This question already has an answer here:
Closed 11 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
scheme sort list diffent criteria
I have a finite list of quadruples, like
(list (list 1 3 5 5) (list 2 3 4 9) (list 3 4 4 6)(list 4 7 10 3)).
Each of the elements is denoted by (a1 a2 a3 a4).
I have wrote a code which provides the above list and I have stopped
since I have no idea how to continue. I want to write a sorting function
which provides a "increasing" list created according to the following
criteria:
the numbers a2,
later the difference (a3 - a4),
and later the numbers a3.
I kindly ask for your help. Thank you. Debbie.
I can not include my code since it is not accepted in this place.
I wrote a predicate that seems to do what you want. You can plug it into this mergesort to work.
(define <quad
(lambda (l1 l2)
(let
([l1a2 (cadr l1)]
[l1a3 (caddr l1)]
[l1a3 (cadddr l1)]
[l2a2 (cadr l2)]
[l2a3 (caddr l2)]
[l2a3 (cadddr l2)])
(cond
[(< l1a2 l2a2) #t]
[(< (- l1a3 l1a4) (- l2a3 l2a4)) #t]
[(< l1a3 l2a3) #t]))))
If you pass that in for the predicate argument, your sort should work fine:
(merge-sort <quad '((2 3 4 5) (1 2 3 4))) => ((1 2 3 4) (2 3 4 5))
Related
In Python the data structure looks like this: [([1 2 3], [8 9 10])] (a list of tuple, where tuple is of size 2, and each tuple element is a list again)
How would I represent the same in Scheme r5rs?
This is what I tried: (list (cons `(1 2 3) `(8 9 10)))
But running (display (list (cons `(1 2 3) `(8 9 10)))) gives (((1 2 3) 8 9 10)) whereas I want (((1 2 3) (8 9 10)))
Edit
Using only lists (as per #Will Ness answer here):
(list ; a pair of elements,
(list 1 2 3) ; 1 each is itself
(list 8 9 10))) ; 2 a list
works.
And I can access the 2nd element of the tuple by
(cadr (car x)) which gives (8 9 10) (which is correct)
I was just thinking how would I build this up using cons since my tuple will only contain 2 elements and from what I know cons are used to represent a pair in Scheme. Any ideas on how to do this using cons?
[([1 2 3], [8 9 10])] (a list of tuple, where tuple is of size 2, and each tuple element is a list again)
(list ; a list of
(list ; a pair of elements,
(list 1 2 3) ; 1 each is itself
(list 8 9 10))) ; 2 a list
Scheme is untyped, so we can just use lists for tuples. It is simpler that way -- the access is uniform. The first is car, the second cadr.
Your way is correct as well. What really determines whether it is or not is how you can access your data to retrieve its constituents back. And with your way you can indeed, too: the first element will be car and the second -- cdr.
(update to the question edit:) whether you use (cons 1 (cons 2 '())) or (list 1 2) is immaterial. the resulting structure in memory is the same.
There is an infinity of ways to represent data. You have been presented a way. Here is other way:
(define mk/data
(lambda (a b)
(lambda (?)
(cond ((eq? ? 'repr) (list (list a b)))
((eq? ? 'first) a)
((eq? ? 'second) b)))))
(define data/test (mk/data '(1 2 3) '(8 9 10)))
(data/test 'repr)
(data/test 'first)
(data/test 'second)
This is another way how the big systems actually represent data.
I am stuck on Q2.
Q1. Write a function drop-divisible that takes a number and a list of numbers, and returns a new list containing only those numbers not "non-trivially divisible" by the the number.
This is my answer to Q1.
(define (drop-divisible x lst)
(cond [(empty? lst) empty]
; if the number in the list is equal to the divisor
; or the number is not divisible, add it to the result list
[(or (= x (first lst))(< 0 (remainder (first lst) x))) (cons (first lst) (drop-divisible x (rest lst)))]
[else (drop-divisible x (rest lst))]))
(module+ test
(check-equal? (drop-divisible 3 (list 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10)) (list 2 3 4 5 7 8 10)))
Q2. Using drop-divisible and (one or more) higher order functions filter, map, foldl, foldr. (i.e. no explicit recursion), write a function that takes a list of divisors, a list of numbers to test, and applies drop-divisible for each element of the list of divisors. Here is a test your code should pass
(module+ test
(check-equal? (sieve-with '(2 3) (list 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10)) (list 2 3 5 7)))
I can come up with a snippet that only takes the second list, which does the same work as the solution to Q1.
