I am very new to ACL2 so I understand that some of you may feel this is such a simple solution that you would frown upon my outreach for help. I am trying to figure out how to get my code to add up to an Nth reciprocal squared (I.E if n=4 then i am looking for 1/1 + 1/4 + 1/9 + 1/16)
I have a function that will add up to n and it works and looks like this
(defun sum-up-to-n (n)
(if (zp n)
0
(+ n (sum-up-to-n (- n 1)))))
With the the Reciprocal squared looking like this
(defun sum-up-to-nSqRecip (n)
(if (zp n)
0
(+ (sum-up-to-nSqRecip (- n 1))) 1/n^2) ))
I receive this error "The body of
SUM-UP-TO-NSQRECIP contains a free occurrence of the variable symbol
|1/N^2|. Note that |1/N^2| occurs in the context of condition (NOT (ZP N))
from a surrounding IF test." and i do not know how to resolve this error.
included stuff
(encapsulate nil
(set-state-ok t)
(program)
(defun check-expect-fn (left right sexpr state)
(if (equal left right)
(mv nil (cw "check-expect succeeded: ~x0~%" sexpr) state)
(er soft nil "check-expect failed: ~x0
Expected: ~x1
Actual: ~x2" sexpr right left)))
(defmacro check-expect (&whole sexpr left right)
`(check-expect-fn ,left ,right (quote ,sexpr) state))
(logic))
(include-book "doublecheck" :uncertified-okp t :dir :teachpacks)
(include-book "arithmetic-5/top" :uncertified-okp t :dir :system)
ACL2 uses LISP syntax, which means you need prefix operators. So 1/n^2 should be (/ 1 (* n n)).
LISP allows a lot of the characters to be in a name, 1/n^2 in your example is treated as a name of a variable, which isn't binded to anything (not an input either). This is why you are receiving the "free occurrence of the variable" error.
Related
(defun sum (n)
(if (n<0) 0 n-1) ;; if n<0, add 0. Else add the next smallest.
(sum (n-1)))
So far I come out with something like this but I am not sure how do I declare a variable to store the sum that I would like to return.
Note that you are implementing 1+2+...+m for m = n-1, which admits a simple formula:
(lambda (n)
;; You could inject n-1 on the formula to get n.(n-1)/2
;; (like in Vatine's answer), but here I just decrement
;; the input to show how to modify the local variable
;; and reuse the formula linked above to sum up-to m.
(decf n)
(if (minusp n)
0
(/ (* n (1+ n)) 2)))
An iterative version would work too, there is no need go recursive when doing simple loops:
(lambda (n) (loop :for x :below n :sum x))
Regarding your code:
Space matters1: n<0 is read as a symbol of name "N<0" (upcased by default). The same goes for n-1 which is a symbol named "N-1".
(n<0) will attempt to run the function named n<0. The same goes for (n-1).
Comparison: you can use (minusp n) or (< n 0).
Decrement: you can use (1- n) or (- n 1).
If what you wrote was correctly written, like this:
(defun sum (n)
(if (< n 0) 0 (- n 1))
(sum (- n 1)))
... there would still be issues:
You expect your (n-1) to actually decrement n but here the if only compute a value without doing side-effects.
You unconditionally call (sum (n-1)), which means: infinite recursion. The value returned by the preceding if is always ignored.
1: For details, look at constituent and terminating characters: 2.1.4 Character Syntax Types
Edit: zerop > minusp to check for negative numbers, fixed to fit OPs question
Was some time ago I used Lisp but if I recall right the last evaluation gets returned. A recursive solution to your problem would look like this:
(defun sum (n)
(if (<= n 0) 0 ;;if n is less or equal than 0 return 0
(+ (- n 1) (sum (- n 1))))) ;; else add (n-1) to sum of (n-1)
In Lisp, all comparator functions are just that, functions, so it needs to be (< n 0) and (- n 1) (or, more succinct, (1- n)).
You don't need to keep an intermediate value, you can simply add things up as you go. However, this is complicated by the fact that you are summing to "less than n", not "to n", so you need to use a helper function, if you want to do this recursively.
Even better, if you peruse the standard (easily available on-line, as the Common Lisp HyperSpec, you will sooner or later come across the chapter on iteration, where the loop facility does everything you want.
