Related
Consider the following JavaScript function, which performs a computation over several lines to clearly indicate the programmer's intent:
function computation(first, second) {
const a = first * first;
const b = second - 4;
const c = a + b;
return c;
}
computation(12, 3)
//143
computation(-3, 2.6)
//7.6
I have tried using do notation to solve this with PureScript but I seem to be just short of understanding some key concept. The do notation examples in the documentation only covers do notation when the value being bound is an array (https://book.purescript.org/chapter4.html#do-notation), but in my example I would like the values to be simple values of the Int or Number type.
While it is possible to perform this computation in one line, it makes the code harder to debug and does not scale to many operations.
How would the computation method be written correctly in PureScript so that...
If computation involved 1000 intermediate steps, instead of 3, the code would not suffer from excessive indenting but would be as readable as possible
Each step of the computation is on its own line, so that, for example, the code could be reviewed line by line by a supervisor, etc., for quality
You don't need the do notation. The do notation is intended for computations happening in a monad, whereas your computation is naked.
To define some intermediate values before returning result, use the let .. in construct:
computation first second =
let a = first * first
b = second - 4
c = a + b
in c
But if you really want to use do, you can do that as well: it also supports naked computations just to give you some choice. The difference is that within a do you can have multiple lets on the same level (and they work the same as one let with multiple definitions) and you don't need an in:
computation first second = do
let a = first * first -- first let
b = second - 4
let c = a + b -- second let
c -- no in
I am trying to take the derivative of a function including a boolean variable with sympy.
My expected result:
Two different derivatives, depending on the boolean being either True or False (i.e. 1 or 0).
Example:
import sympy as sy
c, x = sy.symbols("c x", positive=True, real=True)
bo = sy.Function("bo")
fct1 = sy.Function("fct1")
fct2 = sy.Function("fct2")
FOC2 = sy.Function("FOC2")
y = 5
a = 2
b = 4
def fct1(x):
return -0.004*x**2 + 0.25*x + 4
# the following gives the smaller positive intercept with the x-axis)
# this intercept is the threshold value for the boolean function, bo
min(sy.solve(fct1(x)-y, x))
def bo(x):
if fct1(x) <= y:
return 1
else:
return 0
def fct2(c, x):
return a + b*c + bo(x)*c
def FOC2(c, x):
return sy.diff(fct2(c, x), c)
print(FOC2(c, x))
The min-function after the comments shows me the threshold of x for bo being True or False would be 4.29..., thus positive and real.
Output:
TypeError: cannot determine truth value of Relation
I understand that the truth value depends on x, which is a symbol. Thus, without knowing x one cannot determine bo.
But how would I get my expected result, where bo is symbolic?
First off, I would advise you to carefully consider what is going on in your code the way it is pasted above. You first define a few sympy functions, e.g.
fct1 = sy.Function("fct1")
So after this, fct1 is an undefined sympy.Function - undefined in the sense that it is neither specified what its arguments are, nor what the function looks like.
However, then you define same-named functions explicitly, as in
def fct1(x):
return -0.004*x**2 + 0.25*x + 4
Note however, that at this point, fct1 ceases to be a sympy.Function, or any sympy object for that matter: you overwrite the old definition, and it is now just a regular python function!
This is also the reason that you get the error: when you call bo(x), python tries to evaluate
-0.004*x**2 + 0.25*x + 4 <= 5
and return a value according to your definition of bo(). But python does not know whether the above is true (or how to make that comparison), so it complains.
I would suggest 2 changes:
Instead of python functions, as in the code, you could simply use sympy expressions, e.g.
fct1 = -0.004*x**2 + 0.25*x + 4
To get the truth value of your condition, I would suggest to use the Heaviside function (wiki), which evaluates to 0 for a negative argument, and to 1 for positive. Its implementation in sympy is sympy.Heaviside.
