(define (ispowerof2? n)
(cond ((< n 1) #f)
((= n 1) #t)
((> (remainder n 2) 0) #f)
(else (ispowerof2? (/ n 2)))))
Is this code correct and how to write the same function with tail recursion?
I agree with the other two answers. To explain a bit more deeply: a "tail-recursive" function is one where all recursive calls are in tail position. This begs the question of what constitutes a tail call.
One way to see the tail calls is to run this function using DrRacket's stepper. In particular, set the langage level to "Beginning Student" and click the "step" button on this program:
(define (ispowerof2? n)
(cond
((< n 1) false)
((= n 1) true)
((> (remainder n 2) 0) false)
(else (ispowerof2? (/ n 2)))))
(ispowerof2? 36)
... then step forward until you get to a recursive call:
(define (ispowerof2? n)
(cond
((< n 1) false)
((= n 1) true)
((> (remainder n 2) 0) false)
(else (ispowerof2? (/ n 2)))))
(ispowerof2? (/ 36 2))
Note that the recursive call is at the top level; there's no "context" wrapping it, with code to be applied to the result of the call. This is what is meant by a "tail call". Contrast this with a function that computes the length of a list:
(define (len l)
(cond
((empty? l) 0)
(else (+ 1 (len (rest l))))))
(len (cons 3 (cons 4 empty))
Step forward until you get a recursive call, and you'll see this:
(define (len l)
(cond
((empty? l) 0)
(else (+ 1 (len (rest l))))))
(+ 1 (len (list 4)))
See how the recursive call to 'len' is inside of a (+ 1 ...) expression? That's because this call is not in tail position; there are still more expressions to evaluate in this function after the return of the recursive call.
Not quite. The line:
(else (ispower2? (/ n 2)))))
Contains an error - it should be ispowerof2. Otherwise, this is tail recursion.
Yes, this is tail recursive. :)
Related
I have been writing a code that returns a list with all prime numbers less than or equal to n in the Scheme language.
Example,3 -> 2,3 10 -> 1,3,5,7 11->2,3,5,7,11
Actually, the codes below works.However, when I put 1 for n, the code should show (), but it shows 2. I think that it is because I put 2 on the second line. But I put the 2 for the other test case.
I tried to fix the code, but it did not work.
Are there any points where I can fix?
(define (primes n)
(let loop((result `(2))
(i 3))
(cond ((> i n)(reverse result))
(else (loop
(if (divide-any? i result) result (cons i result))
(+ i 2))))))
(define (divide? n1 n2)
(zero? (modulo n1 n2)))
(define (divide-any? n ls)
(do ((ls ls (cdr ls)))
((or (null? ls)
(divide? n (car ls)))
(not (eqv? '() ls)))))
Yes, the function primes is partial - it only works for certain values.
You can fix it quite simply:
(define (primes n)
(if (<= n 1)
'()
(let loop((result `(2))
(i 3))
(cond ((> i n)(reverse result))
(else (loop
(if (divide-any? i result) result (cons i result))
(+ i 2)))))))
When I have a number in my list that is greater than 9 I want to separate the
digits and add them to the running sum.
The code I have is giving me and error in my sum-list definition.
(define sum-list (lst)
(if (null lst)
0
(if (>9 car lst?)
(cons ((mod (car lst) 10)) + (* (remainder (/car lst 10) 10))))
(if (>9 cdr lst?)
(cons ((mod (cdr lst)10)) + (* (remainder (/cdr lst 10) 10))))
(+ (car lst) (sum-list (cdr lst)))))
I am getting an error"Expected only one expression after the name sum-list but found one extra part.
I wrote this now in mit-scheme. I split the problem in 2 subproblems -- to conver the number to the list of digits and then to sum the digits in the resulting list.