(define (sieve-with divisors lst)
(filter (lambda (x) ((lambda (d)(or (= d x)(< 0 (remainder x d)))) divisors)) lst))
I tried to modify the snippet with 'map' but couldn't make it work as intended. I also can't see how 'foldr' may possibly be used here.
In this case, foldl is the right tool to use (foldr will also give a correct answer, albeit less efficiently, when the divisors are in increasing order). The idea is to take the input list and repeatedly applying drop-divisible on it, once per each element in the divisors list. Because we accumulate the result between calls, in the end we'll obtain a list filtered by all of the divisors. This is what I mean:
(define (sieve-with divisors lst)
; `e` is the current element from the `divisors` list
; `acc` is the accumulated result
(foldl (lambda (e acc) (drop-divisible e acc))
lst ; initially, the accumulated result
; is the whole input list
divisors)) ; iterate over all divisors
I used a lambda to make explicit the parameter names, but in fact you can pass drop-divisible directly. I'd rather write this shorter implementation:
(define (sieve-with divisors lst)
(foldl drop-divisible lst divisors))
Either way, it works as expected:
(sieve-with '(2 3) '(2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10))
=> '(2 3 5 7)
I am trying to answer a scheme question, for a part of this question I have to make a list of lists:
(define (join a b (result '()))
(cons (list a b) result))
So I am taking in two characters, and placing them in a list, then I need to place each sublist into a list of lists, this function is being called recursively with two characters each time, so it is supposed to work like this:
join 1 4
=> ((1 4))
join 2 5
=> ((1 4) (2 5))
join 3 6
=> ((1 4) (2 5) (3 6))
However, I am getting ((3 6) (2 5) (1 4)), so the elements need to be reversed, I tried reversing my cons function to (cons result (list a b)) but then I get (((() 1 4) 2 5) 3 6), how can I get the list the right way around, or is there an easier way to do what I'm doing?
If you need to add elements at the end of a list use append; cons is for adding elements at the head. Try this:
(define (join a b (result '()))
(append result (list (list a b))))
Notice that append combines two lists, that's why we have to surround the new element inside its own list. Also, it's not a good idea to add elements at the end, using append is more expensive than using cons - if possible, rethink your algorithm to add elements at the head, and reverse the result at the end.
This can easily be done like this:
(define (group-by-2 lst)
(let loop ((lst lst) (rlst '()))
(if (or (null? lst) (null? (cdr lst)))
(rcons->cons rlst)
(loop (cdr lst)
(rcons (list (car lst)
(cadr lst))
rlst)))))
(group-by-2 '(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8))
; ==> ((1 2) (2 3) (3 4) (4 5) (5 6) (6 7) (7 8))
Now rcons is like cons but it makes a reverse list. (rcons 1 (rcons 2 (rcons 3))) ; ==> {3 2 1} however it is not a list so you have to convert it to a list (rcons->list (rcons 1 (rcons 2 (rcons 3))) ; ==> (3 2 1)
The magic functions are really not that magical:
(define rcons cons)
(define rcons->cons reverse)
So in fact I didn't really have to make that abstraction, but hopefully I made my point. It doesn't matter how you organize the intermediate data structure in your programs so why not make the best for the job you are doing. For lists it's always best to iterate from beginning to end and make from end to beginning. Every insert O(1) per element and you do a O(n) reverse in the end. It beats doing append n times that would make it O(n²)
I am new to a functional programming and trying to reverse a list in lisp. List consists of sublists and atoms. The function (reverse-tree '((1 2) 5 6 (3))) should return ((3) 6 5 (2 1)). Here is my function:
(define (reverse-tree s)
;; giving problem with an atom
(if (not(list? s)) ( reverse-tree s) (reverse (map reverse s)))
)
It works when I do (reverse-tree '((1 2) (3))) => ((3) (2 1)). But it crashes when I do (reverse-tree '((1 2) 5 6 (3))). The error I am getting is reverse: contract violation expected: list?
I am limited to use only: reverse, map, if, cond, list? null? functions.
EDIT, someone marked this question as duplicate, but there is a restriction in this problem, which is not similar to the other question. I cannot use cons, car, cdr, append. Any suggestions?