Your code could then look as follows:
import sympy as sy
c, x = sy.symbols("c x", positive=True, real=True)
y = 5
a = 2
b = 4
fct1 = -0.004*x**2 + 0.25*x + 4
bo = sy.Heaviside(y - fct1)
fct2 = a + b*c + bo * c
FOC2 = sy.diff(fct2, c)
print(FOC2)
Two comments on the line
bo = sy.Heaviside(y - fct1)
(1) The current implementation does not evaluate sympy.Heaviside(0)by default; this is beacause there's differing definitions around (some define it to be 1, others 1/2). You'd want it to be 1, to be in accordance with the (weak) inequality in the OP. In sympy 1.1, this can be achieved by passing an additional argument to Heaviside, namely whatever you want Heaviside(0) to evaluate to:
bo = sy.Heaviside(y - fct1, 1)
This is not supported in older versions of sympy.
(2) You will get your FOC2, again involving a Heaviside term. What I like about this, is that you could keep working with this expression, say if you wanted to take a second derivative and so on. If, for the sake of readability, you would prefer a piecewise expression - no problem. Just replace the according line with
bo = sy.Heaviside(y - fct1)._eval_rewrite_as_Piecewise(y-fct1)
Which will translate to a piecewise function automatically. (note that under older versions, this automatically implicitly uses Heaviside(0) = 0.5 - best to use (1) and (2) together:
bo = sy.Heaviside(y - fct1, 1)._eval_rewrite_as_Piecewise(y-fct1)
Unfortunately, I don't have a working sympy 1.1 at my hands right now and can only test the old code.
One more noteconcerning sympy's piecewise functions: they are much more readable if using sympy's latex printing, by inserting
sy.init_printing()
early in the code.
(Disclaimer: I am by no means an expert in sympy, and there might be other, preferable solutions out there. Just trying to make a suggestion!)
I am working on a property of a given set of natural numbers and it seems difficult to compute. I build a function 'fun' which takes two inputs, one is the cardinal value and another is the set. If the set is empty then fun should return 0 because fun depends on the product of the set and fun on all subsets of the complement set.
For clarification here is an example:
S is a set given S={1,2,3,4}. The function fun(2,S) is defined as
fun(2,S)=prod({1,2})*[fun(1,{3}) + fun(1,{4}) + fun(2,{3,4})] +
prod({1,3})*[fun(1,{2}) + fun(1,{4}) + fun(2,{2,4})] +
prod({1,4})*[fun(1,{3}) + fun(1,{2}) + fun(2,{2,3})] +
prod({2,3})*[fun(1,{4}) + fun(1,{1}) + fun(2,{1,4})] +
prod({2,4})*[fun(1,{1}) + fun(1,{3}) + fun(2,{3,1})] +
prod({3,4})*[fun(1,{1}) + fun(1,{2}) + fun(2,{1,2})]
prod is defined as the product of all elements in a set, for example
prod({1,2})=2;
prod({3,2})=6
I am trying to compute the function fun using recursive method in MATLAB but it's not working. The base case is the cardinal value should be more than zero that means there should be at least one element in the set other wise prod will be zero and fun will return zero.
Update Pseudo code:
fun(i,S)
if |S|=1 && i!=0
return prod(S)
else if i==0
return 0
else
prod(subset s', s' is a subset of S and |s'|=i)*(sum over fun((for i=1 to m),{S-s'}), m=|S-s'|) //I don't know how to write code for this part and need help.
end if
end fun
prod(s)
n=|s|
temp=1
for i=1 to n
temp *=s(i) //s(1) is the 1st element of s
end for
return temp
end prod
Thanks.
With the pseudo code you added to your question it's nearly impossible to implement the function. Everything is put into one line which is incomplete (at least the outer sum is missing).
1) Formalize your algorithm in a way it can be used to implement. The following pseudo code is probably not correct because I don't exactly know what you want, but it should give an idea how to do it.
fun(i,S)
if i==0
return 0
else if |S|=1
return S
else
r=0
for s1 in subsets of S with size i
f=0
for s2 in subsets of setdiff(S,s') with size <=i
f=f+fun(s2,|s2|)
end
r=r+prod(s1)*f
end for
end if
end fun
2) use arrays [1,2,3,4] instead of cells {1,2,3,4}
3) prod is a built-in function, no need to reimplement it.
