How to count the number of zeros in a list? - scheme

I'm new to Scheme, so can anyone give me an example? There's no local variable in Scheme, so how can I keep track of the number of zeros that being encountered.
I tried
#lang scheme
(define zeroes
(lambda (ll)
(cond ((null? ll)
0)
(else (= 0 (car ll))))
(zeroes (cdr ll))
)
)
But the compiler complained:
cdr: expects argument of type <pair>; given ()
Thanks,

Here's my solution (since the OP's already posted theirs):
(define (count-zeroes lst)
(let loop ((lst lst)
(count 0))
(cond ((null? lst) count)
((zero? (car lst)) (loop (cdr lst) (+ count 1)))
(else (loop (cdr lst) count)))))
Of course, no treatment of this subject can be considered complete without talking about fold, which is usually used to "summarise" a list down to a single object (like we're doing for this question):
(define (count-zeroes lst)
(fold (lambda (elem count)
(if (zero? elem) (+ count 1) count))
0 lst))

Just figured out the solution,
(define count
(lambda (lst)
(cond ((null? lst) 0)
((= 0 (car lst)) (+ 1 (count (cdr lst))))
(else (+ 0 (count (cdr lst))))
)
)
)

I'm keeping this at a hint level for now.
Your function is doing two things. First it computes 0 if its argument is an empty list, or #t or #f if its argument is a list that begins with 0 or not. Then it throws that result out and calls itself recursively on the rest of the list.
You're going to have to do two things to make this work: 1) combine the results of the individual zero tests somehow (for a thought experiment, look at your code; how would it ever return the value 2 if the list had two zeroes?); 2) "bottom out" successfully when it calls itself recursively on an empty list.

Related

How to find the mean of a list with mixed symbols (numbers and characters) in scheme?

Given a list of the type '('a 1 'b 2 'c 3) I want to calculate the mean of the numbers in the list.
This is what I have done so far: I have written 3 functions that work correctly, one to remove the characters, the other to calculate the sum of the numbers in a list, and the other to find the average. But I do not know how to put them together to solve my problem.
;remove all non numbers from a list:
(define (all-numbers x)
(cond ((null? x) null)
((integer? (car x)) (cons (car x) (all-numbers (cdr x))))
(else (all-numbers (cdr x)))))
;sum the elements of the list
(define (sumlist lst)
(cond ((null? lst) 0)
(( + (car lst) (sumlist (cdr lst))))))
; find the mean of the list
(define (a_mean lst)
(cond ((null? lst) 0)
((/ (sumlist lst) (length lst)))))
(a_mean '(1 2 3))
;find the mean of a mixed list
(define (m_mean lst)
(cond ((null? lst) 0)
((/ (sumlist ((all-numbers lst)) (length (all-numbers lst)))))))
(m_mean '('a 1 'b 2 'c 3))
I get an error in the above code for m_mean. Please help! Thanks.
The answer by Óscar López should fix your problems.
I will now provide a more concise way of solving the same problem:
(define (m-mean lst)
(define all-numbers (filter number? lst)) ; Filter out all the non-numbers.
(if (null? all-numbers)
0 ; The mean is 0 if there are no numbers.
(/ (apply + all-numbers) (length all-numbers)))) ; Calculate mean.
This way, you do not have to explicitly define the all-numbers and sumlist functions.
For starters, some of your cond expressions are missing the else keyword in the final condition - this is mandatory, as you did in all-numbers. Also, in m_mean there are a couple of incorrect brackets; this should fix the errors:
(define (m_mean lst)
(cond ((null? lst) 0)
(else (/ (sumlist (all-numbers lst))
(length (all-numbers lst))))))
Now it works as expected:
(m_mean '(a 1 b 2 c 3))
=> 2

Racket Contract Violation (Max Recursion Function)

Learning some Scheme/Racket, so give me some leeway.
Currently trying to find the max value when given a list without using the built-in max() function.
Current Code:
#lang racket
(provide max-num)
(define (max-num lst)
(define (helper lst max)
(displayln lst)
(displayln max)
(displayln " ")
(when (null? max) ; first run
(helper (cdr lst) (car lst)))
(if (null? lst)
max ; then end
(if (> (car lst) max) ; else compare
(helper (cdr lst) (car lst)) ; then update max
(helper (cdr lst) max)))) ; else keep max
(if (null? lst)
#f ; then Error
(helper lst '())) ; else run helper
)
(max-num '())
(max-num '(1 5 2 4 3))
Output via DrRacket:
As far as I can tell, the displayln outputs tell me I am on the right track. However, it ends up with a contract violation real? error instead of returning the max value.
I'm guessing that the (if (null? lst)) doesn't want to return "max" at the end and instead pushes towards the else branch despite the list being empty. I've looked around and debugged for about an hour now to no avail. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
You have to know that when you do:
(when test
do-something)
do-something-else
It will always do-something-else regardless if test is true or not. SO what is happening is that the first round max is null? and it does (helper (cdr lst) (car lst))) and that returns the answer. Then it discard that answer and continue to the if with max being null? and it finally fails when it does (> (car lst) max) since a null? is not a number. The error message says it expected a real? but it got the initial value '().
So to hint you on your way you should have one expression in addition to the local definitions eg.
(if test1
result1
(if test2
result2
alternative2))
or
(cond (test1 result1)
(test2 result2)
(else alternative2))
And of course since you know the argument is not null? you could just call (helper (cdr lst) (car lst)) instead of passing the empty list and remove the when entirely. when and unless are for side effects and not really for good functional Scheme style.