So if I needed to do this, I would do one of:
(defun my-sum (n)
(/ (* n (1- n)) 2))
or
(defun my-sum (n)
(loop for i below n
sum i))
If I absolutely needed to make it recursive, I would use something like:
(defun my-sum (n)
(labels ((sum-inner (i)
(if (< i 1)
0
(+ i (sum-inner (1- i))))))
(sum-inner (1- n))))
This is (almost) identical to defining a global function called sum-inner, which may be preferable for debugging purposes. However, since it is very unlikely that sum-inner would have any other use, I made it local.
As part of some Eulerian travails, I'm trying to code a Sieve of Eratosthenes with a factorization wheel. My code so far is:
(defun ring (&rest content)
"Returns a circular list containing the elements in content.
The returned list starts with the first element of content."
(setf (cdr (last content)) content))
(defun factorization-wheel (lst)
"Returns a circular list containing a factorization
wheel using the list of prime numbers in lst"
(let ((circumference (apply #'* lst)))
(loop for i from 1 to circumference
unless (some #'(lambda (x) (zerop (mod i x))) lst)
collect i into wheel
finally (return (apply #'ring
(maplist
#'(lambda (x) ; Takes exception to long lists (?!)
(if (cdr x)
(- (cadr x) (car x))
(- circumference (car x) -1)))
wheel))))))
(defun eratosthenes (n &optional (wheel (ring 4 2)))
"Returns primes up to n calculated using
a Sieve of Eratosthenes and a factorization wheel"
(let* ((candidates (loop with s = 1
for i in wheel
collect (setf s (+ i s))
until (> s n))))
(maplist #'(lambda (x)
(if (> (expt (car x) 2) n)
(return-from eratosthenes candidates))
(delete-if
#'(lambda (y) (zerop (mod y (car x))))
(cdr x)))
candidates)))
I got the following result for wheels longer than 6 elements. I didn't really understand why:
21 > (factorization-wheel '(2 3 5 7 11 13))
(16 2 4 6 2 6 4 2 4 6 6 2 6 4 2 6 4 6 8 4 ...)
21 > (factorization-wheel '(2 3 5 7 11 13 17))
> Error: Too many arguments.
> While executing: FACTORIZATION-WHEEL, in process listener(1).
The algorithm seems to be working OK otherwise and churns out primes with wheels having 6 or fewer elements.
Apparently apply or ring turn up their noses when long lists are passed to them.
But shouldn't the list count as a single argument? I admit I'm thoroughly flummoxed. Any input is appreciated.
ANSI Common Lisp allows implementations to constrain the maximum number of arguments which can be passed to a function. This limit is given by call-arguments-limit can be as small as 50.
For functions which behave like algebraic group operators obeying the
associative property (+, list, and others), we can get around the limit by using reduce to decimate the input list while treating the function as binary.
For instance to add a large list of numbers: (reduce #'+ list) rather than (apply #'+ list).
Notes on reduce
In Common Lisp, reduce will appear to work even if the list is empty. Few other languages give you this, and it doesn't actually come from reduce: it won't work for all functions. But with + we can write (reduce #'+ nil) and it calculates zero, just like (apply #'+ nil).
Why is that? Because the + function can be called with zero arguments, and when called with zero arguments, it yields the identity element for the additive group: 0. This dovetails with the reduce function.
In some other languages the fold or reduce function must be given an initial seed value (like 0), or else a nonempty list. If it is given neither, it is an error.
The Common Lisp reduce, if it is given an empty list and no :initial-value, will call the kernel function with no arguments, and use the return value as the initial value. Since that value is then the only value (the list is empty), that value is returned.
Watch out for functions with special rules for the leftmost argument. For instance:
(apply #'- '(1)) -> -1 ;; same as (- 1), unary minus semantics.
(reduce #'- '(1)) -> 1 ;; what?
What's going on is that when reduce is given a one-element list, it just returns the element without calling the function.
Basically it is founded on the mathematical assumption mentioned above that if no :initial-value is supplied then f is expected to support (f) -> i, where i is some identity element in relation to f, so that (f i x) -> x. This is used as the initial value when reducing the singleton list, (reduce #'f (list x)) -> (f (f) x) -> (f i x) -> x.
The - function doesn't obey these rules. (- a 0) means "subtract zero from a" and so yields a, whereas (- a) is the additive inverse of a, probably for purely pragmatic, notational reasons (namely, not making Lisp programmers write (- 0 a) just to flip a sign, just for the sake of having - behave more consistently under reduce and apply). The - function also may not be called with zero arguments.