Since I began programming in Scala, I gravitated towards what seems to be a natural coding style in this language, which is easiest to explain with a simple example:
val a = {
def f1(p : Int) = ...
def f2(p : Int) = ...
f1(12) * f2(100)
}
As you can see, the multiplication of the values, which, if you want to understand the code, is the first operation you should want to familiarize yourself with, is not to be found until the last line. Instead, you need to read through the pieces of the puzzle first (functions f1, f2) before you can see how they're actually arranged. For me, this makes the code harder to read. How are you dealing with this problem - or maybe you don't find it a problem at all?
One interesting approach might be to use the untyped macro proposal in macro-paradise to introduce a where binding, such that:
val a = (f1(12) * f2(100)) where {
def f1(x : Int) = x + 1
def f2(x : Int) = x + 2
}
gets rewritten to your code above. As I understand it, untyped macros would allow the non-existent identifiers f1 and f2 to exist past the pre-macro typecheck. I think the rewrite should be relatively simple, and then the second typecheck would catch any problems. However, I've never actually written any macros, so it's possible there's something about this which would fail!
If it were possible, I think it would be quite a nice form to have (and rewriting would solve problems with execution order) - if I get some time I may have a stab at writing it!
Edit: I've had a go at writing this, and bits of it turn out surprisingly easy. Code is available on github. Unfortunately, the best I can do so far is:
val result = where ( f1(1) * f2(2), {
def f1(x : Int) = x + 1
def f2(x : Int) = x + 2
})
The problem is that Scala's infix operators are just method calls, and so I'd need to have something constructed on the expression (f1(1) * f2(2)) in order to invoke them. But that's the very expression which won't type properly before macro resolution, so I'm not quite sure what to do. Time for a new question, methinks!
Given an arbitrary list of booleans, what is the most elegant way of determining that exactly one of them is true?
The most obvious hack is type conversion: converting them to 0 for false and 1 for true and then summing them, and returning sum == 1.
I'd like to know if there is a way to do this without converting them to ints, actually using boolean logic.
(This seems like it should be trivial, idk, long week)
Edit: In case it wasn't obvious, this is more of a code-golf / theoretical question. I'm not fussed about using type conversion / int addition in PROD code, I'm just interested if there is way of doing it without that.
Edit2: Sorry folks it's a long week and I'm not explaining myself well. Let me try this:
In boolean logic, ANDing a collection of booleans is true if all of the booleans are true, ORing the collection is true if least one of them is true. Is there a logical construct that will be true if exactly one boolean is true? XOR is this for a collection of two booleans for example, but any more than that and it falls over.
You can actually accomplish this using only boolean logic, although there's perhaps no practical value of that in your example. The boolean version is much more involved than simply counting the number of true values.
Anyway, for the sake of satisfying intellectual curiosity, here goes. First, the idea of using a series of XORs is good, but it only gets us half way. For any two variables x and y,
x ⊻ y
is true whenever exactly one of them is true. However, this does not continue to be true if you add a third variable z,
x ⊻ y ⊻ z
The first part, x ⊻ y, is still true if exactly one of x and y is true. If either x or y is true, then z needs to be false for the whole expression to be true, which is what we want. But consider what happens if both x and y are true. Then x ⊻ y is false, yet the whole expression can become true if z is true as well. So either one variable or all three must be true. In general, if you have a statement that is a chain of XORs, it will be true if an uneven number of variables are true.
Since one is an uneven number, this might prove useful. Of course, checking for an uneven number of truths is not enough. We additionally need to ensure that no more than one variable is true. This can be done in a pairwise fashion by taking all pairs of two variables and checking that they are not both true. Taken together these two conditions ensure that exactly one if the variables are true.