(define n->l
(lambda (n return)
((lambda (s) (s s n return))
(lambda (s n col)
(if (zero? n)
(col '())
(s s
(quotient n 10)
(lambda (rest)
(col (cons (remainder n 10) rest)))))))))
(define sum-digits
(lambda (n)
(n->l n (lambda (l) (fold-left + 0 l)))))
(sum-digits 100)
(sum-digits 123)
I would like to write a simple profiler for Scheme that gives a count of the number of times each function in a program is called. I tried to redefine the define command like this (eventually I'll add the other forms of define, but for now I am just trying to write proof-of-concept code):
(define-syntax define
(syntax-rules ()
((define (name args ...) body ...)
(set! name
(lambda (args ...)
(begin
(set! *profile* (cons name *profile*))
body ...))))))
My idea was to record in a list *profile* each call to a function, then later to examine the list and determine function counts. This works, but stores the function itself (that is, the printable representation of the function name, which in Chez Scheme is #<procedure f> for a function named f), but then I can't count or sort or otherwise process the function names.
How can I write a simple profiler for Scheme?
EDIT: Here is my simple profiler (the uniq-c function that counts adjacent duplicates in a list comes from my Standard Prelude):
(define *profile* (list))
(define (reset-profile)
(set! *profile* (list)))
(define-syntax define-profiling
(syntax-rules ()
((_ (name args ...) body ...)
(define (name args ...)
(begin
(set! *profile*
(cons 'name *profile*))
body ...)))))
(define (profile)
(uniq-c string=?
(sort string<?
(map symbol->string *profile*)))))
As a simple demonstration, here is a function to identify prime numbers by trial division. Function divides? is broken out separately because the profiler only counts function calls, not individual statements.
(define-profiling (divides? d n)
(zero? (modulo n d)))
(define-profiling (prime? n)
(let loop ((d 2))
(cond ((= d n) #t)
((divides? d n) #f)
(else (loop (+ d 1))))))
(define-profiling (prime-pi n)
(let loop ((k 2) (pi 0))
(cond ((< n k) pi)
((prime? k) (loop (+ k 1) (+ pi 1)))
(else (loop (+ k 1) pi)))))
> (prime-pi 1000)
168
> (profile)
(("divides?" . 78022) ("prime-pi" . 1) ("prime?" . 999))
And here is an improved version of the function, which stops trial division at the square root of n:
(define-profiling (prime? n)
(let loop ((d 2))
(cond ((< (sqrt n) d) #t)
((divides? d n) #f)
(else (loop (+ d 1))))))
> (reset-profile)
> (prime-pi 1000)
168
> (profile)
(("divides?" . 5288) ("prime-pi" . 1) ("prime?" . 999))
I'll have more to say about profiling at my blog. Thanks to both #uselpa and #GoZoner for their answers.
Change your line that says:
(set! *profile* (cons name *profile*))
to
(set! *profile* (cons 'name *profile*))
The evaluation of name in the body of a function defining name is the procedure for name. By quoting you avoid the evaluation and are left with the symbol/identifier. As you had hoped, your *profile* variable will be a growing list with one symbol for each function call. You can count the number of occurrences of a given name.
Here's a sample way to implement it. It's written in Racket but trivial to transform to your Scheme dialect.
without syntax
Let's try without macros first.
Here's the profile procedure:
(define profile
(let ((cache (make-hash))) ; the cache memorizing call info
(lambda (cmd . pargs) ; parameters of profile procedure
(case cmd
((def) (lambda args ; the function returned for 'def
(hash-update! cache (car pargs) add1 0) ; prepend cache update
(apply (cadr pargs) args))) ; call original procedure
((dmp) (hash-ref cache (car pargs))) ; return cache info for one procedure
((all) cache) ; return all cache info
((res) (set! cache (make-hash))) ; reset cache
(else (error "wot?")))))) ; unknown parameter
and here's how to use it:
(define test1 (profile 'def 'test1 (lambda (x) (+ x 1))))
(for/list ((i 3)) (test1 i))
=> '(1 2 3)
(profile 'dmp 'test1)
=> 3
adding syntax
(define-syntax define!
(syntax-rules ()
((_ (name args ...) body ...)
(define name (profile 'def 'name (lambda (args ...) body ...))))))
