a function which checks if a list is sorted, either with lowest first getting higher or vice versa, and if it can be sorted it should return true else false.
This is my first code, working only if the list is increasing (or equal).
(define sorted?
(lambda (lst)
(cond ((empty? lst) #t)
(else (and (<= (car lst) (cadr lst))
(sorted? (cdr lst)))))))
clarification: something like (sorted? '(1 2 3 4 5)) and (sorted? '(5 4 3 2 1)) should return true, else if not sorted false of course.
How am I supposed to think when programming in a functional style? The syntax seems straight-forward but I'm not used to the logic.
Specific implementation
I'd take Óscar López's answer and go one step further:
(define sorted? (lambda (lst)
(letrec ((sorted-cmp
(lambda (lst cmp)
(cond ((or (empty? lst) (empty? (cdr lst)))
#t)
(else (and (cmp (car lst) (cadr lst))
(sorted-cmp (cdr lst) cmp)))))))
(or (sorted-cmp lst <=) (sorted-cmp lst >=)))))
The biggest difference between this version and his is that sorted? now defines Óscar's version as an internal helper function using letrec and calls it both ways.
Functional Thinking
You actually chose a good example for illustrating some aspects of how Scheme views the world, and your implementation was off to a very good start.
One important functional principle involved in the solution to this problem is that anything you could put (**here** more stuff '(1 2 3 4)), you can pass around as an argument to another function. That is, functions are first class in a functional programming language. So the fact that you were using <= in your comparison means that you can pass <= as a parameter to another function that makes a comparison accordingly. Óscar's answer is a great illustration of that point.
Another aspect of this problem that embodies another common functional pattern is a function that consists primarily of a (cond) block. In many functional programming languages (Haskell, ML, OCaml, F#, Mathematica), you get stronger pattern matching abilities than you get, by default in Scheme. So with (cond) in Scheme, you have to describe how to test for the pattern that you seek, but that's usually fairly straightforward (for example the (or (empty? lst) (empty? (cdr lst))) in this implementation.
One final functional programming pattern that I see as well-embodied in this problem is that many functional programming solutions are recursive. Recursion is why I had to use letrec instead of plain ol' let.
Almost anything you can do by operating on the first element (or 2 elements as in this case) and then repeating the operation on the tail (cdr) of the list you do that way. Imperative for- or while-style loops aren't impossible in Scheme (although they are pretty much impossible in pure functional languages such as Haskell), they're slightly out of place in Scheme under many circumstances. But Scheme's flexibility that allows you, as the developer, to make that decision enables important performance or maintainability optimizations in certain circumstances.
Continuing exploration
My first implementation of sorted? for my answer here was going to decide which comparison operator to pass to sorted-cmp based on what it saw in the list. I backed off on that when I spotted that a list could start with two equal numbers '(1 1 2 3 4 5). But as I think more about it, there's definitely a way to track whether you've decided a direction yet and, thus, only have one call required to sorted-cmp. You might consider exploring that next.
You almost got it right, look:
(define sorted?
(lambda (lst)
(cond ((or (empty? lst) (empty? (cdr lst)))
#t)
(else (and (<= (car lst) (cadr lst))
(sorted? (cdr lst)))))))
A little modification in the base case, and you're all set. It's necessary to stop when there's only one element left in the list, otherwise the cadr expression will throw an error.
For the second part of your question: If you want to check if it's sorted using a different criterion, simply pass the comparison function as an argument, like this:
(define sorted?
(lambda (lst cmp)
(cond ((or (empty? lst) (empty? (cdr lst)))
#t)
(else (and (cmp (car lst) (cadr lst))
(sorted? (cdr lst) cmp))))))
(sorted? '(1 2 3 4 5) <=)
> #t
(sorted? '(5 4 3 2 1) >=)
> #t
Now if you want to know if a list is sorted in either ascending order or in descending order:
(define lst '(1 2 3 4 5))
(or (sorted? lst >=) (sorted? lst <=))
> #t
As you can see, functional programming is about defining procedures as generic as possible and combining them to solve problems. The fact that you can pass functions around as parameters helps a great deal for implementing generic functions.