Below is a small Python script to illustrate the approach.
from itertools import product
print("x|y|z|only_one_is_true")
print("======================")
for x, y, z in product([True, False], repeat=3):
uneven_number_is_true = x ^ y ^ z
max_one_is_true = (not (x and y)) and (not (x and z)) and (not (y and z))
only_one_is_true = uneven_number_is_true and max_one_is_true
print(int(x), int(y), int(z), only_one_is_true)
And here's the output.
x|y|z|only_one_is_true
======================
1 1 1 False
1 1 0 False
1 0 1 False
1 0 0 True
0 1 1 False
0 1 0 True
0 0 1 True
0 0 0 False
Sure, you could do something like this (pseudocode, since you didn't mention language):
found = false;
alreadyFound = false;
for (boolean in booleans):
if (boolean):
found = true;
if (alreadyFound):
found = false;
break;
else:
alreadyFound = true;
return found;
After your clarification, here it is with no integers.
bool IsExactlyOneBooleanTrue( bool *boolAry, int size )
{
bool areAnyTrue = false;
bool areTwoTrue = false;
for(int i = 0; (!areTwoTrue) && (i < size); i++) {
areTwoTrue = (areAnyTrue && boolAry[i]);
areAnyTrue |= boolAry[i];
}
return ((areAnyTrue) && (!areTwoTrue));
}
No-one mentioned that this "operation" we're looking for is shortcut-able similarly to boolean AND and OR in most languages. Here's an implementation in Java:
public static boolean exactlyOneOf(boolean... inputs) {
boolean foundAtLeastOne = false;
for (boolean bool : inputs) {
if (bool) {
if (foundAtLeastOne) {
// found a second one that's also true, shortcut like && and ||
return false;
}
foundAtLeastOne = true;
}
}
// we're happy if we found one, but if none found that's less than one
return foundAtLeastOne;
}
With plain boolean logic, it may not be possible to achieve what you want. Because what you are asking for is a truth evaluation not just based on the truth values but also on additional information(count in this case). But boolean evaluation is binary logic, it cannot depend on anything else but on the operands themselves. And there is no way to reverse engineer to find the operands given a truth value because there can be four possible combinations of operands but only two results. Given a false, can you tell if it is because of F ^ F or T ^ T in your case, so that the next evaluation can be determined based on that?.
booleanList.Where(y => y).Count() == 1;
Due to the large number of reads by now, here comes a quick clean up and additional information.
Option 1:
Ask if only the first variable is true, or only the second one, ..., or only the n-th variable.
x1 & !x2 & ... & !xn |
!x1 & x2 & ... & !xn |
...
!x1 & !x2 & ... & xn
This approach scales in O(n^2), the evaluation stops after the first positive match is found. Hence, preferred if it is likely that there is a positive match.
Option 2:
Ask if there is at least one variable true in total. Additionally check every pair to contain at most one true variable (Anders Johannsen's answer)
(x1 | x2 | ... | xn) &
(!x1 | !x2) &
...
(!x1 | !xn) &
(!x2 | !x3) &
...
(!x2 | !xn) &
...
This option also scales in O(n^2) due to the number of possible pairs. Lazy evaluation stops the formula after the first counter example. Hence, it is preferred if its likely there is a negative match.
(Option 3):
This option involves a subtraction and is thus no valid answer for the restricted setting. Nevertheless, it argues how looping the values might not be the most beneficial solution in an unrestricted stetting.
Treat x1 ... xn as a binary number x. Subtract one, then AND the results. The output is zero <=> x1 ... xn contains at most one true value. (the old "check power of two" algorithm)
x 00010000
x-1 00001111
AND 00000000
If the bits are already stored in such a bitboard, this might be beneficial over looping. Though, keep in mind this kills the readability and is limited by the available board length.