Scheme, can someone explain how I'm using set-car! wrong?

I wanted to make a procedure that destructively increments the odd numbers of a list. I thought I'd recurse through it and just use 'set-car!' whenever 'odd?' was true.
Here is the code:
(define (test lst)
(cond ((null? lst) lst)
((odd? (car lst)) (set-car! lst (+ (car lst) 1))
(test (cdr lst)))
(else (test (cdr lst)))))
I'm not sure why it is not working, I guess I do not understand set-car! and set-cdr!
Could someone explain? Thank you.
The problem might be with your interpreter, or the language in which you're defining the procedure, or the way you're calling it. For instance, in DrRacket this works fine:
#lang r5rs
(define (test lst)
(cond ((null? lst) lst) ; this is the '() returned by the recursion
((odd? (car lst)) (set-car! lst (+ (car lst) 1))
(test (cdr lst)))
(else (test (cdr lst)))))
Bear in mind that your procedure will return an empty list, because that's the base case of the recursion and this is a tail-recursive procedure, which returns the value at the base case as its final result. But don't worry, the input list was modified in-place, you can check it after the procedure returns its value.
(define lst (list 1 2 3 4))
(display (test lst))
=> ()
(display lst)
=> (2 2 4 4)
See how mutability is confusing? a procedure is returning one value, but its input was modified and has a different value now. That's one of the reasons why functional programming (which favors immutable data) is cleaner and simpler to understand, and also demonstrates why is a bad idea to mutate input parameters inside a procedure ;)
If you absolutely want the procedure to return the mutated list, do as #sepp2k suggests, but remember - the input list was modified and in fact, is the same list that is returned as a result:
(define (test lst)
(cond ((null? lst) lst)
((odd? (car lst)) (set-car! lst (+ (car lst) 1))
(test (cdr lst))
lst) ; add this line
(else (test (cdr lst)))))
See for yourself:
(define lst (list 1 2 3 4))
(display (test lst))
=> (2 2 4 4)
(display lst)
=> (2 2 4 4)
was expecting the have the list containing (2 2 4 4) returned
The way you defined your function, it will return an empty list when called on the empty list and the result of the recursion in all other cases. So since the only base case is the empty list, you'll always return the empty list.
If you want to return the modified list, you'll need to do that after the recursion. That is after (test (cdr lst)), add lst to return the value of lst.
You are using set-car! correct. Here is how you tell it's working:
(define (test lst)
(cond ((null? lst) lst)
((odd? (car lst)) (set-car! lst (+ (car lst) 1))
(test (cdr lst)))
(else (test (cdr lst)))))
(define test-list (list 1 2 3 4))
(test test-list)
test-list ; ==> (2 2 4 4)
Your expectation that the function will return the modified list is wrong. To do that you need the first recursion step to return the argument. You need to wrap it:
(define (inc-odds lst)
(define (test lst)
(cond ((null? lst) lst)
((odd? (car lst)) (set-car! lst (+ (car lst) 1))
(test (cdr lst)))
(else (test (cdr lst)))))
(inc-odds lst) ; do the stuff
lst) ; return the list
(inc-odds (list 1 2 3 4)) ; ==> (2 2 4 4)
(inc-odds '(1 2 3 4)) ; ==> "pigs flying"
Notice the last one. In the RNRS upto R5RS passing a quoted literal to set-car! would produce an undefined behaviour which means anything is ok because technically the code isn't Scheme. In R6RS it's required to raise an exception.