I'm going to take your question to mean, more specifically, "if I already program in an imperative language like C or Java, how do I adjust my thinking for functional programming?" Using your problem as an example, I'm going to spend my Saturday morning answering this question in long form. I'll trace the evolution of a functional programmer through three stages, each a successively higher plane of zen - 1) thinking iteratively; 2) thinking recursively; and 3) thinking lazily.
Part I - Thinking Iteratively
Let's say I'm programming in C and I can't or won't use recursion - perhaps the compiler does not optimize tail recursion, and a recursive solution would overflow the stack. So I start thinking about what state I need to maintain. I imagine a little machine crawling over the input. It remembers if it is searching for an increasing or a decreasing sequence. If it hasn't decided yet, it does so based on the current input, if it can. If it finds input headed in the wrong direction, it terminates with zigzag=true. If it reaches the end of the input, it terminates with zigzag=false.
int
zigzag(int *data, int n)
{
enum {unknown, increasing, decreasing} direction = unknown;
int i;
for (i = 1; i < n; ++i)
{
if (data[i] > data[i - 1]) {
if (direction == decreasing) return 1;
direction = increasing;
}
if (data[i] < data[i - 1]) {
if (direction == increasing) return 1;
direction = decreasing;
}
}
/* We've made it through the gauntlet, no zigzagging */
return 0;
}
This program is typical of C programs: it is efficient but it is difficult to prove that it will do the right thing. Even for this simple example, it's not immediately obvious that this can't get stuck in an infinite loop, or take a wrong turn in its logic somewhere. Of course, it gets worse for more complicated programs.
Part II - Thinking Recursively
I find that the key to writing readable programs in the spirit of functional languages (as opposed to just trying to morph an imperative solution into that language) is to focus on what the program should calculate rather than on how it should do it. If you can do that with enough precision - if you can write the problem out clearly - then most of the time in functional programming, you're almost at the solution!
So let's start by writing out the thing to be calculated in more detail. We want to know if a list zigzags (i.e. decreases at some point, and increases at another). Which lists meet this criterion? Well, a list zigzags if:
it is more than two elements long AND
it initially increases, but then decreases at some point OR
it initially decreases, but then increases at some point OR
its tail zigzags.
It's possible to translate the above statements, more or less directly, into a Scheme function:
(define (zigzag xs)
(and (> (length xs) 2)
(or (and (initially-increasing xs) (decreases xs))
(and (initially-decreasing xs) (increases xs))
(zigzag (cdr xs)))))
Now we need definitions of initially-increasing, initially-decreasing, decreases, and increases. The initially- functions are straightforward enough:
(define (initially-increasing xs)
(> (cadr xs) (car xs)))
(define (initially-decreasing xs)
(< (cadr xs) (car xs)))
What about decreases and increases? Well, a sequence decreases if it is of length greater than one, and the first element is greater than the second, or its tail decreases:
(define (decreases xs)
(letrec ((passes
(lambda (prev rest)
(cond ((null? rest) #f)
((< (car rest) prev)
#t)
(else (passes (car rest) (cdr rest)))))))
(passes (car xs) (cdr xs))))
We could write a similar increases function, but it's clear that only one change is needed: < must become >. Duplicating so much code should make you uneasy. Couldn't I ask the language to make me a function like decreases, but using > in that place instead? In functional languages, you can do exactly that, because functions can return other functions! So we can write a function that implements: "given a comparison operator, return a function that returns true if that comparison is true for any two successive elements of its argument."
(define (ever op)
(lambda (xs)
(letrec ((passes
(lambda (prev rest)
(cond ((null? rest) #f)
((op (car rest) prev)
#t)
(else (passes (car rest) (cdr rest)))))))
(passes (car xs) (cdr xs)))))
increases and decreases can now both be defined very simply:
(define decreases (ever <))
(define increases (ever >))
No more functions to implement - we're done. The advantage of this version over the C version is clear - it's much easier to reason that this program will do the right thing. Most of this program is quite trivial with all the complexity being pushed into the ever function, which is a quite general operation that would be useful in plenty of other contexts. I am sure by searching one could find a standard (and thus more trustworthy) implementation rather than this custom one.