A last note to raise awareness: by now there exists a stack exchange called computer science which is exactly intended for this type of algorithmic questions
It can be done quite nicely with recursion, e.g. in Haskell
-- there isn't exactly one true element in the empty list
oneTrue [] = False
-- if the list starts with False, discard it
oneTrue (False : xs) = oneTrue xs
-- if the list starts with True, all other elements must be False
oneTrue (True : xs) = not (or xs)
// Javascript
Use .filter() on array and check the length of the new array.
// Example using array
isExactly1BooleanTrue(boolean:boolean[]) {
return booleans.filter(value => value === true).length === 1;
}
// Example using ...booleans
isExactly1BooleanTrue(...booleans) {
return booleans.filter(value => value === true).length === 1;
}
One way to do it is to perform pairwise AND and then check if any of the pairwise comparisons returned true with chained OR. In python I would implement it using
from itertools import combinations
def one_true(bools):
pairwise_comp = [comb[0] and comb[1] for comb in combinations(bools, 2)]
return not any(pairwise_comp)
This approach easily generalizes to lists of arbitrary length, although for very long lists, the number of possible pairs grows very quickly.
Python:
boolean_list.count(True) == 1
OK, another try. Call the different booleans b[i], and call a slice of them (a range of the array) b[i .. j]. Define functions none(b[i .. j]) and just_one(b[i .. j]) (can substitute the recursive definitions to get explicit formulas if required). We have, using C notation for logical operations (&& is and, || is or, ^ for xor (not really in C), ! is not):
none(b[i .. i + 1]) ~~> !b[i] && !b[i + 1]
just_one(b[i .. i + 1]) ~~> b[i] ^ b[i + 1]
And then recursively:
none(b[i .. j + 1]) ~~> none(b[i .. j]) && !b[j + 1]
just_one(b[i .. j + 1] ~~> (just_one(b[i .. j]) && !b[j + 1]) ^ (none(b[i .. j]) && b[j + 1])
And you are interested in just_one(b[1 .. n]).
The expressions will turn out horrible.
Have fun!
That python script does the job nicely. Here's the one-liner it uses:
((x ∨ (y ∨ z)) ∧ (¬(x ∧ y) ∧ (¬(z ∧ x) ∧ ¬(y ∧ z))))
Retracted for Privacy and Anders Johannsen provided already correct and simple answers. But both solutions do not scale very well (O(n^2)). If performance is important you can stick to the following solution, which performs in O(n):
def exact_one_of(array_of_bool):
exact_one = more_than_one = False
for array_elem in array_of_bool:
more_than_one = (exact_one and array_elem) or more_than_one
exact_one = (exact_one ^ array_elem) and (not more_than_one)
return exact_one
(I used python and a for loop for simplicity. But of course this loop could be unrolled to a sequence of NOT, AND, OR and XOR operations)
It works by tracking two states per boolean variable/list entry:
is there exactly one "True" from the beginning of the list until this entry?
are there more than one "True" from the beginning of the list until this entry?
The states of a list entry can be simply derived from the previous states and corresponding list entry/boolean variable.
Python:
let see using example...
steps:
below function exactly_one_topping takes three parameter
stores their values in the list as True, False
Check whether there exists only one true value by checking the count to be exact 1.
def exactly_one_topping(ketchup, mustard, onion):
args = [ketchup,mustard,onion]
if args.count(True) == 1: # check if Exactly one value is True
return True
else:
return False
How do you want to count how many are true without, you know, counting? Sure, you could do something messy like (C syntax, my Python is horrible):
for(i = 0; i < last && !booleans[i]; i++)
;
if(i == last)
return 0; /* No true one found */
/* We have a true one, check there isn't another */
for(i++; i < last && !booleans[i]; i++)
;
if(i == last)
return 1; /* No more true ones */
else
return 0; /* Found another true */
I'm sure you'll agree that the win (if any) is slight, and the readability is bad.
It is not possible without looping. Check BitSet cardinality() in java implementation.
http://fuseyism.com/classpath/doc/java/util/BitSet-source.html
We can do it this way:-
if (A=true or B=true)and(not(A=true and B=true)) then
<enter statements>
end if