If we want to take a list of numbers and subtract them all from some value x, the pattern for that is:
(reduce #'- list-of-numbers :initial-value x)
(define generalized-triangular
(lambda (input n)
(if (= n 1)
1
(+ (input n) (generalized-triangular (- n 1))))))
This program is designed to take a number and a function as inputs and do the following..
f(1) + f(2) + f(3)+ … + f(N).
An example input would be:
(generalized-triangular square 3)
The Error message:
if: bad syntax;
has 4 parts after keyword in: (if (= n 1) 1 (+ (input n) (generalized-triangular (- n 1))) input)
The error is quite explicit - an if form can only have two parts after the condition - the consequent (if the condition is true) and the alternative (if the condition is false). Perhaps you meant this?
(if (= n 1)
1
(+ (input n) (generalized-triangular input (- n 1))))
I moved the input from the original code, it was in the wrong place, as the call to generalized-triangular expects two arguments, in the right order.
For the record: if you need to execute more than one expression in either the consequent or the alternative (which is not the case for your question, but it's useful to know about it), then you must pack them in a begin, for example:
(if <condition> ; condition
(begin ; consequent
<expression1>
<expression2>)
(begin ; alternative
<expression3>
<expression4>))
Alternatively, you could use a cond, which has an implicit begin:
(cond (<condition> ; condition
<expression1> ; consequent
<expression2>)
(else ; alternative
<expression3>
<expression4>))
Literal answer
The code you posted in your question is fine:
(define generalized-triangular
(lambda (input n)
(if (= n 1)
1
(+ (input n) (generalized-triangular (- n 1))))))
The error message in your question would be for something like this code:
(define generalized-triangular
(lambda (input n)
(if (= n 1)
1
(+ (input n) (generalized-triangular (- n 1)))
input)))
The problem is input. if is of the form (if <cond> <then> <else>). Not counting if itself, it has 3 parts. The code above supplies 4.
Real answer
Two tips:
Use DrRacket to write your code, and let it help you with the indenting. I couldn't make any sense of your original code. (Even after someone edited it for you, the indentation was a bit wonky making it still difficult to parse mentally.)
I don't know about your class, but for "real" Racket code I'd recommend using cond instead of if. Racket has an informal style guide that recommends this, too.
here's the tail-recursive
(define (generalized-triangular f n-max)
(let loop ((n 1) (sum 0))
(if (> n n-max)
0
(loop (+ n 1) (+ sum (f n))))))
Since you're using the racket tag, I assume the implementation of generalized-triangular is not required to use only standard Scheme. In that case, a very concise and efficient version (that doesn't use if at all) can be written with the racket language:
(define (generalized-triangular f n)
(for/sum ([i n]) (f (+ i 1))))
There are two things necessary to understand beyond standard Scheme to understand this definition that you can easily look up in the Racket Reference: how for/sum works and how a non-negative integer behaves when used as a sequence.
I've been attempting to learn programming with the book "Structures and Interpretation of Computer Programs. To do the exercises I've been using DrRacket (I couldn't find a scheme interpreter for Windows 7, and DrRacket seems pretty good), and haven't had any problems so far. But while doing exercise 1.22 I've ran into an issue. I've wrote a procedure that gives a given number (n) of prime numbers larger than a:
(define (search-for-primes a n)
(define (sfp-iter a n counter)
(cond ((and (prime? a) (= counter n))
((newline) (display "end")))
((prime? a)
((newline)
(display a)
(sfp-iter (+ a 1) n (+ counter 1))))
(else (sfp-iter (+ a 1) n counter))))
(sfp-iter a n 0))
The procedure works as intended, displaying all that it should, but after displaying end it shows the following error message:
application: not a procedure;
expected a procedure that can be applied to arguments
given: #
arguments...:
#
And highlights the following line of code:
((newline) (display "end"))
What is the problem?
(I apologize for any mistakes in spelling and so, English isn't my native language, I also apologize for any error in formatting or tagging, I'm new here)
You have a couple of parenthesis problems, this fixes it:
(define (search-for-primes a n)
(define (sfp-iter a n counter)
(cond ((and (prime? a) (= counter n))
(newline) (display "end"))
((prime? a)
(newline)
(display a)
(sfp-iter (+ a 1) n (+ counter 1)))
(else (sfp-iter (+ a 1) n counter))))
(sfp-iter a n 0))
In the first and second conditions of the cond, you were incorrectly surrounding the code with (). That's unnecessary, in a cond clause all the expressions that come after the condition are implicitly surrounded by a (begin ...) form, so there's no need to group them together.