(define! (test2 x) (* x 2))
(for/list ((i 4)) (test2 i))
=> '(0 2 4 6)
(profile 'dmp 'test2)
=> 4
To dump all:
(profile 'all)
=> '#hash((test2 . 4) (test1 . 3))
EDIT applied to your last example:
(define! (divides? d n) (zero? (modulo n d)))
(define! (prime? n)
(let loop ((d 2))
(cond ((< (sqrt n) d) #t)
((divides? d n) #f)
(else (loop (+ d 1))))))
(define! (prime-pi n)
(let loop ((k 2) (pi 0))
(cond ((< n k) pi)
((prime? k) (loop (+ k 1) (+ pi 1)))
(else (loop (+ k 1) pi)))))
(prime-pi 1000)
=> 168
(profile 'all)
=> '#hash((divides? . 5288) (prime-pi . 1) (prime? . 999))
I have written a simple procedure to find the divisors of a number (not including the number itself). I have figured out how to print them, but I would like to have this function return a list containing each of the divisors.
(define (divisors n)
(do ((i 1 (+ i 1)))
((> i (floor (/ n 2))))
(cond
((= (modulo n i) 0)
(printf "~a " i)))))
My idea is to create a local list, adding elements to it where my printf expression is, and then having the function return that list. How might I go about doing that? I am new to Scheme, and Lisp in general.
Do you necessarily have to use have to use do? here's a way:
(define (divisors n)
(do ((i 1 (add1 i))
(acc '() (if (zero? (modulo n i)) (cons i acc) acc)))
((> i (floor (/ n 2)))
(reverse acc))))
But I believe it's easier to understand if you build an output list with a named let:
(define (divisors n)
(let loop ((i 1))
(cond ((> i (floor (/ n 2))) '())
((zero? (modulo n i))
(cons i (loop (add1 i))))
(else (loop (add1 i))))))
Or if you happen to be using Racket, you can use for/fold like this:
(define (divisors n)
(reverse
(for/fold ([acc '()])
([i (in-range 1 (add1 (floor (/ n 2))))])
(if (zero? (modulo n i))
(cons i acc)
acc))))
Notice that all of the above solutions are written in a functional programming style, which is the idiomatic way to program in Scheme - without using mutation operations. It's also possible to write a procedural style solution (see #GoZoner's answer), similar to how you'd solve this problem in a C-like language, but that's not idiomatic.
Just create a local variable l and extend it instead of printing stuff. When done, return it. Like this:
(define (divisors n)
(let ((l '()))
(do ((i 1 (+ i 1)))
((> i (floor (/ n 2))))
(cond ((= (modulo n i) 0)
(set! l (cons i l))))
l))
Note that because each i was 'consed' onto the front of l, the ordering in l will be high to low. Use (reverse l) as the return value if low to high ordering is needed.
this is possibly much of an elementary question, but I'm having trouble with a procedure I have to write in Scheme. The procedure should return all the prime numbers less or equal to N (N is from input).
(define (isPrimeHelper x k)
(if (= x k) #t
(if (= (remainder x k) 0) #f
(isPrimeHelper x (+ k 1)))))
(define ( isPrime x )
(cond
(( = x 1 ) #t)
(( = x 2 ) #t)
( else (isPrimeHelper x 2 ) )))
(define (printPrimesUpTo n)
(define result '())
(define (helper x)
(if (= x (+ 1 n)) result
(if (isPrime x) (cons x result) ))
( helper (+ x 1)))
( helper 1 ))
My check for prime works, however the function printPrimesUpTo seem to loop forever. Basically the idea is to check whether a number is prime and put it in a result list.
Thanks :)
You have several things wrong, and your code is very non-idiomatic. First, the number 1 is not prime; in fact, is it neither prime nor composite. Second, the result variable isn't doing what you think it is. Third, your use of if is incorrect everywhere it appears; if is an expression, not a statement as in some other programming languages. And, as a matter of style, closing parentheses are stacked at the end of the line, and don't occupy a line of their own. You need to talk with your professor or teaching assistant to clear up some basic misconceptions about Scheme.