Though an improvement, this program still isn't perfect. There's lots of custom recursion and it's not obvious at first that all of it is tail recursive (though it is). Also, the program retains faint echos of C in the form of multiple conditional branches and exit points. We can get an even clearer implementation with the help of lazy evaluation, and for that we're going to switch languages.
Part III - Thinking Lazily
Let's go back to the problem definition. It can actually be stated much more simply than it was in part II - "A sequence zigzags (i.e. is non-sorted) if it contains comparisons between adjacent elements that go in both directions". I can translate that sentence, more or less directly, into a line of Haskell:
zigzag xs = LT `elem` comparisons && GT `elem` comparisons
Now I need a way to derive comparisons, the list of comparisons of every member of xs with its successor. This is not hard to do and is perhaps best explained by example.
> xs
[1,1,1,2,3,4,5,3,9,9]
> zip xs (tail xs)
[(1,1),(1,1),(1,2),(2,3),(3,4),(4,5),(5,3),(3,9),(9,9)]
> map (\(x,y) -> compare x y) $ zip xs (tail xs)
[EQ,EQ,LT,LT,LT,LT,GT,LT,EQ]
That's all we need; these two lines are the complete implementation -
zigzag xs = LT `elem` comparisons && GT `elem` comparisons
where comparisons = map (\(x,y) -> compare x y) $ zip xs (tail xs)
and I'll note that this program makes just one pass through the list to test for both the increasing and decreasing cases.
By now, you have probably thought of an objection: isn't this approach wasteful? Isn't this going to search through the entire input list, when it only has to go as far as the first change of direction? Actually, no, it won't, because of lazy evaluation. In the example above, it calculated the entire comparisons list because it had to in order to print it out. But if it's going to pass the result to zigzag, it will only evaluate the comparisons list far enough to find one instance of GT and one of LT, and no further. To convince yourself of this, consider these cases:
> zigzag $ 2:[1..]
True
> zigzag 1:[9,8..]
True
The input in both cases is an infinite list ([2,1,2,3,4,5..] and [1,9,8,7,6,5...]). Try to print them out, and they will fill up the screen. But pass them to zigzag, and it will return very quickly, as soon as it finds the first change in direction.
A lot of the difficultly in reading code comes from following multiple branches of control flow. And a lot of those branches are really efforts to avoid calculating more than we need to. But much of the same thing can be achieved with lazy evaluation, allowing the program to be both shorter and truer to the original question.
Try this
(define sorted?
(lambda (l)
(cond ((null? l) #t)
(else (check-asc? (car l) (sorted? (cdr l))
(check-desc? (car l) (sorted? (cdr l))))))
(define check-asc?
(lambda (elt lst)
(cond ((null? lst) #t)
(else (or (< elt (car lst)) (= elt (car lst))) (check-asc? (car lst) (cdr lst))))))
(define check-desc?
(lambda (elt lst)
(cond ((null? lst) #t)
(else (or (< elt (car lst)) (= elt (car lst))) (check-desc? (car lst) (cdr lst))))))
I am a newbie myself. I haven't tested this code. Still struggling with recursion. Please tell me if it worked or what error it gave.
The previous answer i gave was really bad.
I ran the code in DrScheme and it gave errors.
However I have modified it. Here is a code that works:
(define sorted?
(lambda (l)
(cond ((null? l) #t)
(else (if (check-asc? (car l) (cdr l)) #t
(check-desc? (car l) (cdr l)))))))
(define check-asc?
(lambda (elt lst)
(cond ((null? lst) #t)
(else (if (or (< elt (car lst)) (= elt (car lst))) (check-asc? (car lst) (cdr lst))
#f)))))
(define check-desc?
(lambda (elt lst)
(cond ((null? lst) #t)
(else (if (or (> elt (car lst)) (= elt (car lst))) (check-desc? (car lst) (cdr lst))
#f)))))
Cases checked:
(sorted? '(5 4 3 2 1))
returns #t
(sorted? '(1 2 3 4 5))
returns #t
(sorted? '(1 2 3 5 4))
returns #f
(sorted? '())
returns #t
(sorted? '(1))
returns #t