I have some code which collects points (consed integers) from a loop which looks something like this:
(loop
for x from 1 to 100
for y from 100 downto 1
collect `(,x . ,y))
My question is, is it correct to use `(,x . ,y) in this situation?
Edit: This sample is not about generating a table of 100x100 items, the code here just illustrate the use of two loop variables and the consing of their values. I have edited the loop to make this clear. The actual loop I use depends on several other functions (and is part of one itself) so it made more sense to replace the calls with literal integers and to pull the loop out of the function.
It would be much 'better' to just do (cons x y).
But to answer the question, there is nothing wrong with doing that :) (except making it a tad slower).
I think the answer here is resource utilization (following from This post)
for example in clisp:
[1]> (time
(progn
(loop
for x from 1 to 100000
for y from 1 to 100000 do
collect (cons x y))
()))
WARNING: LOOP: missing forms after DO: permitted by CLtL2, forbidden by ANSI
CL.
Real time: 0.469 sec.
Run time: 0.468 sec.
Space: 1609084 Bytes
GC: 1, GC time: 0.015 sec.
NIL
[2]> (time
(progn
(loop
for x from 1 to 100000
for y from 1 to 100000 do
collect `(,x . ,y)) ;`
()))
WARNING: LOOP: missing forms after DO: permitted by CLtL2, forbidden by ANSI
CL.
Real time: 0.969 sec.
Run time: 0.969 sec.
Space: 10409084 Bytes
GC: 15, GC time: 0.172 sec.
NIL
[3]>
dsm: there are a couple of odd things about your code here. Note that
(loop for x from 1 to 100000
for y from 1 to 100000 do
collect `(,x . ,y))
is equivalent to:
(loop for x from 1 to 100
collecting (cons x x))
which probably isn't quite what you intended. Note three things: First, the way you've written it, x and y have the same role. You probably meant to nest loops. Second, your do after the y is incorrect, as there is not lisp form following it. Thirdly, you're right that you could use the backtick approach here but it makes your code harder to read and not idiomatic for no gain, so best avoided.
Guessing at what you actually intended, you might do something like this (using loop):
(loop for x from 1 to 100 appending
(loop for y from 1 to 100 collecting (cons x y)))
If you don't like the loop macro (like Kyle), you can use another iteration construct like
(let ((list nil))
(dotimes (n 100) ;; 0 based count, you will have to add 1 to get 1 .. 100
(dotimes (m 100)
(push (cons n m) list)))
(nreverse list))
If you find yourself doing this sort of thing a lot, you should probably write a more general function for crossing lists, then pass it these lists of integers
If you really have a problem with iteration, not just loop, you can do this sort of thing recursively (but note, this isn't scheme, your implementation may not guaranteed TCO). The function "genint" shown by Kyle here is a variant of a common (but not standard) function iota. However, appending to the list is a bad idea. An equivalent implementation like this:
(defun iota (n &optional (start 0))
(let ((end (+ n start)))
(labels ((next (n)
(when (< n end)
(cons n (next (1+ n))))))
(next start))))
should be much more efficient, but still is not a tail call. Note I've set this up for the more usual 0-based, but given you an optional parameter to start at 1 or any other integer. Of course the above can be written something like:
(defun iota (n &optional (start 0))
(loop repeat n
for i from start collecting i))
Which has the advantage of not blowing the stack for large arguments. If your implementation supports tail call elimination, you can also avoid the recursion running out of place by doing something like this:
(defun iota (n &optional (start 0))
(labels ((next (i list)
(if (>= i (+ n start))
nil
(next (1+ i) (cons i list)))))
(next start nil)))
Hope that helps!
Why not just
(cons x y)
By the way, I tried to run your code in CLISP and it didn't work as expected. Since I'm not a big fan of the loop macro here's how you might accomplish the same thing recursively:
(defun genint (stop)
(if (= stop 1) '(1)
(append (genint (- stop 1)) (list stop))))
(defun genpairs (x y)
(let ((row (mapcar #'(lambda (y)
(cons x y))
(genint y))))
(if (= x 0) row
(append (genpairs (- x 1) y)
row))))
(genpairs 100 100)