number of zeros only in the even lists

What I need to add to count the number of zeros only in the even lists?
For example,
(count-zeroes '((1 1 1) (1 0 0) (1 1 1) (1 0 0)))
4
it is for one list.
(define count-zeroes
(lambda (list)
(cond ((null? list) 0)
((= 0 (car list)) (+ 1 (count-zeroes (cdr list))))
(else (+ 0 (count-zeroes (cdr list))))
)
)
)
(define count-zeroes
(lambda (list)
(cond ((null? list) 0) ; a
((= 0 (car list)) (+ 1 (count-zeroes (cdr list)))) ; b
(else (+ 0 (count-zeroes (cdr list))))))) ; c
If list is initially a list of lists, then (null? list) in line a can be true (when you get to the end of the list), but the condition (= 0 (car list)) in the line b will never be true, since (car list) will always be another list, and 0 isn't a list.
A better way to break this down would probably be to first extract the even positioned sublists, then flatten them into a single list, and then count the zeros in those. That's not the most efficient way to do it (you'll create some intermediate storage), but you should probably implement something like that first, and then gradually optimize it afterward.
It's also worth noting that lists are typically indexed starting with position zero, so the second, fourth, etc., elements in the list are the ones with odd positions, not even positions. Here's the kind of abstraction that might help you in getting started with this kind of approach:
(define first car)
(define rest cdr)
(define list* cons)
(define (odds list)
(if (null? list) '()
(evens (cdr list))))
(define (evens list)
(if (null? list) '()
(list* (first list)
(odds (rest list)))))
(define sample '((0 0 1) (0 1 0) (0 1 1) (1 0 0) (1 0 1) (1 1 0) (1 1 1)))
;; (display (odds sample))
;; => ((0 1 0) (1 0 0) (1 1 0))
An interesting question. If you are operating on a lists of lists you need to add car-cdr recuresion.
(define (count-zeroes lst) ;;don't override core function names with a variable
(cond ((null? lst) 0)
((pair? (car lst))
(+ (count-zeroes (car lst))
(count-zeroes (cdr lst))))
((= 0 (car lst))
(+ 1 (count-zeroes (cdr lst))))
(else (count-zeroes (cdr lst))))))
No as to only evens you are no longer counting zeros, so a new function name is in order. You could make up a higher order function like this.
(define (count-zeros-of selector lst)
(count-zeroes (selector lst)))
And make a general selector
(define (take-every-Xnth-at-y x y lst)
(cond ((null? lst) '())
((= y 0) (cons (car lst)
(take-every x (- x 1) (cdr lst))))
(else (take-every x (- y 1) (cdr lst)))))
To put it all together
(define (count-zeroes-of-even lst)
(count-zeroes-of
(lambda (lst) ;;to bad we can't do partial application
(take-every-Xnth-at-y 2 1 lst))
lst)
Note each of these parts do their one thing and do it well.

Scheme write a function that returns number of odd numbers in a list

I'm having trouble writing a function in Scheme that returns the number of odd numbers in a list without using any assignment statements. I'm trying to use the predicate odd? as well. Any help/tips would be appreciated.
Ex: (odds '(1 2 3 4 5) // returns 3
Also, the list is of integers
Well, if no assignment statements can be used, you can still use the built-in procedures for this. In particular, count will work nicely in Racket:
(define (odds lst)
(count odd? lst))
... But I'm guessing that you're supposed to implement the solution from scratch. Some hints for finding the solution on your own, fill-in the blanks:
(define (odds lst)
(cond (<???> ; if the list is empty
<???>) ; then how many odd numbers are in it?
((odd? <???>) ; if the first element is odd
(<???> (odds <???>))) ; then add one and advance recursion
(else ; otherwise
(odds <???>)))) ; just advance the recursion
Anyway, it works as expected:
(odds '(1 2 3 4 5))
=> 3
Regardless if you use (R6RS?) Scheme or Racket, this will work for both:
(define (odds lst)
(length (filter odd? lst)))
(define l '(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10))
(odds l)
As low level as I can get it :
(define odds
(lambda (lst)
(cond ((empty? lst) 0)
((not (= 0 (modulo (car lst) 2))) (+ 1 (odds (rest lst))))
(else (odds (cdr lst))))))
Here's another one-liner
(define (odds L)
(reduce + 0 (map (lambda (x) (if (odd? x) 1 0)) L)))
Here is a function that returns a function that counts anything based on a predicate:
(define (counter-for predicate)
(define (counting list)
(if (null? list)
0
(+ (if (predicate (car list)) 1 0)
(counting (cdr list)))))
counting))
which is used like:
(define odds (counter-for odd?))
[MORE OPTIONS] Here is a nice recursive solution
(define (odds list)
(if (null? list)
0
(+ (if (odd? (car list)) 1 0)
(odds (cdr list)))))
here is a tail recursive solution:
(define (odds list)
(let odding ((list list) (count 0)))
(if (null? list)
count
(odding (cdr list)
(+ count (if (odd? (car list)) 1 0))))))
Here is a routine that counts anything based on a predicate:
(define (count-if predicate list)
(if (null? list)
0
(+ (if (predicate (car list)) 1 0)
(count-if predicate (cdr list)))))

Resources