The best algorithm to find the primes less than n is the Sieve of Eratosthenes, invented about twenty-two centuries ago by a Greek mathematician who invented the leap day and a system of latitude and longitude, accurately measured the circumference of the Earth and the distance from Earth to Sun, and was chief librarian of Ptolemy's library at Alexandria. Here is a simple version of his algorithm:
(define (primes n)
(let ((bits (make-vector (+ n 1) #t)))
(let loop ((p 2) (ps '()))
(cond ((< n p) (reverse ps))
((vector-ref bits p)
(do ((i (+ p p) (+ i p))) ((< n i))
(vector-set! bits i #f))
(loop (+ p 1) (cons p ps)))
(else (loop (+ p 1) ps))))))
Called as (primes 50), that returns the list (2 3 5 7 11 13 17 19 23 29 31 37 41 43 47). It is much faster than testing numbers for primality by trial division, as you are attempting to do. If you must, here is a proper primality checker:
(define (prime? n)
(let loop ((d 2))
(cond ((< n (* d d)) #t)
((zero? (modulo n d)) #f)
(else (loop (+ d 1))))))
Improvements are possible for both algorithms. If you are interested, I modestly recommend this essay on my blog.
First, it is good style to express nested structure by indentation, so it is visually apparent; and also to put each of if's clauses, the consequent and the alternative, on its own line:
(define (isPrimeHelper x k)
(if (= x k)
#t ; consequent
(if (= (remainder x k) 0) ; alternative
;; ^^ indentation
#f ; consequent
(isPrimeHelper x (+ k 1))))) ; alternative
(define (printPrimesUpTo n)
(define result '())
(define (helper x)
(if (= x (+ 1 n))
result ; consequent
(if (isPrime x) ; alternative
(cons x result) )) ; no alternative!
;; ^^ indentation
( helper (+ x 1)))
( helper 1 ))
Now it is plainly seen that the last thing that your helper function does is to call itself with an incremented x value, always. There's no stopping conditions, i.e. this is an infinite loop.
Another thing is, calling (cons x result) does not alter result's value in any way. For that, you need to set it, like so: (set! result (cons x result)). You also need to put this expression in a begin group, as it is evaluated not for its value, but for its side-effect:
(define (helper x)
(if (= x (+ 1 n))
result
(begin
(if (isPrime x)
(set! result (cons x result)) ) ; no alternative!
(helper (+ x 1)) )))
Usually, the explicit use of set! is considered bad style. One standard way to express loops is as tail-recursive code using named let, usually with the canonical name "loop" (but it can be any name whatever):
(define (primesUpTo n)
(let loop ((x n)
(result '()))
(cond
((<= x 1) result) ; return the result
((isPrime x)
(loop (- x 1) (cons x result))) ; alter the result being built
(else (loop (- x 1) result))))) ; go on with the same result
which, in presence of tail-call optimization, is actually equivalent to the previous version.
The (if) expression in your (helper) function is not the tail expression of the function, and so is not returned, but control will always continue to (helper (+ x 1)) and recurse.
The more efficient prime?(from Sedgewick's "Algorithms"):
(define (prime? n)
(define (F n i) "helper"
(cond ((< n (* i i)) #t)
((zero? (remainder n i)) #f)
(else
(F n (+ i 1)))))
"primality test"
(cond ((< n 2) #f)
(else
(F n 2))))
You can do this much more nicely. I reformated your code:
(define (prime? x)
(define (prime-helper x k)
(cond ((= x k) #t)
((= (remainder x k) 0) #f)
(else
(prime-helper x (+ k 1)))))
(cond ((= x 1) #f)
((= x 2) #t)
(else
(prime-helper x 2))))
(define (primes-up-to n)
(define (helper x)
(cond ((= x 0) '())
((prime? x)
(cons x (helper (- x 1))))
(else
(helper (- x 1)))))
(reverse
(helper n)))
scheme#(guile-user)> (primes-up-to 20)
$1 = (2 3 5 7 11 13 17 19)
Please don’t write Scheme like C or Java – and have a look at these style rules for languages of the lisp-family for the sake of readability: Do not use camel-case, do not put parentheses on own lines, mark predicates with ?, take care of correct indentation, do not put additional whitespace within parentheses.