Think about the problem in pieces. First, if the function is given a list as an argument, you need to reverse that list. That's easy, something like:
(define (reverse-tree tree)
(if (list? tree)
(reverse tree)
...))
But you also need to reverse all sublists in it and all sublists in them and so on. Since that's exactly what our reverse-tree does, we should use map to apply it to all elements in the reversed list (it doesn't actually matter whether you use map before or after reversing the list):
(define (reverse-tree tree)
(if (list? tree)
(map reverse-tree (reverse tree))
...))
But if the input is ((1 2) 3 4 (5 6)), the map will call reverse-tree on the atoms 3 and 4 too. It wouldn't make any sense to reverse them, so we can just return them:
(define (reverse-tree tree)
(if (list? tree)
(map reverse-tree (reverse tree))
tree))
Now it should work:
(reverse-tree '((1 2) 3 4 (5 6)))
;=> ((6 5) 4 3 (2 1))
(reverse-tree '((1 2) 3 4 (5 6 (7 8))))
;=> (((8 7) 6 5) 4 3 (2 1))
I wanted to write the code for comparing the size of two lists. I made use of the length and wrote this down.
(define (same-size-matrix? mtrx1 mtrx2)
(equal? (length mtrx1) (length mtrx2))).
I thought this was going to work for me, but I found out it only checks the overall length, not the sublist. For example it returns true when it compares for. '((1 2 3 4) (4 5 6 6) (6 7 8 9)) and '(( 5 4) (3 2) (7 1)), but it's supposed to return false, because the first has 4 values within the list and the second has only two even though they both overally have same length. How do I go about this. Any help would be appreciated.
Try this instead:
(define (same-size-matrix? mtrx1 mtrx2)
(equal? (map length mtrx1) (map length mtrx2)))
Notice that in your solution you're comparing the total length of each list (the number of rows in the matrix), but ignoring the length of each sublist (the number of columns for each row in the matrix). In my soultion, first we calculate the length of each sublist and after that we check if all the lengths are equal. For example, take this input:
(define mtrx1 '((1 2 3 4) (4 5 6 6) (6 7 8 9)))
(define mtrx2 '((5 4) (3 2) (7 1)))
(same-size-matrix? mtrx1 mtrx2)
First the same-size-matrix? evaluates this expression, which finds the length of each sublist in mtrx1. It's necessary to check all the lengths, not just the first one, in case we're dealing with a jagged array:
(map length mtrx1)
; evaluates to '(4 4 4)
And then we have this expression, which performs the same operation for mtrx2:
(map length mtrx2)
; evaluates to '(2 2 2)
Finally, we compare the two lists of lengths (in fact: the number of columns per row), returning the expected result:
(equal? '(4 4 4) '(2 2 2))
> #f
Notice that the last comparison will also detect if the lists are of different size, in case the matrices have a different number of rows.
is it scheme?
(define m1 `((1 2 3 4) (4 5 6 6 ) (6 7 8 9)))
(define m2 `((5 4) (3 2) (7 1)))
(define (same-size-matrix? m1 m2) (equal? (map length m1) (map length m2)))
(same-size-matrix? m1 m2) ; => #f
(same-size-matrix? m1 m1) ; => #t
Here is a simple definition of same-size?.
#lang racket
; A MATRIX is a list of ROWs.
; A ROW is a list of numbers.
; In a matrix all rows are of the same length.
(define (row-size list-of-rows)
(length list-of-rows))
(define (column-size matrix)
(define first-row (first matrix))
(length first-row))
(define (same-size? matrix1 matrix2)
(and (= (row-size matrix1) (row-size matrix2))
(= (column-size matrix1) (column-size matrix2))))
As a bonus here is a predicate that test whether an object
is a matrix or not. Compare it to the data definitions.
(define (row? object)
(and (list? object)
(andmap number? object)))
(define (matrix? object)
(and (list? object)
(andmap row? object)
(apply = (map row-size object))))
You need to clarify if you want to check 1) the exact shape of the matrix or 2) the overall 'flattened' length.
what should be the result for (same-size-matrix? '((1 2) (3 4) (5 6)) '((1 2 3) (4 5 6)))?
1) => #f
2) => #t
Óscar López's answer is for 1.
If your requirement is 2, based on Óscar's answer:
(define (same-size-matrix? mtrx1 mtrx2)
(equal? (apply + (map length mtrx1)) (apply + (map length mtrx2))))